Employment Status among the Poor and Its Relationship with Diet

Abstract

ObjectiveThe working poor, those who live below the federal poverty line despite being employed, face unique challenges to acquiring and preparing healthful meals. The purpose of this study is to investigate differences in dietary intake frequency for five major food and beverage groups among the poor by employment status.MethodsIntercept surveys were collected in two cities in the Midwestern United States. Recruitment occurred in the summers of 2015 and 2016 in low‐income areas at community sites such as libraries, local Department of Jobs and Family Services, food pantries, and grocery stores. Data from 752 participants were collected. Those included in the analytic sample were: under 100% of the federal poverty line; not retired, disabled, students, or homemakers; and those with complete data for the analyses (n=304). Unadjusted and adjusted regression models were used to assess differences in daily intake frequency of fruit and vegetables, sugar‐sweetened beverages, fast foods, water, and energy‐dense snack foods by employment status (employed vs. non‐employed). Selected control variables (e.g., age, race, sex, education, poverty level, marital status, city, and governmental food assistance use) were included in adjusted models. SAS version 9.4 was used for all analyses.ResultsDaily intake frequencies for the five food groups studied did not differ significantly in unadjusted or adjusted models between the working poor (n=159) and the non‐working poor (n=145). Although observed differences were not statistically significant, the working poor had higher means for fruits and vegetables and water frequency (M=2.70 times per day (SD=2.17) vs. 2.42 (2.22) and 1.93 (1.14) vs. 1.75 (1.20), respectively), and lower means for sugar‐sweetened beverages, fast foods, and energy‐dense snack foods frequency (1.78 (1.76) vs. 2.14 (1.81), 1.63 (1.91) vs. 1.69 (1.87), and 1.57 (1.68) vs. 1.79 (2.01), respectively).ConclusionsThere were no statistical relationships for dietary intake frequency and employment status, suggesting that employment status and factors associated with employment (e.g., time constraints) did not significantly affect dietary behaviors in this sample. Troublingly, working poor and non‐working poor had low intake‐frequencies of fruit and vegetables, with means below current recommendations. More longitudinal research is needed to examine the impact that employment status has on low‐income households, such as those whose earnings are too little to easily support their family, yet are not income‐eligible for governmental assistance.Support or Funding InformationConAgra Foods Foundation and ProMedica's Ebeid Institute for Population Health