The diets of people on low incomes are not significantly worse than those of the rest of the population, according to ‘Low Income Diet and Nutrition Survey’ (LIDNS) published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) yesterday (16.7.07).
The research findings suggest that the diets of poorer people are the same as that of the general population, although in some aspects it is slightly less healthy.
However, these findings need to be set in the context of results from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey to be published later this year, which will show that most people across the nation are failing to meet dietary intake recommendations in most areas.
Before the LIDNS survey, involving more than 3,500 people and carried out over 15 months, there had been concern that the diets of people on low incomes were extremely poor. It had also been feared that factors such as restricted access to choice and a lack of confidence in cooking skills were preventing them from eating healthily. However, the Agency study identified no direct link between dietary patterns and income, food access or cooking skills.
The diet-related problems found to affect people on low incomes are in general much the same as those facing the population as a whole. They include not eating enough fruit and vegetables, not eating enough oily fish and consumption of too much saturated fat and sugar.
FSA Head of Nutrition Rosemary Hignett said: “The encouraging news from this research is that the gap between the diets of people on low incomes and those of the rest of the population is not as big as some feared. However, the bad news is that this group - like the general population - are not eating as healthily as they could be.”
The results were welcomed by the British Retail Consortium, whose director general Kevin Hawkins said: “This report confirms that British retailers have made healthy food accessible to families of all incomes. Over the past 30 years consumers have spent less and less of their weekly income on food. Today an average trolley of food from the supermarket costs 7% less in real terms than it did in 2000 and 15% less than in 1990.
“Customers have a bigger food choice, including more healthy options than ever. Educating consumers about what to do with that choice is now the key to improving the nation’s diet.”
However, speaking at a recent seminar on weight management organised by the Food and Dink Innovation Network, Dr Paul Clayton, who chairs the food group at the Royal Society of Medicine, said: “We’re fat, but at the same time, we’re undernourished and micro-nutrient starved.
“Our food intake has actually come down quite dramatically since the 1950s - we’re just not burning the energy off. We are really not designed to eat as few as 2,000 calories a day. It’s actually very hard to get all the nutrients you need if you eat so little. We are deficient in almost every nutrient we need, which is particularly worrying for children.”