public health policy and mobile food vending

GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, AND LAW

Effective Use of Frameworks andResearch to Advance Policy

An Analysis of Public Health Policy and Legal IssuesRelevant to Mobile Food VendingJune M. Tester, MD, MPH, Stephanie A. Stevens, JD, Irene H. Yen, PhD, MPH, and Barbara A. Laraia, PhD, MPH, RD

Mobile food vending is

a component of the food envi-

ronment that has received little

attention in the public health

literature beyond concerns

about food sanitation and hy-

giene issues. However, sev-

eral features of mobile food

vending make it an intriguing

venue for food access.

We present key components

of mobile vending regulation

and provide examples from 12

US cities to illustrate the vari-

ation that can exist surround-

ing these regulations.

Using these regulatory fea-

tures as a framework, we high-

light existing examples of

‘‘healthy vending policies’’ to

describe how mobile food ven-

ding can be used to increase

access to nutritious food for

vulnerable populations. (Am

J Public Health. 2010;100:2038–

2046. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.

185892)

THERE IS A GROWING FOCUS

on the role of the food environ-ment for the obesity epidemic.1 Inparticular, there is a need forgreater access to nutritious foodand more limits on energy-densefood with low nutritional value.Greater relative availability of

nutritious food in local food stores isassociated with greater intake ofthose foods.2 Although there aresome existing strategies to increasepurchase of fruits and vegetableswithin grocery stores,3 access tostores with nutritious food remainsan issue. Supermarkets are morelikely to carry fresh produce,4 butthey are less likely to be found inlow-income neighborhoods andcommunities of color.5,6 There area variety of factors that have his-torically been barriers to super-market location in lower-incomeurban areas,7,8 and the rural poorappear to have even less access tosupermarkets than do their metro-politan counterparts.9 Neighbor-hoods without supermarkets tendto have small corner stores or con-venience markets that have limitedinventories of nutritious food.10

Although public health scholarshave given some attention to cor-ner store interventions, mobilefood vending has received littleattention in the public health lit-erature beyond concerns aboutfood sanitation and hygiene is-sues.11,12 But several features ofmobile food vending make it anintriguing venue for food access.Unlike a corner store, mobile foodvendors sell a small range of

merchandise. Specialized vendors(e.g., vendors selling only fruit) canmore easily ensure fresh merchan-dise because of rapid turnover.Because these vendors are mobile,they have the capacity to reachplaces that otherwise lack access tofood establishments or food stores.Mobile food vendors have beenfound to converge around schoolsto sell foods to students afterschool.13 Mobile vendors appear tobe a familiar phenomenon in urbanas well as rural communities withlarge numbers of Latino immi-grants,13–15 and understanding howto encourage the sale of nutritiousfood rather than energy-dense foodwould be valuable to these commu-nities and others that have dispro-portionately high rates of obesity.16

The need for increased accessto nutritious food and the uniquefeatures of mobile food vendinglead to some compelling questions.Could mobile vendors contributeto the accessibility of nutritiousfood, particularly for underservedand vulnerable communities?Could a mobile cart or truck func-tion like a supermarket produceaisle on wheels? We focused onhow local government law andpolicy could support healthy mo-bile vending mainly because the

law has the advantages of broaderapplication and permanence. Here,we present key components ofmobile vending regulation by usingexamples from the municipal codesof the 10 most populous US citiesto illustrate the variation that canexist surrounding these regulations.Then, using this framework ofregulatory features, we describehow mobile food vending can beused to increase access to nutri-tious food for vulnerable urbanpopulations, highlighting 2 citiesfrom this list and discussing 2additional noteworthy policy ex-amples. We chose to limit ourscope to mobile food vendors inurban settings because, eventhough the potential for mobilevending to increase nutritious foodaccess in rural areas is also worthexploring, the unique characteris-tics of rural settings such as lowpopulation density and differencesin local government authority war-rant a separate examination thattakes these features into account.

MOBILE FOOD VENDING INURBAN HISTORY

Mobile food vending is a world-wide phenomenon. Common inLatin America and Asia, it is often

2038 | Government, Politics, and Law | Peer Reviewed | Tester et al. American Journal of Public Health | November 2010, Vol 100, No. 11

an opportunity for individuals tomake a living with a small enter-prise.17 Mobile vendors have alsoexisted in the United States formanyyears, and records from New YorkCity as early as1691show that streetvendors (‘‘hucksters’’) were forbid-den from selling until competingpublic markets had already beenopen for 2 hours. New York Cityvendors persisted despite a com-plete ban in1707, and their growthwas closely connected to immigra-tion.18 In the1800s, whereas indoorretail stores catered to middle- andupper-class customers, street ven-dors catered to poor, mostly foreign-born residents, and, for many im-migrants with little English-speakingskills, the neighborhood pushcartbusiness was an accessible way toearn a living.14 Vendors started toestablish informal market areas, andstreet vending thrived in New YorkCity in the 1880s through the1920s, but was almost completelyabolished in the1930s when en-closed market buildings were builtto ‘‘tidyup thestreets’’ in preparationfor the World’s Fair.19 It is interest-ing to note that in1925, the majorityof fruit and vegetable peddlers wereJewish immigrants (63%), and therest were primarily Italian (32%).20

Mobile food vending continues to-day, often in communities withmany foreign-born residents, andmunicipal codes still focus on manyof the same issues, such as compe-tition with local businesses andprohibiting vendors from operatingin ‘‘upscale’’ neighborhoods.

MOBILE VENDINGREGULATION

Mobile vending regulationstypically include a number of

standard requirements regardingfood safety, permits and fees,vendor location, and traffic safety.With the exception of state retailfood codes, mobile vending istypically regulated at the local (cityor county) level. There is typicallycitywide regulation found in mu-nicipal codes, and a city’s overallapproach to regulation of mobilefood vending can range from re-strictive to permissive. Municipalcodes can also grant city agenciesthe authority to regulate mobilevending with a limited context,as in Kansas City, Missouri, andSan Francisco, California, wherepark and recreation departmentsregulate mobile vending inparks.

