Introduction

In the United States, approximately half of adults suffer from one or more chronic diseases [1]. An adequate amount of fruit and vegetable consumption is associated with reduced risk of common chronic diseases including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and certain types of cancers [2–5]. Over the last few decades, given the known benefits of adequate fruit and vegetable consumption, a major theme of U.S. dietary guidelines focused on increasing consumption of nutrient-rich foods, with an emphasis on dark green, orange, and red vegetable subgroups, along with peas and beans [6]. Despite its known benefits and continuous promotion on consumption of fruits and vegetables, very few Americans meet the recommended level of fruit and vegetable intake and there is a considerable variation on fruit and vegetable intake across the U.S. states [7]. There is debate about whether fruit juice should count towards fruit intake recommendations. While 100% fruit juice can be counted toward fruit intake [6], moderate consumption is recommended due to its low fiber and high sugar content, and its association with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes [8] and greater weight gain over time [9]. The proportion of state populations meeting recommendations varied from 7.0% (West Virginia) to 18.1% (District of Columbia) for fruits and from 4.7% (Louisiana) to 11.5% (Oregon) for vegetables [7].

Previous literature has identified three broad levels playing a critical role in fruit and vegetable consumption among the U.S. population; individual, local community and macro-levels [10]. According to the socio-ecological model, macro-level factors may have the most profound impact on fruit and vegetable consumption at the population level. The macro-level determinants of nutrition include social, historical, and political factors [11], and influence access to and availability of fruits and vegetables through food system and policy, agriculture, manufacture, distribution and cost. These factors also influence distribution of wealth and income within societies, private resources available to individuals [12], affecting distribution of poverty and food insecurity, ultimately, influencing population’s health, disease trends, and health behavior and dietary quality. Numerous previous studies have reported increasing disparities in fruit and vegetable intake across the socioeconomic strata in the U.S. [13], Korea [14], and Denmark [15]; however, limited evidence exists on the individual-level relationship between distribution of wealth and income and dietary behavior at societal level.

Income inequality has been identified as a risk factor of numerous health outcomes, such as mortality and self-rated health status [16–18]. Recent studies also have provided substantial evidence on the relationships between income inequality, chronic conditions, and health behavior [19, 20]. Specifically, a detrimental association between income inequality and health outcome was found in several ecological studies and a few longitudinal studies using large-area aggregate measures, such as country- or state-level income inequality. Specifically, among the developed countries, income inequality was significantly related to the prevalence of obesity both among men and women, diabetes mortality, per capital calorie consumption and mean Body Mass Index (BMI) [21, 22]. In the U.S., higher income inequality at the state level has been linked with increased prevalence of overweight/obesity, hypertension, sedentary behavior, and heart attack [19, 20, 23].

It has been widely accepted that distribution of wealth and income within the society affects population health by independently operating from the absolute position of an individual in social ladder [24]. Previous studies have found that societies with large social inequalities have significantly poorer health outcomes when compared to those with more egalitarian societies, even after controlling for area-level variables [23, 24]. Given these, a possible mechanism between income inequality and chronic diseases could potentially be the effect of health behaviors. We previously identified an association between income inequality with physical activity behavior among women in the U.S. [19]. Income inequality may also be associated with dietary intake, such as fruit and vegetable intake. In other words, income inequality might influence risk for obesity, heart attack and other chronic morbidities through dietary intake. A first step would be to identify an association between income inequality and dietary behavior, such as fruit and vegetable intake. In a recent study, researchers did not observe a significant relationship between income inequality and fruit and vegetable intake but these findings were observed among adults in Colombia [25]. Income inequality might be adversely associated with fruit and vegetable intake among adults living in higher socioeconomic countries.

