A groundbreaking study has unveiled a compelling correlation: residents of lower-income areas and those living in regions without nearby food stores tend to consume more snacks and sweets than their counterparts in wealthier neighbourhoods or areas with abundant food stores. This study, conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan and the University of Alabama-Birmingham, provides a comprehensive overview of snack and sweet consumption patterns, including specific categories such as bakery sweets, candy and desserts, savoury snacks and crackers, nutrition bars, and low-fat snacks.
The research findings indicated a significant variance based on the availability of local food stores and income levels. Individuals residing in areas with numerous food stores consumed 9% fewer snacks and sweets in general, including 10% fewer sweet bakery products and 6% fewer candies and desserts than nearby food stores. Conversely, those living in the wealthiest neighbourhoods exhibited an 11% lower consumption of snacks and sweets overall, a 19% reduction in bakery products, and a 6% decrease in savoury snacks and crackers. Notably, higher-income households tended to consume more nutrition bars and low-fat snacks than those in lower-income brackets.
Interestingly, the study found no difference in snack consumption between individuals living in USDA-defined food deserts and those outside such areas, regardless of their income level. Ian-Marshall Lang, a researcher at U-M’s School of Kinesiology and the study’s lead author explained that the study did not explore the reasons behind these consumption patterns. However, he suggested that individuals in areas lacking food stores may purchase more shelf-stable items like snacks and sweets or shop at non-traditional outlets such as dollar stores, which typically offer fewer healthy choices.
Lang also pointed to previous studies that suggest the disparities in neighbourhood income might be due to factors like targeted marketing practices, higher pricing for healthy foods, fewer healthy food options in stores, and increased stress levels in lower-income areas.
According to Lang, these findings are pivotal for several reasons. Much of the existing research concerning the residential food environment and dietary habits focuses primarily on the consumption of fruits and vegetables and overall diet quality. However, there is a lack of detailed knowledge regarding the intake of snacks and sweets. This study’s size and innovative methodologies contribute significantly to filling these research gaps.
Lang also highlighted the surprising discovery that people in USDA-defined food deserts consume similar amounts of snacks and sweets as those not living in such areas. This discrepancy might be attributed to differing definitions of what constitutes a food store; the USDA typically recognises supermarkets, whereas Lang’s study considers a broader range of primary food retailers where the majority of U.S. households purchase their food, including supermarkets, supercentres, small grocery stores, fruit and vegetable markets, bakeries, convenience stores, and drug stores.
Looking ahead, these findings could significantly shape future interventions and programmes aimed at reducing snacks and sweets intake. As Lang underlines, the key lies in targeting areas devoid of primary food retailers, rather than just those lacking large traditional supermarkets. This strategic shift could pave the way for more effective and inclusive public health initiatives.
While this study did not specifically address the health implications of high snack and sweet consumption, Lang noted that prior research has linked such dietary habits to increased calorie intake and higher body weight in adults. He advocated for minor dietary adjustments, such as replacing calorie-dense snacks with more nutrient-rich options like fresh fruit, potentially enhancing public health.
More information: Ian-Marshall Lang et al, Intake of Snacks and Sweets in a National Study of Built and Social Environments: the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke Study, The Journal of Nutrition. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.05.017
Journal information: The Journal of Nutrition Provided by University of Michigan
