Ann Arbor Times

People living in lower-income neighborhoods and areas without local food stores consume more snacks and sweets than those in higher-income areas with many food stores, according to a new study. Researchers from the University of Michigan and the University of Alabama-Birmingham examined overall consumption of snacks and sweets, along with four subcategories: bakery sweets; candy and desserts; savory snacks and crackers; and nutrition bars and low-fat snacks.

Ian-Marshall Lang, a researcher at U-M’s School of Kinesiology and first author of the study, noted that his team did not investigate “the why” behind these findings but hypothesized that individuals in neighborhoods lacking food stores might purchase more shelf-stable foods like snacks and sweets or buy food at less traditional outlets such as dollar stores, which offer fewer healthy options.

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

Lang emphasized the significance of these findings. “A lot of research on the residential food environment and dietary intake focuses on fruit and vegetable consumption and overall diet quality, leaving far less known about the intake of snacks and sweets,” he said. “Additionally, U.S.-based studies that have examined food store availability and intake of snacks and sweets among adults have been limited to select cities and specific store types. The size of the study and the novelty of our methods help fill these gaps in the literature.”

The study also found that people living in USDA-defined food deserts consumed the same amount of snacks and sweets as those who did not live in such areas. This discrepancy could be due to differences in how primary food stores are defined. While the USDA considers large supermarkets like Walmart or Meijer as primary food sources, Lang’s study includes various retailers where 94% of U.S. households do most of their shopping regardless of income.

“In identifying potential settings for future programming and interventions that target snack intake, it may be important to consider places devoid of primary food retailers (defined more broadly) rather than places only devoid of large traditional supermarkets,” Lang suggested.

Although this paper did not explore health impacts directly linked to snack consumption, Lang mentioned existing research associating high intake levels with increased calorie consumption and body weight in adults. He highlighted that small dietary changes—such as replacing a calorie-dense snack with a nutrient-dense option like fresh fruit—can benefit population health.

The study does not establish a causal relationship between income levels or neighborhood food store availability with snack consumption patterns. Data was sourced from 21,204 participants involved in the ongoing REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health at UAB.

The findings were published in the Journal of Nutrition. Co-authors include Natalie Colabianchi and Cathy Antonakos from U-M’s School of Kinesiology along with Suzanne Judd from UAB.