There is growing evidence that income inequality at U.S. state-level is associated with chronic conditions. However, what has not been studied extensively is the association between the level of income inequality and health behaviors such as fruit and vegetable intake. Given that dietary intake is one of the risk factors for many chronic diseases, research is needed to determine whether income inequality affects fruit and vegetable consumption of individuals. If the income inequality is associated with lower fruit and vegetable consumption, then further understanding of the contextual pathways in which income inequality affects fruit and vegetable consumption would inform effective strategies and policies to improve Americans’ dietary quality. The purpose of this study is to examine the associations between state-level income inequality and frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption in the U.S. We used a cross-sectional study design and a population-based sample to test the hypotheses that income inequality at state level is inversely associated with fruit and vegetable consumption.

Methods

Results

The 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System dataset included 483,865 respondents from 50 states and the District of Columbia. All respondents with missing data on six-item fruit and vegetable frequency questionnaire and other covariates were excluded, yielding a case-complete dataset of 270,612 participants (55.9%). Those excluded were less likely to be white, female, older, and from urban settings.

The characteristics of the respondents with complete data are described in Table 1. Among the respondents, 39.7% were men. Most of the participants were white (78.8%), followed by Hispanic (7.9%), African American (8.4%), Asian (2.2%), Other (1.9%) and Native (0.8%). Of the respondents, 34.0%, 25.9%, 20.3%, 11.8%, 5.5%, and 2.5% were aged ≥65 years, 55–65 years, 45–54 years, 35–44 years, 25–34 years and 18–24 years, respectively. Household income level was distributed as 9.4% in ‘less than $15,000’, 15.5% in ‘$15,000 to $25,000’, 10.4% in ‘$25,000 to $35,000’, 14.1% in ‘$35,000 to $50,000’ and 50.6% in ‘greater than $50,000’, respectively. Over half of the population lived in urban settings (62.8%).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Characteristics of US adults participating in the 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n = 270,612) and US states (50 states and the District of Columbia).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238577.t001

The characteristics of the 50 States and District of Columbia are presented in Table 1. The mean, standard deviation, median, Interquartile Range, and range of the Gini coefficient are 0.45 (SD = 0.02), 0.45, 0.028, and 0.42–0.53, respectively. The state median income, proportion black, proportion poor, state population are $51,189 (SD = $8,524), 12.1% (SD = 11.1%), 14.8% (SD = 3.2%), and 6,053,834 (SD = 6,823,984), respectively.

The intercept-only multi-level models confirmed that there was significant variability on our outcomes of interest across US states. The overall predictive probability and the plausible value ranges are summarized in Table 2. For example, the intercept-only model indicated that the probabilities of adults consuming recommended amounts of dietary outcomes across the US states are as follows; 5%-15% for ≥5 times of fruits and vegetables daily, 21%-41% for ≥2 times of fruits daily, 10%-22% for ≥3 times of vegetables daily, and 72%-95% for fruit juice daily.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. The overall predicted probability of meeting fruits and vegetables dietary intake guidelines and fruit juice consumption across US states and the plausible value range, which describes the range within each the predicted probability varies across US states.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238577.t002

The results of analyses for the associations between income inequality and outcomes on fruit and vegetable consumption are presented in Table 3. Model 1 includes the individual-level covariates and state-level covariates. No significant relationship between income inequality and fruit and vegetable consumption was observed. For daily fruit juice intake, the model indicated for every increase in standard deviation of state Gini coefficient (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.03–1.11), there was an increased likelihood for daily fruit juice consumption. In model 2, the cross-level interaction of state income inequality and sex was tested. The results from model 2 indicated that, among women, a standard deviation in Gini coefficient was associated with a decreased likelihood to consume ≥5 times of fruits and vegetables daily (OR = 0.93; 0.87–0.99), ≥2 times of fruits daily (OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92–0.99), ≥3 times of vegetables daily (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89–0.96). The significant gender-income inequality cross-level interaction is displayed in Fig 1.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1.

