Urban vs. Rural Socioeconomic Differences in the Nutritional Quality of Household Packaged Food Purchases by Store Type

Abstract

The U.S. food system is rapidly changing, including the growth of mass merchandisers and dollar stores, which may impact the quality of packaged food purchases (PFPs). Furthermore, diet-related disparities exist by socioeconomic status (SES) and rural residence. We use data from the 2010–2018 Nielsen Homescan Panel to describe the nutritional profiles of PFPs by store type and to assess whether these vary by household urbanicity and SES. Store types include grocery stores, mass merchandisers, club stores, online shopping, dollar stores, and convenience/drug stores. Food and beverage groups contributing the most calories at each store type are estimated using survey-weighted means, while the associations of urbanicity and SES with nutritional quality are estimated using multivariate regression. We find that households that are customers at particular store types purchase the same quality of food regardless of urbanicity or SES. However, we find differences in the quality of foods between store types and that the quantity of calories purchased at each store type varies according to household urbanicity and SES. Rural shoppers tend to shop more at mass merchandisers and dollar stores with less healthful PFPs. We discuss implications for the types of store interventions most relevant for improving the quality of PFPs.

Dietary Changes among Adults in The Netherlands in the Period 2007–2010 and 2012–2016. Results from Two Cross-Sectional National Food Consumption Surveys

“…In accordance, the Helsinki Health Study survey found that the difference in the consumption of fresh vegetables and fish, increased in favor of people with a higher education level, between 2000–2002 and 2007 [ 36 ]. Outside of Europe, disparities by income and educational level also widened for the purchases of fruits, vegetables and the percentage of calories from sugar between 2008 and 2018 [ 37 ].…”

Association of a Fruit and Vegetable Subsidy Program With Food Purchases by Individuals With Low Income in the US

“…On the basis of other ongoing work using large, national data sets on household purchases and nutritional label data at the barcode level, 31 , 32 we were also able to categorize every purchased item as a nonfood item (eg, toilet paper, magazine, or tobacco) or a food item. Among food items, we further examined 3 specific categories as being particularly relevant for health outcomes (eTable 1 in the Supplement ): (1) fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts; (2) less healthy foods including processed meats and processed seafood, desserts, sweet snacks, salty snacks, candy, chocolate, gum, sweeteners, and toppings; and (3) sugar-sweetened beverages.…”

The Retail Food Environment: Time for a Change

“…This Special Issue includes research designed to better understand consumer food shopping patterns, particularly across understudied populations. Original research by Lacko and colleagues [8] updates and extends prior work examining trends in grocery sales since 2012. The authors document the top sources of calories across different retail store types, break this down by urban or rural household residence and household income, and then examine the interaction between household income and urbanicity.…”