We examined the municipalcodes of a subset of US cities tocompare mobile vending regula-tions. For ease of comparison wechose the 10 most populous citiesranked by 2007 estimates.21 Mu-nicipal codes were all availableonline, either hosted by the city’sown Web sites or via an onlineservice that hosts city ordi-nances.22,23 Between October andDecember of 2008, we searchedfor all sections pertaining to mobilefood vending to identify languagerelevant to the 4 major a prioridomains listed in Table 1. Thesedomains pertained to health andsafety, permits and fees, location-based regulation, and whetherthere were any nutrition incentives.From the 10-city analysis we iden-tified 2 cities, Chicago, Illinois, andNew York, New York, that hadnutrition incentives for mobilevending carts. We assessed healthyfood policies for these cities plus 2additional cities (Kansas City andSan Francisco) that we identified

through our involvement in theNational Policy and Legal AnalysisNetwork as cities with a healthymobile vending policy (Table 2).Highlighted in the following sec-tions are examples of the variationin existing policy with respect to the3 domains of health and safety,permits and fees, and location-based regulation. (Nutrition incen-tives, when present, are discussedin the subsequent section wherecomponents of healthy mobilevending policies are considered.)

Health and Safety Regulation

Municipal codes regarding mo-bile vending must comply withapplicable state laws. Most statesregulate the health and safety ofmobile vending under their retailfood codes, and state retail foodcodes often charge local agencieswith carrying out the code’s pro-visions.94–97 State retail food codesare focused on protecting the publicfrom food-borne illness, with pro-visions designed to prevent con-tamination and promote hy-giene.98,99 To promote uniformfood safety regulations, the USFood and Drug Administration de-veloped a model Food Code forstates to adopt,100 under whichmobile vending facilities are con-sidered a type of food establishmentand, therefore, subject to the code’shealth and safety provisions.101

To further promote safe foodhandling practices, vendors areoften required to operate froma commissary. A commissary isa centralized facility where ven-dors clean and store their vehiclesas well as sanitize their equip-ment.102 The commissary may alsoserve as a common kitchen fromwhich vendors can prepare their

food, as laws generally prohibitvendors from preparing food athome.103 Local authorities (usuallymandated by state law) may alsorequire inspection of commissariesto ensure compliance with food-safety laws.104

Permits and Fees

Local governments requirevendors to obtain a license orpermit. To obtain a permit, fre-quently the vending vehicle mustpass inspection by the local healthdepartment or other designatedauthority. Municipalities chargea fee for vendor permits andamounts can vary greatly. In ad-dition, local laws may cap thenumber of mobile vending permitsallowed at any one time. For ex-ample, until recent legislationadded new permits for fruit andvegetable vendors, New York Citylaw had historically limited thetotal number of general permitsfor mobile food vendors at3100.105 Permits continue to be ingreat demand in New York City andthere is a sizeable waiting list forprospective vendors.106,107

Location

Local governments commonlyrestrict where mobile vendorsmay operate. Some cities havecomplex laws regulating vendingstreet by street. For example,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, codeexplicitly refers to the specificstreets within the central part ofthe city where vendors areallowed to conduct business.108

Others might have a designatedarea for vending or allow vendingcitywide but have certain restric-tions. For example, Phoenix, Ari-zona; San Antonio, Texas; and San


November 2010, Vol 100, No. 11 | American Journal of Public Health Tester et al. | Peer Reviewed | Government, Politics, and Law | 2039

TAB

LE1

—C

ompa

riso

nof

Mob

ileFo

odVe

ndin

gLa

ws

inth

e1

0M

ost

Pop

ulou

sU

SC

itie

s:2

00

8

Heal

than

dSa

fety

Perm

itsor

Othe

rRe

gula

tions

Loca

tion

Nutri

tion

Regu

latio

n

City

Are

Vend

ors

Requ

ired

to

Oper

ate

From

aCo

mm

issa

ry?

Are

Vend

ors

Subj

ect

to

Insp

ectio

n?

Fees

for

Mob

ileVe

ndor

Perm

itsor

Lice

nse

Othe

r

Spec

ial

Regu

latio

ns

Rest

rictio

n

onDu

ratio

n

ofVe

ndor

Stop

s

Hour

sW

hen

Vend

ors

Are

Allo

wed

to

Oper

ate

Rest

rictio

ns

onVe

ndor

Prox

imity

to

Scho

ols

Nutri

tion

Ince

ntive

s

Chic

ago,

ILCo

mm

issa

ryor

othe

rlic

ense

d

fixed

food

serv

ice

esta

blis

hmen

t.24

Yes.

Vend

ors

mus

t

pass

insp

ectio

n

befo

relic

ense

will

beis

sued

.24

$165

ever

y2

yfo

r

‘‘ped

dler

s’’o

ffru

its

and

vege

tabl

es25

;

othe

rwis

e$2

75,

paya

ble

ever

y2

y.26

No.

Nore

gula

tion.

7AM

to5

PMfo

r

pedd

lers

offru

its

and

vege

tabl

es.27

Othe

rwis

e,

ther

eis

no

rest

rictio

non

hour

s.

Nore

gula

tion.

Vend

ors

selli

ngon

lyfru

its

and

vege

tabl

espa

y

are

duce

dpe

rmit

fee.

28

Dalla

s,TX

Yes.

29Ye

s.30

$100

for

mos

t

vend

ors,

but

$465

for

am

obile

food

prep

arat

ion

vehi

cle

such

asa

‘‘hot

truck

.’’31

Vend

ors

mus

t

prov

ide

am

onth

ly

itine

rary

indi

catin

g

wher

eth

eyin

tend

to

oper

ate32

and

mus

t

beab

leto

prov

ide

proo

fof

liabi

lity

insu

ranc

e.33

Vend

ors

may

not

stop

for

mor

eth

an

60co

nsec

utive

min

utes

ora

tota

lof

3h

in1

loca

tion

ina

24-h

perio

d.31

Nore

gula

tion.

