Sweet or Sour? Effects of income to expenditure on various

grocery categories in 1985-2012TITA research meeting 15.9.2016

Taru LindblomPost doc researcher, Economic Sociology, UTU

TITA WP 1.1 (Financial inequality)

Tackling Inequalitiesin Time of Austerity

1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 20120

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.263

0.229

0.1920.172 0.17 0.163 0.164

0.217

0.181 0.175

0.153 0.149 0.141 0.142

0.168

0.139 0.1360.121

0.112 0.11 0.115

Consumption expenditure shares of groceries on total expenditure 1985-2012

by income quintiles (unadjusted) %

Quint1 Quint3 Quint5

The share of disposable income spent on food has decreased significantly during the past decades in Finland. The disparities between the income groups have consequently diminished.

Still, the dietary patterns and grocery consumption expenditure vary greatly across socio-economic determinants

Several disadvantages are reflected through poor diet choices Only few studies assess several socio-economic position

indicators simultaneously Previous research shows mixed results: a) low income directs

towards cheaper calories, b) high education directs towards healthier options, c) the diet choices are a cumulative effect of both income level and education level. (Roos et al. 1996; Galobardes et al. 2001;Giskes et al. 2002; Monsivais & Drewnowski 2009)

The mechanisms for this behaviour have not been established, though.

Motivation

Sugars

Fruit & BerriesVegetablesMeat

Source: Lindblom, Taru & Sarpila, Outi (2014) Koulutus ja tulotaso vaikuttavat ruokailutottumuksiin. Hyvinvointikatsaus 4/2014. (”Education and income affect the

dietary habits”)

Combination of education and income has varying effects: educated group with lower income tend to emphasis lighter diet (more fruit, veggies and less fat); high income groups with lesser education consume more meat and fish. For sugary groceries the higher education groups consume same share independent of income level, whereas for lower education groups income is significant factor (neg. correlation) (Lindblom & Sarpila 2014)

Helsingin Sanomat 14.9.2016

1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 20120.07

0.075

0.08

0.085

0.09

0.095

0.1

0.095

0.082

0.096

0.091

0.096

0.09

0.0830.086

0.092

0.084 0.084

0.088 0.088

0.073

0.080.083

0.076 0.0750.078

0.083

Consumption expenditure shares on Sugars (of total grocery consumption expenditure excl beverages, unadjusted) 1985-2012

Tulokvint1 Tulokvint3 Tulokvint5Quint1

Quint3

Quint5

Increase of tax on sweets 1987

Tax on sweets 2011

Abolishment of tax on sweets 2000

How are the household’s grocery expenditure shares patterned according socio-economic determinants? Esp. such grocery categories that can be perceived

either healthy or unhealthy, such as vegetables and fruit on one hand, and sugar on the other hand, or socially prestigious, such as meat

How have the consumption expenditure shares (CES) of these categories developed during the past 30 years in Finland?

What kind of disparities can be found among the income (and other socio-economic) groups in terms of their grocery consumption shares ?

Research questions

Official Statistics Finland’s Household Budget Survey for years 1985–2012 (8 waves) (“kulutustutkimusaineisto Aikasarja II”)

Data

Groceries (dependent) Meat products, Vegetables, Fruit&Berries, Sweets Share of total household expenditure i.e. meat expenditure / total grocery expenditure

(exl. beverages) Income

Quintile groups based on the OECD-modified equivalised disposable income

Socio-economic variables (controls) Education level of HEH Age of HEH Household type

Measures

Trends for grocery category expenditures

1985-2012

1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 20120.06

0.065

0.07

0.075

0.08

0.085

0.09

Consumption expenditure shares on Fruit & Berries by income quintiles (adj*)

Quin1Quin3Quin5

%

*Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Fruit & Berries CES’s 1985Confidence intervals (95%)

Quint1 Quint3 Quint50.05

0.055

0.06

0.065

0.07

0.075

0.08

0.085

0.09

0.095

0.1

*Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type

1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 20120.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

0.12

0.13

Consumption expenditure shares on Veggies by income quartiles (adj*)

Quint1Quint3Quint5

%

*Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Veggies CES’s 2001Confidence intervals (95%)

Quint1 Quint3 Quint50.165

0.17

0.175

0.18

0.185

0.19

0.195

0.2

0.205

0.21

*Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type

1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 20120.17

0.18

0.19

0.2

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.24

0.25

Consumption expenditure shares on Meat by income quintiles (adj*)

Quin1Quin3Quin5

%

*Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Meat CES’s 2012Confidence intervals (95%)

Quint1 Quint3 Quint50.165

0.17

0.175

0.18

0.185

0.19

0.195

0.2

0.205

0.21

*Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type

1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 20120.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

0.12

Sugars (adj) by income quintiles

Quin1Quin3Quin5

%

*Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Sugar CES’s 1985Confidence intervals (95%)

Quint1 Quint3 Quint50.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

0.12

0.13

*Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Skipping the trends according education…

…but showing the latest CES’sMeat 2012 EDU

Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary0.13

0.14

0.15

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.2

0.21

0.22

*Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Veggies 2012 EDU

Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary0.08

0.085

0.09

0.095

0.1

0.105

0.11

0.115

0.12

0.125

0.13

*Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Fruit 2012 EDU

Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary0.065

0.07

0.075

0.08

0.085

0.09

0.095

0.1

0.105

*Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Sugar 2012 EDU

Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary0.08

0.085

0.09

0.095

0.1

0.105

0.11

*Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Sugar not the determinant for lower classes, rather the absence of healthy foods (veggies, fruit)

Meat still clearly for the upper income grops, but also for lower education groups. Q5 has diminished meat consumption share; Q1 and Q3 have fluctuated but now at the 1985 level

Determing the price level for studied categories proved difficult. Only rough estimates were used. Prices for meat products have in general increased within the past 10 years. Same with the sweets. Veggies, fruit and berries have become cheaper.

Conclusions

Individuals? Household level determinants a challenge when explaining

effects Total costs of food?

Low amount of money spent on food is associated with poor quality diets and is tied with economic constraints (e.g. Darmon et al. 2003)

Amount Expenditure share (euros) does not totally capture the balance of

healthy and unhealthy amounts consumed in one’s diet Access?

People (esp. lower SES) living in areas with less supply of healthy food options tend to follow more unhealthy diets (e.g. Ball et al. 2009)

Gender? Many studies verify the impact of gender for food choices (e.g.

Purhonen & Gronow 2014)

Future research avenues

Kiitos!

taru.lindblom@utu.fihttp://blogit.utu.fi/tita/

Consortium partners of TITA project