Características e desigualdades do ambiente alimentar digital de Uberlândia, Minas Gerais

Abstract

Introduction: Food delivery platforms (FDP) are on the rise and connect consumers to multiple food establishments. The question is, however, which are the profile of these establishments and whether there are differences in their availability on the FDP according to the levels of neighborhoods social vulnerability. Objective: To characterize food establishments and to identify inequalities in their availability on the largest FDP in Brazil, in Uberlândia, Minas Gerais. Methods: Ecological, census and descriptive study. The units of analysis were neighborhoods (n = 74). Addresses of neighborhoods centroids were used in the automated data collection from establishments on the FDP. The establishments were classified as “establishments offering ultra-processed foods (UPF)”, “mixed” and “establishments offering unprocessed foods”. Neighborhoods were stratified according to the social vulnerability. Descriptive analysis to describe the distribution of establishments were performed and simple linear regression were carried out to evaluate the association between neighborhoods social vulnerability and the availability of establishments on the FDP. Choropleth maps were set up to represent the percentage of establishments physically located in neighborhoods and the percentage of establishments that delivered to each neighborhood, named capillarity. Results: In Uberlândia, 2,887 establishments were operating on the FDP. Of the total, 1,478 (51.2%) were offering UPF, 1,360 (47.1%) were mixed and 20 (0.7%) were offering unprocessed foods. Among those that were offering UPF, there was a predominance of snack bars (28.8%), açai stores (9.4%) and pizzerias (7.8%) and, among the mixed establishments, there were many restaurants (35.2%). Mixed establishments delivered to a greater number of neighborhoods and, therefore, they were the most available on the FDP, regardless of social vulnerability. The average number of establishments available on the FDP decreased as the social vulnerability of neighborhoods increased (p-trend < 0.05). Furthermore, the platform deliveried to all neighborhoods in the city, including those where physically there were no establishment operating through the FDP. Conclusion: The majority of establishments that were operating on the FDP were offering UPF. However, mixed ones were the most available on the FDP in the neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with high social vulnerability had a lower availability of all types of establishments on the FDP.