A link between low income, lack of grocery stores and the type of snacks and sweets people eat

People living in lower-income neighborhoods and areas without local grocery stores eat more snacks and sweets than those in higher-income areas and neighborhoods with many grocery stores, a new study shows. The findings are published in Journal of Nutrition.

Researchers at the University of Michigan and the University of Alabama-Birmingham looked at overall consumption of snacks and sweets, and four subcategories: bakery products; candies and sweets; snacks and crackers; and snack bars and low-fat snacks and desserts.

Findings include:

• People living in neighborhoods with many grocery stores ate 9% less snacks and sweets overall, 10% fewer sweet baked goods, and 6% less candy and sweets than people in neighborhoods without nearby grocery stores.
• People in higher income areas ate 11% less snacks and sweets in general, 19% less baked goods and 6% less savory snacks and crackers.
• Higher-income households ate more snack bars and low-fat snacks and desserts than lower-income households.
• People in USDA-designated food deserts ate the same amount of snacks as those not in USDA-designated food deserts, regardless of income.

Ian-Marshall Lang, a researcher in the UM School of Kinesiology and first author of the study, said his team did not examine the “why” behind the findings, but hypothesized that people in neighborhoods without grocery stores might buy more sustainable foods . like snacks and sweets, or buy food at less traditional grocery stores like dollar stores, which have fewer healthy options.

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

The findings are important for several reasons, Lang said.

“Much research on the residential food environment and dietary intake focuses on fruit and vegetable consumption and overall diet quality, leaving much less known about snack and dessert intake,” he said.

“Furthermore, US-based studies that have examined grocery store availability and adult snack and candy intake have been limited to selected cities and specific types of stores. The size of the study and the novelty of our methods help fill these gaps. in literature.”

Surprisingly, the study found that people living in food deserts designated by the USDA ate the same amount of snacks and sweets as people not living in food deserts. This may be because the USDA defines grocery stores as large supermarkets (Walmart, Meijer), while Lang’s study defines major grocery stores as places where 94% of American households do most of their food shopping, regardless of income. . It includes supermarkets, supercentres and selected food retailers (convenience stores, fruit and vegetable markets, bakeries, convenience stores and pharmacies).

“In identifying potential settings for future programming and interventions targeting snack and dessert consumption, it may be important to consider countries without primary food retailers (more broadly defined) rather than countries without large traditional supermarkets ,” Lang said.

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

“Although we did not look at the health impacts of snack and dessert consumption in this paper, we know from previous research that consumption of snacks and sweets like those examined in this study is associated with higher caloric intake and body weight in adults,” Lang said. “We also know that making even small positive dietary changes — like replacing a calorie-dense or sugary snack with a more nutrient-dense snack — like fresh fruit may have benefits for population health.

The study did not conclude a causal relationship between income and the availability of neighborhood grocery stores and food consumption. The 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 is located at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

Study co-authors include Natalie Colabianchi and Cathy Antonakos of the UM School of Kinesiology and Suzanne Judd of UAB.