Nore

gula

tion.

No.

Hous

ton,

TXYe

s,an

d

com

mis

sarie

s

are

requ

ired

to

keep

serv

icin

g

reco

rds

for

each

mob

ile

vend

or.34

Yes.

Vend

ors

mus

t

pass

insp

ectio

n

befo

rere

ceivi

ng

ape

rmit,

and

then

are

subj

ect

toin

spec

tion

with

out

notic

e.35

,36

$200

for

ape

rmit,

$310

for

a‘‘m

edal

lion’

’to

be

plac

edon

the

vend

ing

vehi

cle,

and

a$2

00

elec

troni

cm

onito

ring

syst

ems

fee

for

‘‘unr

estri

cted

mob

ile

food

units

.’’37

Vend

ors

inth

e

down

town

dist

rict

need

perm

issi

on

from

abut

ting

stor

e

owne

rs.38

Ape

rson

certi

fied

insa

fefo

od

hand

ling

mus

tbe

ondu

tyat

allt

imes

.39

Nore

gula

tion.

Vend

ors

may

desi

gnat

ea

site

for

24-h

use.

40

Nore

gula

tion.

No.

Los

Ange

les,

CA

N/A

N/A

N/A

Vend

ors

mus

t

esta

blis

ha

‘‘spe

cial

side

walk

vend

ing

dist

rict’’

;at

pres

ent,

nodi

stric

tex

ists

.41

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

New

York

,NY

Yes.

Allv

endo

rs

mus

top

erat

efro

m

aco

mm

issa

ry,

depo

t,

orot

her

licen

sed

faci

lity.42

Yes.

Vend

ors

are

not

allo

wed

to

oper

ate

until

they

have

pass

ed

insp

ectio

n.43

Perm

itsar

eva

lidfo

r

2y,44

$50

iffre

shfru

its

orve

geta

bles

or

prep

acka

ged

food

45;

$100

iffo

odis

proc

esse

don

site

.46

Gree

nCa

rtve

ndor

s

only

inun

ders

erve

d

area

s,47

and

mus

t

have

educ

atio

nal

broc

hure

s.48

Nore

gula

tion.

Varie

sby

loca

tion.

49No

regu

latio

n.Gr

een

Cart

vend

ors

selli

ngwh

ole

fruits

and

vege

tabl

es.50

Gree

nCa

rtve

ndor

s

have

prio

rity

onpe

rmit

waiti

nglis

t.51

Phila

delp

hia,

PAYe

s.52

Yes.

Vend

ors

mus

t

subm

itto

anof

ficia

l

insp

ectio

n53an

d

perfo

rma

self-

insp

ectio

nev

ery

3m

o.54

$125

annu

ally

for

vend

ors

onfo

ot;

othe

rwis

e$3

00

annu

ally

for

all

othe

rve

hicl

es.55

No.

Nore

gula

tion.

7AM

to12

AM.56

Nore

gula

tion.

No.

Cont

inue

d



TAB

LE1

—C

onti

nued

Phoe

nix,

AZYe

s.Ve

ndor

sm

ust

repo

rtda

ilyto

a

com

mis

sary

.57

Yes.

Vend

ors

mus

t

bein

spec

ted

at

leas

tev

ery

6m

o

unde

rth

eAr

izona

Food

Code

.58

$250

first

-tim

e

licen

seap

plic

atio

n

fee,

then

$30/

y.59

Ther

eis

also

a1-

time

fee

for

crim

inal

inve

stig

atio

n

finge

rprin

ts.60

Vend

ors

may

not

oper

ate

onan

y

stre

etab

uttin

ga

publ

icpa

rkwi

thin

150

ftof

ala

wful

ly

esta

blis

hed

park

conc

essi

on.61

Vend

ors

may

not

stop

for

mor

eth

an1

h

with

inan

8-h

perio

don

any

publ

icst

reet

oral

ley.62

6AM

to2

AMon

priva

tepr

oper

ty63

;

the

late

rof

7PM

orsu

nset

and

befo

resu

nris

eon

publ

icpr

oper

ty.64

Vend

ors

onpr

ivate

prop

erty

may

not

oper

ate

with

in

300

ftof

any

scho

olbe

twee

n

6AM

and

5PM

,65

orwi

thin

600

ftof

any

scho

ol,

or

betw

een

7am

and

4:30

pm

when

loca

ted

onpu

blic

prop

erty

.66

No.

San

Anto

nio,

TXYe

s.Ve

ndor

sm

ust

oper

ate

from

a

com

mis

sary

,un

less

they

sell

food

that

exem

pts

them

from

this

prov

isio

n.67

Yes.

Vend

ors

are

subj

ect

toro

utin

e

unan

noun

ced

insp

ectio

ns.68

$48

to$3

50an

nual

ly

depe

ndin

gon

the

type

ofve

hicl

eus

edan

d

the

type

offo

odso

ld.69

Vend

ors

may

not

sell

with

in30

0ft

ofan

y

food

esta

blis

hmen

t

unle

ssth

eyob

tain

perm

issi

onfro

m

the

owne

r.70

Nore

gula

tion.

7AM

to30

min

afte

rsu

nset

in

resi

dent

iala

reas

.

7AM

to10

PM

inJu

ne,

July,

and

Augu

st.71

Vend

ors

may

not

sell

with

in30

0ft

ofan

y

scho

ol1

hbe

fore

,

1h

afte

r,an

ddu

ring

scho

olho

urs.

72

Vend

ors

selli

ng

whol

efru

itsor

vege

tabl

es,

fresh

fish,

orsh

rimp

dono

t

have

toop

erat

efro

ma

com

mis

sary

.73

San

Dieg

o,CA

Yes.

