A link between low income, lack of food stores and the types of snacks and sweets people eat

People who live in lower-income neighborhoods and in areas without local food stores eat more snacks and sweets than people in higher-income neighborhoods and in neighborhoods with many food stores, a new study shows. The findings are published in The magazine for nutrition.

Researchers from the University of Michigan and the University of Alabama-Birmingham looked at total snack and candy consumption, as well as four subcategories: bakery sweets; sweets and desserts; savory snacks and crackers; and nutrition bars and low-fat snacks and sweets.

Findings include:

• People living in neighborhoods with many food stores ate a total of 9% fewer snacks and sweets, 10% fewer sweet bakery products, and 6% fewer sweets and desserts than people living in neighborhoods without food stores nearby.
• People in the highest income areas ate a total of 11% fewer snacks and sweets, 19% fewer bakery products and 6% fewer savory snacks and crackers.
• Households with higher incomes ate more nutrition bars, low-fat snacks and sweets compared to households with lower incomes.
• People in USDA-defined food deserts ate as many snacks as those not in USDA-defined food deserts, regardless of income.

Ian-Marshall Lang, a researcher at UM’s School of Kinesiology and first author of the study, said his team did not investigate the “why” behind the findings, but hypothesized that people in neighborhoods without food stores might buy more shelf-stable foods . such as snacks and sweets, or purchase food at less traditional food stores such as dollar stores, which offer less healthy options.

“Our findings on neighborhood income can be explained by previous research showing that lower-income areas are unfairly exposed to more targeted marketing for snacks and sweets, higher prices for healthy foods, fewer healthy food options in stores and more stress,” he said .

The findings are important for several reasons, Lang said.

“Much of the research on the food environment and dietary intake focuses on fruit and vegetable consumption and overall diet quality, so much less is known about snack and sweet intake,” he said.

“Additionally, U.S. studies of food store availability and snack and candy intake among adults are limited to certain cities and specific store types. The scope of the study and the novelty of our methods help fill these gaps in the literature.” .”

Surprisingly, the study found that people living in USDA-defined food deserts ate the same amount of snacks and sweets as people who did not live in food deserts. This could be because the USDA defines primary food stores as major supermarkets (Walmart, Meijer), while Lang’s research defines primary food stores as places where 94% of U.S. households do most of their shopping, regardless of income. It includes supermarkets, supercenters and selected food retailers (small supermarkets, fruit and vegetable markets, bakeries, convenience stores and drugstores).

“When identifying potential settings for future programming and interventions that target snack and sweet intake, it may be important to consider places without primary food retailers (more broadly defined) rather than places that only lack large traditional supermarkets,” said Lang.

So what do these numbers mean in terms of healthy food choices and overall health?

“Although we did not look at the health effects of snack and candy consumption in this article, we know from previous research that snack and candy consumption, such as those examined in this study, is associated with higher calorie intake and body weight in adults,” said Lang. “We also know that even small, positive dietary changes, such as swapping a single-calorie snack or sweet for a more nutrient-rich snack, such as fresh fruit, can benefit people. public health.”

The study did not conclude that there is a causal relationship between income and the availability of nearby grocery stores and snack consumption. Researchers used data from 21,204 participants in the ongoing REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke study, which is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and housed at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

Co-authors of the study include Natalie Colabianchi and Cathy Antonakos of UM’s School of Kinesiology and Suzanne Judd of UAB.