Context: Poor nutrition remains a significant public health concern in the United States, particularly in urban primary care settings. In these low-resource areas, poor nutrition can be attributed to a number of variables from the individual (i.e. a lack of knowledge regarding healthy foods) to the environmental (i.e. living in food deserts). Many nutrition interventions have attempted to address, from one-on-one individual counseling to prescription food programs for patients. We conducted a feasibility study with primary care and behavioral health providers in low-resource urban clinics to understand which style of intervention would be most useful, cost effective and acceptable among staff members. Objective: To access feasibility of different evidence-based nutrition interventions in primary care settings. Design: Qualitative. Setting: Primary Care Practices. Participants: Physicians, nurses, behavioral health providers and other clinical staff in primary care settings (n=7-8). Outcome Measures: n/a. Preliminary Results: Three major themes were identified: (1) Getting patients to eat healthy was a significant challenge and took a lot of their time, (2) Patients were often confused by health information on nutrition, (3) providers believed interventions focused on food accessibility and available would be most acceptable in their practices and with patients. Conclusions: Physicians were generally open to having a nutrition intervention in their clinics, as poor nutrition had a significant impact on patient’s health. They were particularly interested those that worked to change environmental variables like food access. Although this study has a very small sample size and is centered in a Midwestern independent metropolitan region, preliminary results do provide initial evidence that nutrition programs in primary care should emphasize access. Future study should expand the number of physicians and other providers interviewed in primary care settings and cover different metropolitan regions.