73Ye

s.74

$164

to$4

27an

nual

ly

depe

ndin

gon

the

type

ofve

hicl

eus

edan

d

the

type

offo

odso

ld.75

Units

prop

elle

dby

‘‘mus

cula

rpo

wer

eith

erhu

man

or

anim

al’’

cann

otbe

used

tose

ll

peris

habl

efo

od.76

Rest

rictio

nson

dura

tion

oftim

e

vend

ors

are

allo

wed

tost

opva

ries

bylo

catio

n.77

9AM

to8

PM.78

Vend

ors

may

not

oper

ate

with

in50

0ft

ofan

ypu

blic

scho

ol

betw

een

7AM

and

4PM

onre

gula

r

scho

olda

ys.79

Vend

ors

may

sell

farm

prod

uce

from

the

farm

prop

erty

with

out

payin

ga

perm

itfe

e.80

San

Jose

,CA

Yes,

orot

her

appr

oved

faci

lity.81

Yes.

82$4

18fo

ran

‘‘app

rove

d

loca

tion’

’ven

dor

perm

it;

$149

for

allo

ther

vend

ors,

plus

$45

for

anID

card

.83

Vend

ors

oper

atin

g

from

ade

sign

ated

‘‘app

rove

dlo

catio

n’’

mus

tha

velia

bilit

y

insu

ranc

e.84

Exce

ptfo

r‘‘a

ppro

ved

loca

tion’

’(st

atio

nary

)

vend

ors,

vend

ors

may

not

stop

in1

plac

e

for

long

erth

an15

min

ina

2-h

perio

d.85

10AM

to7

PMor

suns

et;

vend

ors

at

cons

truct

ion

orin

dust

rial

site

sar

eex

empt

from

this

regu

latio

n.86

Appr

oved

loca

tion

vend

ors

may

oper

ate

from

6AM

until

7PM

orsu

nset

.87

Vend

ors

may

not

oper

ate

with

in

500

ftof

any

scho

ol

prop

erty

.88

No.



Diego, California, restrict vendorsfrom locating near schools basedapproximately on school hours,whereas San Jose, California, pro-hibits vending near schools irre-spective of the time of day.

Local regulations also attemptto prevent vendors from compet-ing with restaurants or otherbusinesses. For instance, in someplaces, vendors must obtain writ-ten permission from any abuttingbusiness owners to locate nearthem.109 Local laws may alsoprohibit vendors from locating inclose proximity to certain sta-tionary businesses altogether,such as Chicago’s prohibition ofvendors within 1000 feet of theMaxwell Street Market.110 Theprocess in Los Angeles, California, is

particularly prohibitive for legalmobile food vending. First, LosAngeles law requires vendors toobtain the consent of at least 20%of the business owners and resi-dents in the area before the city willbegin the bureaucratic process ofestablishing a ‘‘special sidewalkvending district.’’111 The law thenrequires vendors to get writtenpermission from the propertyowner or tenant closest to wherethe vendor intends to locate,112 anda petition of 20% of the nearbyresidents and business owners canultimately close the vending dis-trict.113

Another common regulationis to require vendors to moveafter a designated interval oftime. In San Jose, some mobile

vendors are prohibited fromremaining in the same locationfor more than 15 minutes in a2-hour period.114 This type ofregulation may discourage mobilevending as constantly movingmakes it more difficult for vendorsto draw on regular customers oroperate efficiently.

Vendors must also comply withlocal and state vehicle or trafficsafety regulations. These regula-tions are generally aimed at pre-venting interference with flow oftraffic and ensuring pedestriansafety. For example, San Diego’scode prohibits vendors fromlocating or operating in anymanner that would ‘‘interferewith the free use of the publicright-of-way.’’115

COMPONENTS OF AHEALTHY VENDINGPOLICY

Using the regulatory compo-nents of health and nutrition reg-ulation, permits and fees, and lo-cation regulation, we describe howlocal government can utilize mo-bile food vending to increase ac-cess to nutritious food.

Health and Nutrition

Regulation

Health departments alreadyplay an important role in theregulation of mobile food vendingbecause of their duty to ensurefood safety. As an additional steptoward increasing access to nutri-tious food, health departments

TABLE 2—Examples of Existing Healthy Vending Policies Enacted Within US City Ordinances by City Agencies: 2008

Type of Policy City Health or Nutrition Regulation for ‘‘Healthy Vendor’’ Permits or Fees for ‘‘Healthy Vendor’’ Location for ‘‘Healthy Vendor’’

City ordinance New York, NY ‘‘Green Carts’’ program applies

only to vendors selling whole,

unprocessed fruits and vegetables.47

Increased city’s overall number

of permits to include 1000

designated Green Carts. Reduced

fee for Green Carts vendors.89

Special permit prioritizes selling

in underserved boroughs.47

City ordinance Chicago, IL Vendors selling fruits and vegetables

eligible for a permit at a reduced cost.90

Reduced fee of $165 every 2 y,

otherwise $275 every 2 y.91

Not specified.

City agency policy San Francisco,

CA, Parks and

Recreation Department

Favorable products: grown or produced

locally, are organic, minimally processed,

have no genetic modification, no

unnecessary antibiotics, no added

growth hormones, and meet animal

welfare or fair trade policies.92

$1000 per mo.92 City parks.92

City agency policy Kansas City, MO,

Parks and Recreation

Department

Food guidelines (per serving):

d £ 5 g of total fat

d £ 30 g carbohydrate

Beverage guidelines:

d water

d milk (1% or skim, any flavor)

d 50% or more fruit or vegetable juice

with no sweeteners

d £ 50 calories per 12 oz93

‘‘Healthier’’ vendors:

d ‡ 50% items meeting guidelines

d 50% reduced permit ($250/year)