Estimated proportion of women and men who consume a) 2 fruits a day, b) 3 vegetables a day, and c) Five Fruits and vegetables per day.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238577.g001

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Cross-sectional adjusted associations between income inequality and odds for meeting fruit and vegetables, fruit, vegetable recommendations, and daily fruit juice consumption among participants in the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238577.t003

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the gendered association between state-level income inequality and dietary behavior, particularly fruit and vegetable consumption. Using data from a nationally representative survey of the US adults, we observed that high income inequality was significantly associated with decreased odds of meeting fruit and vegetable recommendations among women. Also, as the level of income inequality increased, increased odds of drinking fruit juice were observed among the US adults. In addition, our study shows that there is no evidence of a significant cross-level interaction between income inequality and individual-level income; thus, the association between inequality and the odds of meeting fruit and vegetable recommendation or frequency of fruit juice did not differ across incomes among women.

Previous studies examining the relationship between income inequality and dietary behavior are sparse. However, the current study is consistent with studies suggesting income inequality is associated with other health behaviors such as physical activity [19] and dietary-related chronic conditions and diseases [19, 20, 23]. An ecological study conducted with 21 developed countries showed that income inequality was significantly related to obesity both among men and women, diabetes mortality and average calorie consumption per capita per day [21]. Studies utilizing individual-level data conducted within the U.S. have shown significant associations between state level income inequality and abdominal weight gain in men, increased odds of sedentary lifestyles among both men and women, and higher BMI among women [23, 34], and odds for not meeting physical activity recommendations among women [19]. In comparison to fresh fruit, fruit juice is more affordable, has a longer shelf life, and more likely to be available within corner stores. This might explain our observation that income inequality was associated with an increased likelihood for consuming fruit juice.

Our findings regarding the cross-level interaction of state-level income inequality and gender are noteworthy. Several studies in the past suggest that the effects of macro-level factors on health outcome may differ by gender [19, 23, 35, 36]. For example, empirical evidence indicates that the relationship between income inequality and obesity is stronger for women than for men [24]. The potential consequences and benefits of policies that drive income inequality might influence the dietary behavior of women more profoundly than it does for men. The inverse association between state-level income inequality and fruit juice consumption found in this study should also be highlighted. Previous literature found higher consumption of 100% fruit juice among lower income households and racial minorities [37], potentially driven by price, access, and insufficient reach of nutrition education efforts to warn consumers that fruit juice is not the best substitute for soda.

Two potential pathways may explain the association of income inequality and fruit and vegetable consumption among women. The first mechanism comes from a political aspect in which a society with greater income inequality tends to invest less on human capital and allocates less public funding for social goods such as education, health services, social welfare and food assistant programs [16, 38]. This may lead to adverse education, nutrition, and overall health outcomes, affecting disproportionately vulnerable populations such as women [16, 38]. In the US, social welfare policies are under the jurisdiction of the state. For example, welfare and SNAP benefits are distributed by each US state with variations in the administrative costs and participation rates across the US states [39]. If welfare and nutritional support is diminished, individuals and families from lower socioceconomic backgrounds may have less money and resources for nutritious and quality food. When individuals and families have little money and resources, they are more likely to afford food that is caloric dense food and unhealthy, over nutritious food such as fresh fruit and vegetables [40].

Furthermore, researchers have observed that U.S. states with greater income inequality had higher rates of unemployment, and had higher proportions of their population receiving income assistance and food stamps [41]. The U.S. had one of the highest poverty rates among developed countries, affecting more women than men and leading to greater prevalence of food insecurity among female-headed households [42, 43]. Households with food insecurity are reported to consume less fruits and vegetables than food secure households [10, 44]. It is possible that women living in the society with greater income inequality experience lower consumption of fruits and vegetables, due to higher prevalence of food insecurity in that population. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, are distributed by each U.S. state that provides food-purchasing assistance for low and no-income people [39]. Although research indicates that SNAP participants consume approximately the same amount of calories in comparison to higher income individuals and families, the food they consume is not necessarily healthy, choosing to eat foods high in starch, fat, and sugar, over fresh fruits and vegetables [40]. Researchers further explain this is due to SNAP participants having less money, and as a result eat fewer meals, which are less healthy, in order to compensate [40]. However, this cannot be the only explanation for the association between income inequality and fruit and vegetable consumption among women, since such association appears to be persistent even after carefully controlling for individual socioeconomic status.

