Food Acquisition in Poughkeepsie, NY: Exploring the Stratification of

“Healthy Food” Consciousness in a Food-Insecure City

Household food provisioningFive sequential domains : household acquisition, preparation, production, eating, and disposal of food.

Issues related to acquisition:•Socioeconomic resources: income, transportation.•Where people buy food: food access, store quality.•Roles of ethnicity and community in shaping acquisition preferences.Issues related to preparation and production:•Cooking skills and nutritional knowledge of household food preparer.•Infrastructure: refrigerators, ovens, microwaves, specialized equipment.•Ingredient choice, proportion size.Issues related to eating:•Culinary preferences, nutritional intake, dietary restrictions.•Scheduling of meals.

We examine acquisition, at the front of the household food provisioning chain.

Does social stratification lead to stratified consciousness?

Inequality Consciousness Behavior

Does social stratification lead to stratified consciousness?

• Cf. Bourdieu: habitus shaped by “objective” structures of domination• In political preferences: socioeconomic patterns of liberal-conservative

voting patterns (Thomas Frank), pro-choice/pro-life preferences (Kristin Luker).

• In social movements: participation positively associated with socioeconomic status.

Inequality Consciousness Behavior

Does social stratification lead to stratified consciousness?

• Cf. Bourdieu: habitus shaped by “objective” structures of domination• In political preferences: socioeconomic patterns of liberal-conservative

voting patterns (Thomas Frank), pro-choice/pro-life preferences (Kristin Luker).

• In social movements: participation positively associated with socioeconomic status.

• But in household food consumption?• Food(ie) activism: the racing and classing of farmers markets, CSAs, etc.• Health professionals address negative relationship between

socioeconomic status and food-related health disorders with education campaigns.

Inequality Consciousness Behavior

Food insecurity: three conditions

Food secure Food insecure…

…without hunger …with hunger

No food-access problems or limitations, or so few as to not affect diets or food

intake

Reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced

food intake.

Multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

Least severe health/nutrition risks <-----------> Most severe health/nutrition risks

Five hypotheses

H1: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to prefer food stores because they sell healthy food.

Five hypotheses

H1: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to prefer food stores because they sell healthy food.

H2: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that stay fresh longer.

Five hypotheses

H1: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to prefer food stores because they sell healthy food.

H2: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that stay fresh longer.

H3: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that are easy to prepare.

Five hypotheses

H1: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to prefer food stores because they sell healthy food.

H2: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that stay fresh longer.

H3: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that are easy to prepare.

H4: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to choose food items that are organic.

Five hypotheses

H1: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to prefer food stores because they sell healthy food.

H2: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that stay fresh longer.

H3: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that are easy to prepare.

H4: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to choose food items that are organic.

H5: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to look at food labels when shopping to find out if the item is nutritious or healthy.

The case study:Poughkeepsie, New York

The case study:Poughkeepsie, New York

Poughkeepsie United StatesRace/ethnicity White 48% 72% Black 36% 13% Hispanic 20% 16%Unemployment rate 12% 9%Median income $39,061 $52,762Poverty rate All residents 25% 14% Households with children 37% 20% Female-headed single parent 40% 29%

Seniors (age 65 or older) 15% 9%

Grocery stores within city limits

Grocery stores within city limits

Grocery stores outside city limits

Grocery stores outside city limits

The case study:Poughkeepsie, New York

The case study:Poughkeepsie, New York

The survey39-question survey administered between October 2010 and April 1212 via face-to-face structured interviews at residences in the City of Poughkeepsie.

From a random sample of 1500 addresses, 355 surveys were completed, generating a final response rate of 24 percent.

The final dataset was weighted to reflect the race, Hispanic ethnicity, and income distribution of the city’s population according to U.S. Census 2010.

Findings can be generalized to all City of Poughkeepsie households within a ±5.5 percent margin of error.

