Next Article in Journal
Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet in Spanish Population and Its Relationship with Early Vascular Aging according to Sex and Age: EVA Study
Previous Article in Journal
Immunological Outcomes of Bovine Colostrum Supplementation in Trained and Physically Active People: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Increasing Food Expenditure in Long Day-Care by an Extra $0.50 Per Child/Day Would Improve Core Food Group Provision
Open AccessArticle

Definitions, Sources and Self-Reported Consumption of Regionally Grown Fruits and Vegetables in Two Regions of Australia

1
Centre for Rural Health, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia
2
School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6050, Australia
3
School of Health Sciences, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia
4
Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6050, Australia
5
Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia
6
School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6050, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2020, 12(4), 1026; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12041026
Received: 11 March 2020 / Revised: 1 April 2020 / Accepted: 6 April 2020 / Published: 8 April 2020
Regional food systems are complex networks, with numerous retail sources that underpin a local economy. However, evidence is limited regarding how consumers define, identify, and source regionally grown fresh fruits and vegetables (RGFFV). A cross-sectional study was conducted in Tasmania (TAS) and South Western Australia (SWA) to compare how RGFFV are defined, identified and sourced by consumers, including self-reported consumption of selected RGFFV. Survey data were analyzed using the Chi-square test and t-tests. Results (TAS n = 120, SWA n = 123) identified that consumers had mixed perceptions of how RGFFV are defined, including produce sold at farmers markets, or grown within their region (TAS/SWA). RGFFV were commonly identified using product labelling (55% TAS, 69% SWA; p > 0.05). Respondents reported frequently shopping for RGFFV at major supermarkets, with more TAS respondents shopping weekly in comparison to SWA respondents (67% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). Supermarkets offered convenience and consumers enjoyed the experience of farmers’ markets, especially in TAS (42%) in comparison to SWA (21%; p = 0.012). The major RGFFV consumed were root vegetables and apples/pears, but consumers were frequently unsure about the produce’s provenance. Our findings indicate multiple opportunities to improve consumption of fresh, regional produce in TAS and SWA, which may positively impact regional economic growth and community health. View Full-Text
Keywords: fruit; vegetables; regional; rural; food preferences; food supply fruit; vegetables; regional; rural; food preferences; food supply
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Kent, K.; Godrich, S.; Murray, S.; Auckland, S.; Blekkenhorst, L.; Penrose, B.; Lo, J.; Devine, A. Definitions, Sources and Self-Reported Consumption of Regionally Grown Fruits and Vegetables in Two Regions of Australia. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1026.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop