Rhode Island tried something new to help people on food assistance buy more fruits and vegetables. They gave shoppers 50 cents back for every dollar spent on fresh produce, up to $25 per month. Researchers tracked about 725 people over several months to see if this program actually changed what people ate. The results were mixed: overall, the program didn’t significantly boost fruit and vegetable eating for most people, but it did help people who were already eating a decent amount of produce eat even more. The study suggests that while the idea is good, the program might need some improvements to help people who struggle most with eating healthy.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Does giving people money back when they buy fresh fruits and vegetables actually help them eat healthier?
  • Who participated: 725 people who receive food assistance (SNAP benefits), mostly women, average age 34, from Rhode Island and Connecticut. Researchers compared people in Rhode Island who got the incentive program with people in Connecticut who didn’t.
  • Key finding: The program didn’t significantly increase fruit and vegetable eating for the whole group. However, people who were already eating a decent amount of fruits and vegetables did eat slightly more when they got the discount. People who weren’t eating much produce to begin with didn’t change their habits.
  • What it means for you: If you’re on food assistance and already trying to eat healthy, this kind of program might give you a helpful boost. But if you’re struggling to eat more produce, this program alone probably won’t be enough to change your habits—you might need additional support like cooking classes or better access to stores.

The Research Details

This was a before-and-after study that compared two groups. Researchers collected information from people in Rhode Island (where the new program started) and Connecticut (where there was no program) at the beginning and then again 5-8 months later. This comparison approach helps researchers figure out if changes were actually caused by the program or if they would have happened anyway. The program automatically gave shoppers a 50-cent credit for every dollar they spent on fresh fruits and vegetables at two major grocery chains, with a maximum of $25 per month in credits. The credits were added directly to their food assistance cards, making it easy to use.

Researchers asked participants detailed questions about what they ate using a food frequency questionnaire, which is a standard tool that asks people to remember their eating habits over time. They measured how many cups of fruits and vegetables people ate and also looked at overall diet quality using a scoring system called the Healthy Eating Index.

This study design is important because it shows real-world results from an actual government program, not just a small experiment. By comparing Rhode Island to Connecticut, researchers could see if the program itself made a difference, rather than just assuming any changes were because of the incentive. Understanding whether these programs work at a large scale helps government officials decide if they should spend money on them.

This study has several strengths: it included a comparison group, it used validated tools to measure eating habits, and it tracked people over time. However, there are some limitations to keep in mind. The study only included people who were willing to participate and had email or text access, so it might not represent all people on food assistance. Also, 95% of participants were women, so results might be different for men. The study was relatively short (5-8 months), so we don’t know if benefits would last longer. Finally, only about 26% of people in Rhode Island actually used the program, which might explain why overall results were weak.

What the Results Show

When researchers looked at everyone together, the program didn’t make a meaningful difference in how much fruit and vegetables people ate. People in Rhode Island ate about 0.12 more cup equivalents per 1000 calories compared to Connecticut, but this difference was so small it could have happened by chance.

However, when researchers split people into groups based on how much they were already eating, they found something interesting. People who were already eating a decent amount of fruits and vegetables (more than 1.79 cup equivalents per 1000 calories) did eat more when they got the discount—about 0.29 cup equivalents more per 1000 calories. This is a real, meaningful increase.

In contrast, people who weren’t eating much produce to begin with (less than 1.79 cup equivalents per 1000 calories) showed no change at all, even with the incentive. This suggests the program worked better for people who were already motivated to eat healthy but needed a little financial help, rather than for people who needed the most help changing their eating habits.

The study also found that many people didn’t even know about the program or use it. Only about 37% of Rhode Island participants correctly understood what the program was for, and only about 26% actually used the discounts available.

Overall diet quality (measured by the Healthy Eating Index) didn’t improve significantly in Rhode Island compared to Connecticut. This suggests that while the program might have helped some people eat slightly more produce, it didn’t lead to broader improvements in overall diet quality. The low awareness and usage rates were concerning—if people don’t know about a program or how to use it, they can’t benefit from it.

Previous smaller studies of fruit and vegetable incentive programs have shown more promising results, but those were usually smaller programs in specific communities with more intensive outreach. This is the first large state-level program of its kind, and the results suggest that simply offering a discount isn’t enough. The findings align with other research showing that financial incentives work better for people who are already somewhat motivated to change their behavior.

Several important limitations should be considered. First, the study only included people willing to participate and with access to email or text, which might mean healthier or more engaged people were included. Second, 95% of participants were women, so results might not apply to men. Third, the study only lasted 5-8 months, so we don’t know if benefits would continue longer. Fourth, only about one-quarter of eligible people actually used the program, which makes it hard to know if the program itself doesn’t work or if people just didn’t use it. Finally, the study only looked at two grocery chains, so people might not have had easy access to the program at their regular stores.

The Bottom Line

If you’re on food assistance and already trying to eat more fruits and vegetables, this type of incentive program may provide helpful financial support (moderate confidence). If you’re not currently eating much produce, this program alone probably won’t be enough to change your habits—you might benefit more from additional support like cooking classes, nutrition education, or help finding stores with good produce options (moderate confidence). For policymakers, the results suggest that incentive programs need to be combined with better outreach, more store locations, and targeted support for people eating the least produce (moderate confidence).

This research matters most for people receiving food assistance who want to eat healthier but struggle with the cost of fresh produce. It also matters for government officials deciding how to spend money on nutrition programs, and for community health workers trying to help people improve their diets. The findings suggest that one-size-fits-all programs might not work equally well for everyone.

Based on this study, if the program works for you, you might notice small changes in your fruit and vegetable intake within a few months. However, for people not already eating much produce, changes might take longer or require additional support beyond just the financial incentive. Realistic expectations are modest improvements over several months, not dramatic overnight changes.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track daily fruit and vegetable servings in cup equivalents (aim to log at least 2-3 cups per day). Users can photograph meals or use a simple checklist to record produce intake, noting which items were purchased with incentive discounts versus regular purchases.
  • Set a weekly goal to use available incentive discounts at participating stores. Users could set reminders to check their benefits balance, plan meals around discounted produce, and track which fruits and vegetables they purchased with incentive credits versus regular money.
  • Monthly check-ins comparing produce spending with and without incentives. Users can track total cups of fruits and vegetables consumed, monitor awareness of available programs in their area, and set incremental goals (e.g., ‘use incentive program 2x this week’) to increase program engagement and gradually build healthier eating habits.

This research describes the results of one state-level program and may not apply to all communities or populations. The findings suggest the program had limited overall effectiveness, particularly for people not already eating adequate produce. Before making changes to your diet or relying on incentive programs as your primary nutrition strategy, consult with a healthcare provider or registered dietitian, especially if you have specific health conditions or dietary needs. This study does not constitute medical advice, and individual results may vary based on personal circumstances, access to stores, and other factors not measured in this research.