Independent variables: food security

USDA Household Food Security Scale Survey Questions1. In the last 12 months, did you or others in your household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food? [If "yes," ask question #2]2. How often did this happen? [Affirmative answers: "almost every month" and "some months but not every month"]3. In the last 12 months, did you or others in your household ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't enough money for food?4. In the last 12 months, were you or others ever hungry but didn't eat because there wasn't enough money for food?5. Please tell me whether this statement was often, sometimes, or never true for you or other members of the household in the past 12 months: "The food that we bought just didn't last, and we didn't have money to get more." [Affirmative answers: "often true" and "sometimes true"]6. Please tell me whether this statement was often, sometimes, or never true for you or other members of the household in the past 12 months: "We couldn't afford to eat balanced meals." [Affirmative answers: "often true" and "sometimes true"]

Food secure = answer 0-1 questions affirmativelyFood insecure without hunger = answer 2-4 questions affirmativelyFood insecure with hunger = answer 5-6 questions affirmatively

Poughkeepsie United States Northeast Metropolitan areas

Food secure 74% 86% 88% 85%

Food insecure without hunger

15% 9% 7% 9%

Food insecure with hunger 11% 5% 5% 6%

Margin of error for Poughkeepsie statistics: ± 5.5% (unknown for other columns).Source: Poughkeepsie Plenty community food assessment; USDA Economic Research Service 2011.

Independent variables: food security

Other IVs: group categories

Household income: “What annual income does your household fit into?” [$15,000 or less/More than $15,000 but no more than $34,000/More than $35,000 but no more than $49,000/More than $50,000 but no more than $99,000/$100,000 or more]

Household with children: “Are there children under age 18 living in your household?” [Y/N]

Respondent’s age: [Survey administered to “someone here over 18 who does most of the planning or preparing of meals in this household”]

Food stamps: “In the past 12 months, did (you/you or others in your household) get food stamp benefits—that is, either food stamps or a food- stamp benefit card?” [Y/N]

Hispanic: “Do you consider your household to be of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin? [Y/N/Mixed]

Black: “What race do you consider your household to belong to?” [White/Black/Asian or Pacific Islander/Other/More than one race]

H1: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to prefer food stores because they sell healthy food.

H1: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to prefer food stores because they sell healthy food.Indicator: “In choosing a store for most of the food you eat, how would you rate, 'Store has healthy foods’?” Dichotomously coded 1 = “very important” vs. 0 = “somewhat important”/“not too important”/“not at all important.”

H1: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to prefer food stores because they sell healthy food.

H1: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to prefer food stores because they sell healthy food.Indicator: “In choosing a store for most of the food you eat, how would you rate, 'Store has healthy foods’?” Dichotomously coded 1 = “very important” vs. 0 = “somewhat important”/“not too important”/“not at all important.”

Finding: no significant group differences in preferring food stores because they sell healthy food.

H2: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that stay fresh longer.

H2: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that stay fresh longer.Indicator: “When you choose types of food to buy, how would you rate: 'Food that stays fresh longer’?” Dichotomously coded 1 = “very important” vs. 0 = “somewhat important”/“not too important”/“not at all important.”

H2: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that stay fresh longer.

B Std. error

95% Wald CI Hypothesis testExp(B)

95% Wald CIFor Exp(B)

Lower Upper Wald Chi Square df Sig. Lower Upper

Intercept -.910 .1542 -1.212 -.608 34.817 1 .000 .403 .298 .545

Food insecure household .009 .1753 -.335 .353 .003 1 .959 1.009 .716 1.423

Household income <$35K .239 .1946 -.143 .620 1.504 1 .220 1.270 .867 1.859

Household with children .075 .1707 -.260 .409 .192 1 .661 1.078 .771 1.506

Respondent over 45 years old .037 .1717 -.300 .373 .045 1 .831 1.037 .741 1.452

Food stamps .217 .1908 -.157 .591 1.289 1 .256 1.242 .854 1.805

Hispanic .353 .2320 -.102 .808 2.317 1 .128 1.424 .903 2.243

Black .253 .1768 -.093 .600 2.049 1 .152 1.288 .911 1.822

H2: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that stay fresh longer.Indicator: “When you choose types of food to buy, how would you rate: 'Food that stays fresh longer’?” Dichotomously coded 1 = “very important” vs. 0 = “somewhat important”/“not too important”/“not at all important.”

Finding: no significant group differences in preferring food items that stay fresh longer.

H3: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that are easy to prepare.

H3: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that are easy to prepare. Indicator: “When you choose types of food to buy, how would you rate: 'Food that’s easy to prepare’?” Dichotomously coded 1 = “very important” vs. 0 = “somewhat important”/“not too important”/“not at all important.”

H3: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that are easy to prepare.