‘‘Healthiest’’

d vendors ‡ 75% items meeting guidelines

d Full permit ($500), though have

roaming privileges. 93

‘‘Healthier’’ vendors are limited

to 1 city park. ‘‘Healthiest’’ vendors

have roaming permit for 3 city parks.93



could evaluate mobile vendors forcompliance with nutritional stan-dards. Health departments couldconfer special ‘‘healthy food ven-dor’’ status to vendors who meetnutritional standards, thus creat-ing a category of vendors who areeligible for other regulatory in-centives. There are a variety ofapproaches that health depart-ments could take to define keyterms. One step would be to re-serve designation of ‘‘healthy foodvendor’’ status to vendors carryinga threshold percentage of fooditems that meet the Food and DrugAdministration’s Nutrition Label-ing criteria for designation as a‘‘healthy’’ food. Per serving, quali-fying food items would need to below in fat (3 g or less) and saturatedfat (1 g or less), contain limitedamounts of sodium and cholesterol,and provide 10% of the daily valuefor vitamin A, vitamin C, iron,calcium, protein, or fiber.116,117

Alternatively, health departmentscould limit ‘‘healthy food vendor’’status to vendors who sell exclu-sively fresh produce. Because fresh,uncut produce is exempt fromregulation under many state foodretail codes, this is a relatively easylegal intervention for some locali-ties. For example, New York Citypassed Local Law 9 in March of2008, amending the existing mu-nicipal code to create 1000 addi-tional mobile vending permits for‘‘Green Carts.’’118 A Green Cart isone selling exclusively whole, uncut,and unprocessed produce. Therehas been a high demand forobtaining permits as a Green Cart,119

and Green Cart vendors alsohave priority on the city’s overallwaiting list for vendor permits(Table 2).104

The parks and recreation de-partments in Kansas City and SanFrancisco are both encouragingthe sale of ‘‘healthy foods’’ thoughusing different criteria. KansasCity’s Department of Parks andRecreation has a policy that allowsvendors to sell in the city’s parks,provided that their food complieswith explicitly defined nutritionguidelines.93 Vendors with at least50% of their foods meeting theseguidelines are deemed ‘‘healthier’’vendors, and vendors with at least75% of foods meeting these guide-lines are considered ‘‘healthiest.’’Vendors meeting these criteriaqualify for reduced fees and areallowed to sell in more areas.93

San Francisco’s Parks and Rec-reation Department recently re-leased a request for proposalssoliciting specialty food carts withan interest in selling within thecity’s public parks.92 This requestfor proposals for specialty foodpushcarts focuses on ‘‘health,’’ butdoes not specifically require food tobe nutrient-rich or low in caloriesor fat. The request for proposalsstates that the department will‘‘view favorably menus that incor-porate healthy, sustainably grownfood and beverages.’’ Priority foodsare those that are grown or pro-duced locally, are organic, are min-imally processed, have no geneticmodification, have no unnecessaryantibiotics, have no added growthhormones, and meet animal welfareor fair trade policies.92

Permits and Fees

Cities often set a limit on thetotal number of permits for ven-dors that are allowed at any giventime. This is presumably to preventsaturation from mobile vendors.

One approach toward a healthyvending policy would be to dis-proportionately increase the num-ber of permits allowed for vendorsthat sell nutritious foods. This ap-proach was taken under the NewYork City Green Carts program.

Another potential healthy ven-dor policy is for local governmentto subsidize, waive, or reduce per-mit fees that a prospective vendorwould pay if the food that they sellmeets nutritional requirements. InChicago, vendors that sell onlyfruits and vegetables pay a reducedpermit fee of $160 instead of $475every 2 years.28 Kansas City ven-dors selling in parks who qualify asbeing ‘‘healthier’’ vendors (with atleast 50% of food meeting nutri-tional guidelines) are given a 50%discount on their vending permit(a savings of $250).93

Location Regulation

Another approach is to modifyrestrictions on where vendors areallowed to operate to give ‘‘healthyfoods vendors’’ a geographic ad-vantage over other vendors sellingless nutritious items. Kansas Cityvendors selling in parks whoqualify as being ‘‘healthiest’’ ven-dors are given a special ‘‘roaming’’permit that allows them to sell in 3parks instead of just 1 park.93 It isalso possible to translate this sameprinciple of geographic advantageto increase sale of nutritious foodnear schools.

To address racial, ethnic, oreconomic disparities in access tonutritious food, a local governmentcan also create incentives for‘‘healthy foods vendors’’ to locate inneighborhoods most in need ofincreased access to fresh produceand other nutritious food. The

Green Carts Program in New YorkCity seeks to address the disparityin access to healthful food bydesignating a greater number ofGreen Cart permits in neighbor-hoods with historically low accessto fresh fruits and vegetables(Figure 1).120

CHALLENGES

Healthy mobile vending poli-cies face several potential chal-lenges. First, such policies requiresufficient infrastructure for en-forcement. Increasing the numberof available permits for an existingtype of vendor necessitates in-creased capacity to administerthese permits and resources toenforce the new policy. Addition-ally, the presence of ‘‘healthyfoods vendors’’ creates the needfor regulation and enforcement ofnutritional quality beyond currentregulations, which are focusedsolely on food safety and hygiene.But even though additional infra-structure requires an investmentof resources, a healthy vendingpolicy has the potential to createnew job opportunities that wouldin turn generate tax revenue.

A second challenge is that thepresence of extra permits or in-centives for certain types of mo-bile vendors may create resent-ment from other vendors who donot have the same privileges andalso can create fears of competi-tion from nearby store ownerswho may have nutritious items ontheir shelves.121,122 Additionally,some vendors are undocumentedimmigrants who are earning a livingby conducting a business with rel-atively low overhead costs. Forthese vendors, increased attention



on their mobile vending businessmay be unwelcome.

A third challenge is the inherentdifficulty in establishing a mean-ingful definition of ‘‘healthy food’’and determining whether thisdefinition will lead to the con-sumption of foods with a highernutritional value. The guidelinesin the Kansas City Parks and Rec-reation Department regulationsinclude very strict definitions re-garding calories and fat. New YorkCity’s Green Carts program clearlylimits itself to nutritious food by

focusing only on produce. SanFrancisco’s Department of Parksand Recreation defines ‘‘healthyfood’’ with a focus on sustainabil-ity. Although this supports a moresustainable food system, this ap-proach does not ensure that thefoods sold would be any lower in fator calories than standard fast food.

