Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33302358›Full record

ReviewNutrients2020

Food Bank Donations in the United States: A Landscape Review of Federal Policies.

Katelin M Hudak, Emily Friedman, Joelle Johnson, Sara E Benjamin-Neelon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Katelin M HudakDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2781-0487
Emily FriedmanCenter for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC 20005, USA.
Joelle JohnsonCenter for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC 20005, USA.
Sara E Benjamin-NeelonDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4643-2397

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rates of food insecurity have increased substantially in the United States (US), and more families are turning to the charitable food system to help meet their needs. Prior studies have examined the nutritional quality of foods offered through food banks, but little is known about what government policies may shape the healthy food donation landscape. The purpose of this study was to review US federal policies that impact food and beverage donations to food banks and assess whether policies encourage healthy food donations. In spring 2020, two researchers independently reviewed federal food and beverage donation policies using predefined search terms in two legal databases. We identified six categories of policies based on the existing food donation literature and themes that emerged in the policy review. We identified 42 federal policies spanning six categories that addressed food and beverage donations to food banks. The largest category was "government programs," with 19 (45%) policies. The next largest category was "donation via schools," with 12 (29%) policies. However, no policies specifically addressed the nutritional quality of food donations. There is an opportunity for the federal government to strengthen food bank donation policies and improve the nutritional quality of donated foods and beverages.

Indexed as

FoodNutrition PolicyBeveragesCross-Sectional StudiesFood InsecurityFood SecurityFood ServicesFood SupplyHumansNutritive ValueSchoolsUnited Statesemergency foodfood insecurityfood securityhealthylegislationnutritionregulationsstatutes

Identifiers

PMID33302358
PMCPMC7762564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.