H3: Food-insecure households are more likely than others to choose food items that are easy to prepare. Indicator: “When you choose types of food to buy, how would you rate: 'Food that’s easy to prepare’?” Dichotomously coded 1 = “very important” vs. 0 = “somewhat important”/“not too important”/“not at all important.”

Finding: no significant group differences in preferring food items that are easy to prepare.Exceptions: (1) incomes <$35,000 and (2) black households are significantly more likely to prefer such food items.

H4: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to choose food items that are organic.

H4: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to choose food items that are organic. Indicator: “When you choose types of food to buy, how would you rate: 'Organic food’?” Dichotomously coded 1 = “very important” vs. 0 = “somewhat important”/“not too important”/“not at all important.”

H4: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to choose food items that are organic.

B Std. error

95% Wald CI Hypothesis testExp(B)

95% Wald CIFor Exp(B)

Lower Upper Wald Chi Square df Sig. Lower Upper

Intercept 1.429 .2343 -1.888 -.970 37.196 1 .000 .240 .151 .379

Food insecure household -.085 .3537 -.778 .608 .057 1 .811 .919 .459 1.837

Household income <$35K -.251 .3389 -.915 .413 .547 1 .459 .778 .401 1.512

Household with children -.066 .3081 -.669 .538 .045 1 .831 .936 .512 1.713

Respondent over 45 years old -.248 .3339 -.902 .407 .551 1 .458 .781 .406 1.502

Food stamps -.061 .3819 -.810 .687 .026 1 .873 .941 .445 1.988

Hispanic -.191 .5011 -1.173 .792 .145 1 .704 .826 .310 2.207

Black .034 .3331 -.618 .687 .011 1 .918 1.035 .539 1.988

H4: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to choose food items that are organic. Indicator: “When you choose types of food to buy, how would you rate: 'Organic food’?” Dichotomously coded 1 = “very important” vs. 0 = “somewhat important”/“not too important”/“not at all important.”

Finding: no significant group differences in preferring organic food items.

H5: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to look at food labels when shopping to find out if the item is nutritious or healthy.

H5: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to look at food labels when shopping to find out if the item is nutritious or healthy.

Indicator: survey question – “Do you look at the food labels to decide if the food is nutritious or healthy?” Dichotomously coded 1 = “always” vs. 0 = “sometimes”/“never.”

H5: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to look at food labels when shopping to find out if the item is nutritious or healthy.

B Std. error

95% Wald CI Hypothesis testExp(B)

95% Wald CIFor Exp(B)

Lower Upper Wald Chi Square df Sig. Lower Upper

Intercept -.790 .1650 -1.114 -.467 22.951 1 .000 .454 .328 .627

Food insecure household -.125 .2299 -.576 .326 .296 1 .587 .882 .562 1.385

Household income <$35K -.005 .2275 -.451 .441 .000 1 .982 .995 .637 1.554

Household with children -.175 .2119 -.591 .240 .685 1 .408 .839 .554 1.271

Respondent over 45 years old -.047 .2130 -.464 .371 .048 1 .826 .954 .629 1.449

Food stamps .144 .2453 -.337 .625 .345 1 .557 1.155 .714 1.868

Hispanic .373 .2741 -.164 .910 1.852 1 .174 1.452 .849 2.485

Black -.289 .2376 -.754 .177 1.475 1 .225 .749 .470 1.194

H5: Food-insecure households are less likely than others to look at food labels when shopping to find out if the item is nutritious or healthy.

Indicator: survey question – “Do you look at the food labels to decide if the food is nutritious or healthy?” Dichotomously coded 1 = “always” vs. 0 = “sometimes”/“never.”

Finding: no significant group differences in looking at food labels when shopping to find out if the item is nutritious or healthy

How to understand these findings?

• Could simply reflect methodological shortcoming: socially desirable response bias among participants.

• Recall that acquisition is at the front of the household food chain. Cognitive mechanisms at later stages of the chain may motivate patterns of unhealthy household food preparation and eating.

• But… food and dietary knowledge may not be as subculturally stratified as previously thought. Implication: an “educational” approach to food-security enhancement in urban areas may not be warranted.

• Perhaps the prevailing assumptions about about healthy eating consciousness speak more to the symbolic interests of “food activists,” foodies and other groups vying for cultural capital in the socioeconomic hierarchy.