A final challenge lies in whethera healthy vending policy actuallyincreases access for populations inneed of improved access to nutri-tious foods. There is a strong needfor increased access to nutritious

food among low-income commu-nities and communities of color.An ideal healthy vending policywould attract vendors to provideservices within these communities.However, if permits come withfees that are prohibitively steep,or if the food deemed ‘‘healthy’’ istoo expensive (or unfamiliar) tovendors or customers, a healthyvending policy may be unsuccess-ful in optimally targeting thecommunities most in need of in-creased access to healthy food.

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE

As healthy vending initiativessuch as the New York City GreenCarts Program develop, research isneeded to evaluate the effects ofthese natural policy experiments.Specifically, we need to understandat a population level whether thesepolicies actually result in increasedaccess to healthier foods, andwhether they lead to improved di-etary intake. Feasibility and sus-tainability of such programs alsoneed to be documented and un-derstood. Vulnerable populationsthat experience a higher prevalenceof obesity, such as low-income andethnic minority communities, area particular research priority area.In light of the current obesity epi-demic among youths and the factthat students appear to make pur-chases at vendors after school,13

addressing the relationship of mo-bile food vending specifically toyouths should also be a priority.

Additionally, there is a need tostudy not only consumer accept-ability of mobile-vended nutritiousfood, but also how competitivethese food items can be whencompared with less-nutritious

options. Previous research withvending machines showed thatreductions in price of low-fat itemsin vending machines led to theirincreased sale compared withhigh-fat options.123 Similar experi-mental work looking at the sale ofnutritious items in close proximityto less-nutritious options would bevaluable.

Legal Community

This article serves as thegroundwork for exploring the role,benefits, and practical limitationsof using mobile food vending reg-ulation to improve access to nu-tritious food. More work is neededto examine the balance betweenfully realizing the positive poten-tial of mobile food vendors andnot creating undue burdensfor municipalities, regulatoryagencies, or vendors themselves.

There is also a need for techni-cal expertise and guidance fromthe legal community to create thetools needed to translate desiredchanges into local policy. In recentmovements such as the increasingadoption of soda-free school dis-tricts, public health lawyers havebeen instrumental by providingmodel ordinances with exemplarlanguage that can be used by localgovernments to implement thedesired health-promoting policy.

Community Action,

Leadership, and Political Will

Finally, it is not enough to pro-pose novel ways to regulate mo-bile vending and hope that localgovernments take up the cause.Obtaining the support and politicalwill to enact new policies is critical.Advocates may need buy-in froma range of constituents, including

Source. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Web site120; used with

permission.

FIGURE 1—Map of designated areas for New York City’s specially

permitted Green Carts that sell fresh produce in underserved

areas: 2008.



the business community, law en-forcement, or health departmentofficials, to get a healthy mobilevending policy successfully sup-ported by local governance bod-ies. For example, advocates withthe Healthy Eating Active Com-munities collaborative in SantaAna and in South Los Angeles,California, have worked with ven-dors and city officials alike to un-derstand and convey the needs ofvendors to have incentives forselling nutritious foods. Garneringthe support of a diverse group ofinterested parties will create thepolitical climate necessary to enactinnovative healthy mobile vend-ing policies as part of an over-all strategy to improve accessto nutritious food in vulnerablecommunities. j

About the AuthorsJune M. Tester is with the Department ofPreventive Cardiology, Children’s Hospitaland Research Center Oakland, Oakland,CA. Stephanie A. Stevens is with PublicHealth Law and Policy, Oakland, CA. IreneH. Yen and Barbara A. Laraia are with theDepartment of Medicine, University ofCalifornia, San Francisco.

Correspondence should be sent to JuneTester, MD, MPH, Children’s Hospital &Research Center Oakland, Department ofCardiology, Healthy Hearts Clinic, 74752nd St, Oakland, CA 94609 (e-mail:[email protected]). Reprints can be orderedat http://www.ajph.org by clicking the‘‘Reprints/Eprints’’ link.

This article was accepted February 27,2010.

ContributorsJ. M. Tester originated the study and ledthe writing. S.A. Stevens led the legalanalysis and contributed significantly tothe writing. I.H. Yen and B. L. Laraiaassisted with the study and analyses.

AcknowledgmentsThe Robert Wood Johnson Foundationprovided funding for this work through

a grant from Healthy Eating Research(grant 63049) and through the NationalPolicy and Legal Analysis Network toPrevent Childhood Obesity (grant62083).

We thank Gregg Kettles for commentson an early version of this article.

Human Participant ProtectionNo human participants were involved inthis analysis.

References1. Story M, Kaphingst KM, Robinson-O’Brien R, Glanz K. Creating healthy foodand eating environments: policy and en-vironmental approaches. Annu Rev PublicHealth. 2008;29(1):253–272.

2. Cheadle A, Psaty BM, Curry S, et al.Community-level comparisons betweenthe grocery store environment and in-dividual dietary practices. Prev Med.1991;20(2):250–261.

3. Glanz K, Yaroch AL. Strategies forincreasing fruit and vegetable intake ingrocery stores and communities: policy,pricing, and environmental change. PrevMed. 2004;39(supp 2):S75–S80.

4. Sallis JF, Nader PR, Rupp JW, AtkinsCJ, Wilson WC. San Diego surveyed forheart-healthy foods and exercise facilities.Public Health Rep. 1986;101(2):216–219.

5. Powell LM, Slater S, Mirtcheva D, BaoY, Chaloupka FJ. Food store availabilityand neighborhood characteristics in theUnited States. Prev Med. 2007;44(3):189–195.

6. Morland K, Wing S, Diez-Roux A,Poole C. Neighborhood characteristicsassociated with the location of food storesand food service places. Am J Prev Med.2002;22(1):23–29.

7. Nayga RM Jr, Weinberg Z. Super-market access in the inner cities. J Re-tailing Consum Serv. 1999;6(3):141–145.

8. Pothukuchi K. Attracting supermar-kets to inner-city neighborhoods: eco-nomic development outside the box. EconDev Q. 2005;19(3):232–244.

