The purpose of this study is to determine if healthier neighbourhood food environments are associated with healthier diet quality.

This was a cross-sectional study using linear regression models to analyse data from the Maastricht Study. Diet quality was assessed using data collected with a FFQ to calculate the Dutch Healthy Diet (DHD). A buffer zone encompassing a 1000 m radius was created around each participant home address. The Food Environment Healthiness Index (FEHI) was calculated using a Kernel density analysis within the buffers of available food outlets. The association between the FEHI and the DHD score was analysed and adjusted for socio-economic variables.

The region of Maastricht including the surrounding food retailers in the Netherlands.

7367 subjects aged 40–75 years in the south of the Netherlands.

No relationship was identified between either the FEHI (B = 0·62; 95 % CI = –2·54, 3·78) or individual food outlets, such as fast food (B = –0·07; 95 % CI = –0·20, 0·07) and diet quality. Similar null findings using the FEHI were identified at the 500 m (B = 0·95; 95 % CI = –0·85, 2·75) and 1500 m (B = 1·57; 95 % CI = –3·30, 6·44) buffer. There was also no association between the food environment and individual items of the DHD including fruits, vegetables and sugar-sweetened beverages.

The food environment in the Maastricht area appeared marginally unhealthy, but the differences in the food environment were not related to the quality of food that participants reported as intake.

In the Netherlands, various FFQs have been administered in large cohort studies, which hampers comparison and pooling of dietary data. The present study aimed to describe the development of a standardized Dutch FFQ, FFQ-NL1.0, and assess its compatibility with existing Dutch FFQs.

Dutch FFQTOOLTM was used to develop the FFQ-NL1.0 by selecting food items with the largest contributions to total intake and explained variance in intake of energy and thirty-nine nutrients in adults aged 25–69 years from the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (DNFCS) 2007–2010. Compatibility with the Maastricht-FFQ, Wageningen-FFQ and EPICNL-FFQ was assessed by comparing the number of food items, the covered energy and nutrient intake, and the covered variance in intake.

FFQ-NL1.0 comprised 160 food items, v. 253, 183 and 154 food items for the Maastricht-FFQ, Wageningen-FFQ and EPICNL-FFQ, respectively. FFQ-NL1.0 covered ≥85 % of energy and all nutrients reported in the DNFCS. Covered variance in intake ranged from 57 to 99 % for energy and macronutrients, and from 45 to 93 % for micronutrients. Differences between FFQ-NL1.0 and the other FFQs in covered nutrient intake and covered variance in intake were <5 % for energy and all macronutrients. For micronutrients, differences between FFQ-NL and other FFQs in covered level of intake were <15 %, but differences in covered variance were much larger, the maximum difference being 36 %.

The FFQ-NL1.0 was compatible with other FFQs regarding energy and macronutrient intake. However, compatibility for covered variance of intake was limited for some of the micronutrients. If implemented in existing cohorts, it is advised to administer the old and the new FFQ in combination to derive calibration factors.