9. Kaufman PR. Rural poor have lessaccess to supermarkets, large grocerystores. Rural Dev Perspect. 1999;13(3):19–26.

10. Gittelsohn J, Franceschini MC,Rasooly IR, et al. Understanding thefood environment in a low-incomeurban setting: implications for food store

interventions. J Hunger Environ Nutr.2008;2(2,3):33–50.

11. Burt BM, Volel C, Finkel M. Safety ofvendor-prepared foods: evaluation of 10processing mobile food vendors in Man-hattan. Public Health Rep. 2003;118(5):470–476.

12. Lues JF, Rasephei MR, Venter P,Theron MM. Assessing food safety andassociated food handling practices instreet food vending. Int J Environ HealthRes. 2006;16(5):319–328.

13. Tester JM, Yen IH, Laraia B. Mobilefood vending and the after-school foodenvironment. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(1):70–73.

14. Taylor D, Fishell V, Derstine J. Streetfoods in America - a true melting pot. In:Simopoulos A, Bhat R, eds. Street Foods:World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics.Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 2000:25–44.

15. Cupers K. Tactics of mobility: thespatial politics of street vending in LosAngeles. Paper presented at: Urbanism &Urbanization Conference: A New Mod-ernity—Approaches Theories, and De-signs; August 31, 2006; University Iuavof Venice, Venice, Italy. Available at:http://www.iuav.it/Didattica1/SCUOLA-DI-/DOTTORATI-/urbanistic/eventi/U-U_2006_papers_collection.pdf. AccessedJuly 28, 2010.

16. Hedley AA, Ogden CL, Johnson CL,Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Flegal KM. Prev-alence of overweight and obesity amongUS children, adolescents, and adults,1999-2002. JAMA. 2004;291(23):2847–2850.

17. Simopoulos A, Bhat R, eds. StreetFoods: World Review of Nutrition and Di-etetics. Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 2000.

18. Wright R. Hawkers and walkers inearly America. In: Ward D, Zunz O, eds.Landscape of Modernity. New York, NY:Russell Sage Foundation; 1992:233–234.

19. Bluestone D. The pushcart evil. In:Ward D, Zunz O, eds. Landscape ofModernity. New York, NY: Russell SageFoundation; 1992.

20. French E. Push cart markets in NewYork City (US Dept of Agriculture, Agri-cultural Economics Bureau and the Portof New York Authority, March 1925). In:Ward D, Zunz O, eds. Landscape ofModernity. New York, NY: Russell SageFoundation; 1992:34–35.

21. Annual estimates of the populationfor incorporated places over 100,000,ranked by July 1, 2007 population: April

1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 (SUB-EST2007-01). Washington, DC: Population Divi-sion, United States Census Bureau; July10, 2008.

22. American Legal Publishing Corpo-ration [search engine]. Available at:http://www.amlegal.com. Accessed Sep-tember 29, 2010.

23. Municipal Code Corporation [searchengine]. Available at: http://www.municode.com. Accessed September 29, 2010.

24. IL Admin Code tit 77, x750.1550(2009).

25. Chicago, IL Code x4-8-030(b) (2008).

26. Chicago, IL Code x4-5-010(31)(2008).

27. Chicago, IL Code x4-244-120(2008).

28. Chicago, IL Code xx 4-244-020, 4-5-010(66) (2008).

29. Dallas, TX Code x17-8.2(g)(1)(2008).

30. Dallas, TX Code x17-8.2(c)(1)(B)(2008).

31. Dallas, TX Code x17-8.2(h)(2)(F)(iv)(2008).

32. Dallas, TX Code x17-8.2(h)(2)(B)(2008).

33. City of Dallas. Requirements formobile food vendors. Available at: http://www.dallascityhall.com/pdf/ehs/MobileFoodVendorRequirements.pdf.Accessed July 28, 2010.

34. Houston, TX Code, art II, div 1, x20-22(e)(1),(4) (2008).

35. Houston, TX Code, art XI, div 2, x40-269(b) (2008).

36. City of Houston, Mobile FoodService Units, xVIII. Available at: http://www.houstontx.gov/health/Food/MOBILEREQ.html. Accessed July 28,2010.

37. Houston, TX Code, art II, div 2, x20-37 (2008).

38. Houston, TX Code, art XI, div 2, x40-263(3) (2008).

39. City of Houston, Mobile Food Ser-vice Units, xXIV. Available at: http://www.houstontx.gov/health/Food/MOBILEREQ.html. Accessed July 28,2010.

40. Houston, TX Code, art XI, div 2, x40-263(2) (2008).

41. City of Los Angeles, CommunityDevelopment Department. Sidewalkvending program. Available at: http://



www.lacity.org/cdd/bus_side.html.Accessed July 28, 2010.

42. New York, NY, tit 24, Health Codex89.05(a)(2) (2008).

43. New York, NY, tit 24, Health Codex89.5(a) (2008).

44. New York, NY, Code x17-307(e)(2008).

45. New York, NY, Code x17-08(c)(1)(2008).

46. New York, NY, Code x17-308(c)(2)(2008).

47. New York, NY, Code x17-307(b)(4)(2008).

48. New York City Dept of Health andMental Hygiene. Eat Street Smart. 2008.Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/cdp/greencarts-brochure-online.pdf. Accessed July 27,2010.

49. New York, NY, Code x17-315(l)(2008).

50. New York, NY, Code x17-307(b)(4)(2008).

51. New York, NY, Code x17-307(b)(4)(e)(2008).

52. Philadelphia Dept of Public Health.Food safety for mobile food vendors:preparing and servicing safe food frommobile food vending units in Philadelphia.Available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/fslgrs/Retail/FY01/Philadelphia/VendorBrochure.pdf. Accessed July 28,2010.

53. Philadelphia, PA Health Code x6-301(3)(a) (2009).

54. Philadelphia, PA Health Code x6-301(8)(b) (2009).

55. Philadelphia, PA Code x9-203(3)(b)(2009).

56. Philadelphia, PA Code x9-205(8)(l)(2009).

57. Maricopa County Environmental.Health Code ch VIII, x3, reg (5)(e) (2007).

58. AZ Food Code x8-401.10 (2000).Available at: http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oeh/rs/pdf/fc2000.pdf. Accessed July28, 2010.

59. Phoenix, AZ Code art XIV, x10-162(A)to (B) (2009).

60. Phoenix, AZ Code art XIV, x10-162(F) (2009).

61. Phoenix, AZ Code art II, x31-24(5)(2009).

62. Phoenix, AZ Code art II x31-24(1)(2009).

63. Phoenix, AZ Code art XIV, x10-166(B)(2) (2009).

64. Phoenix, AZ Code art II, x31-24.1(c)(2009).

65. Phoenix, AZ Code art XIV, x10-166(B)(3) (2009).

66. Phoenix, AZ Code art II, x31-24(2)(2009).

67. San Antonio, TX Code art IV, x13-64(2) (2009).

68. San Antonio, TX Code art IV, x13-62(j) (2009).

69. San Antonio, TX Code art IV, x13-62(d) (2009).

70. San Antonio, TX Code art IV, x3-63(a)(10) (2009).



73. San Diego, CA Code xx42.0130 &42.0161(m) (2009).

74. San Diego, CA Code x42.0103(2009).

75. San Diego County Code x8 65.104& 65.106(a)(7)-(9) (2009).

76. San Diego, CA Code xx42.0101.2(2009).

77. County of San Diego, Dept of Envi-ronmental Health. Construction and op-erational guide for mobile food facilitiesand mobile support units. Available at:http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/deh/food/pdf/publications_plancheckmff.pdf.Accessed July 28, 2010.


79. San Diego, CA Code x54.0122(g)(2009).


81. CA Health & Safety Code x114295(West 2009).

82. CA Health & Safety Code xx113715,113725 (West 2009).

83. San Jose, CA Resolution 74981(2009).

84. San Jose, CA Code x6.54.270(2009).

85. San Jose, CA Code x6.54.240(1)(2009).

86. San Jose, CA Code x6.54.205(2009).

87. San Jose, CA Code x6.54.260(R)(2009).

88. San Jose, CA Code x6.54.240(2)(2009).

89. New York, NY Code x17-307(b)(4)(e) (2008).

90. Chicago, IL Code xx4-5-010(66)(2008).

91. Chicago, IL Code xx4-5-010(31) &(66) (2008).

92. City and County of San Franciscoand San Francisco Recreation and ParkCommission. Request for proposalsfor the operation of specialty food push-carts at various park locations citywide.Available at: http://sf-recpark.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/wcm_recpark/RFP/PushcartRFPFinal.pdf. Accessed July 27,2010.

93. Kansas City Parks and RecreationVending Policy. Available at: http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/parksandrec/documents/parksrecreation/012710.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2010.

94. CA Health & Safety Code x113713(West 2009).

95. TX Health & Safety Code Annxx437.002-437.0055 (Vernon 2009).

96. 25 TX Admin Code xx22.9.162(83)& 229.171(a)(1) (2010).

97. AZ Food Code x1-201.10(B)(69)(2000).

98. AZ Food Code x3-202.11 (2000).

99. CA Uniform Retail Food FacilityLaw x114265(h) (2010).

100. FDA Model Food Code, Preface x3(2005).

101. FDA Model Food Code x1-201.10(B) (2005).

102. NY Admin Code x17-306(a)(2008).


104. Houston, TX Code x20-22(f)(1)(2009).

105. New York, NY Code x17-307(b)(4)(e) (2008).

106. Jacobo F. Street vendors face longwait for permits. The Bronx Beat. April 19,2008. Available at: https://cranberry.cc.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer?childpagename=Bronxbeat08%2FJRN_Content_C%2FRW1StoryDetailLayout2&c=JRN_Content_C&p=1175373931411&pagename=JRN%2FRW1Wrapper&cid=1175374630808&site=Bronxbeat08.Accessed July 27, 2010.

107. New York City Dept of Health andMental Hygiene. Mobile food vendor

permit waiting list instructions. Availableat: http://home2.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/permit/permit1.shtml. AccessedAugust 24, 2009.

108. Philadelphia, PA Code x9-204(8)(2009).

109. Houston, TX Code x40-263(3)(2008).

110. Chicago, IL Code x4-244-147(2008).

111. Los Angeles, CA Code x42(m)(2)(B)(2008).

112. Los Angeles, CA Code x42(m)(7)(2008).

113. Los Angeles, CA Code x42(m)(12)(E) (2008).

114. San Jose, CA Code x6.54.240(1)(2009).

115. San Diego Code x42.0166(c)(2009).

116. Nutritional Labeling: GeneralGuidelines. Crookston, MN: AgriculturalUtilization Research Institute; 1996.Available at: http://www.auri.org/research-article.php?raid=43. AccessedJuly 27, 2010.

117. 21 CFR 101.65(d)(2) (2008).

118. New York City, NY. Local Law 9,2008. Amendment to Municipal Codex17-306. Available at: http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/textfiles/Int%200665-2007.htm. Accessed April 2, 2009.

119. New York City Dept of Healthand Mental Hygiene. NYC green cartsprogram. Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cdp/cdp_pan_green_carts.shtml. Accessed April 21,2009.

120. New York City Dept of Health andMental Hygiene. NYC green carts pro-gram areas. Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/cdp/green_carts_areas.pdf. Accessed April 1,2009.

121. Collins G. Customers prove there’sa market for fresh produce. New YorkTimes. June 11, 2009;A:24.

122. Levi S. Green cart proposal takes onHarlem health. Columbia Spectator. No-vember 30, 2008. Available at: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2008/02/01/green-cart-proposal-takes-harlem-health.Accessed July 27, 2010.

123. French SA. Pricing effects on foodchoices. J Nutr. 2003;133(3):841S–843S.



public health policy and mobile food vending

Documents