Second, the association between income inequality and fruit and vegetable consumption among women can be explained by “psychosocial theory” of income inequality and health [24]. Income inequality has been hypothesized to lead to adverse mental health outcomes, such as psychosocial stress, which results from the shame, loss of self-respect and invidious social comparisons and through the erosion of social cohesion [22, 38, 45]. Wilkinson and Pickett argued that when the income gap between the rich and poor widens, it heightens feelings of insecurity and shame among members of society who are left behind [24]. For example, low social status could increase anxiety and stress levels and reduce people’s ability to exercise self-control over their lifestyle choices [21]. In response to psychosocial stress, men and women are known to perceive, react and cope with their social and physical environments differently [35]. Several studies have shown that women are at greater risk for depression in income inequality states and are more susceptible to stress-related disordered eating than men [36, 46, 47]. As a result of psychosocial stress stemming from living in areas with high income inequality, as part of a coping mechanism, women’s dietary behavior may be affected, resulting in less consumption of fruits and vegetables [21, 48, 49]. Combined, the results of the study warrant future investigation of the association between income inequality and fruit and vegetable consumptions stratified by gender. Such investigation should also incorporate analyzing the complexity of intersectionality that connect political, social, and psychosocial factors to explain a myriads of adverse health outcomes that impact individuals differently based on their social positions.

The results of this study should be interpreted with caution in light of the following limitations. First, measurement of the outcome was based on self-report, which is prone to misclassification due to recall bias. However, the extent that such misclassification should be unrelated to our exposure outcome; thus, the resulting bias is likely to have attenuated our results. Secondly, the difference between the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System module and other methods of dietary assessment should be considered. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System module assesses frequency of intake (times per day) rather than servings; thus it is insensitive to changes in serving size [50]. However, previous research has shown good agreement between the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System estimates and other methods of dietary intake, such as multiple diet records or recalls [51]. Third, in general, estimates of fruit and vegetable consumption from abbreviated food frequency questionnaires, such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System module, are lower than those from other methods of dietary assessment [50]. Estimates of fruit and vegetable consumption based on six-item food frequency questionnaires, used in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, are generally lower when compared to interviewer administered 24-hour recall, which provides better quality and a less biased data for a single day [52]. Fourth, fried potatoes, such as French fries, are excluded from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System module. The exclusion of fried potatoes could also contribute to lowering the estimates of overall intake compared with the modules that included these food items. Finally, since a large proportion of the sample were removed due to missing data, a selection bias could have been introduced. Therefore, estimates may be biased because our analytical sample disproportionately excluded males and individuals from lower household income backgrounds. This potential selection bias may explain insignificant associations between income inequality and fruit and vegetable intake among men.

In summary, this study demonstrates that state-level income inequality is a correlate of fruit and vegetable consumption among women. In more unequal states, women were significantly less likely to meet fruit and vegetable recommendations, and both men and women were more likely to drink fruit juice compared to their counterparts in more equal states. Research is needed to further examine the longitudinal relationship between income inequality and dietary intake, which will allow public health researchers to determine if this relationship is causal. Also, future research should explore the underlying pathways in order to gain a better understanding of the relationship between state-level income inequality and dietary behavior while paying attention to the moderating role of gender. For instance, further research is needed to understand the relationships of income inequality with state variations in food insecurity, food assistance policies and dietary behavior. Lastly, it is conceivable that consumption of fruits and vegetables not only functions as a dietary marker, but also infers the well-being of the population in terms of socioeconomic status, human capital and social prosperity. Taken together, this current study suggests that diet may be one of the mechanisms through which income inequality affects chronic conditions, particularly among women.

Acknowledgments

Ethics approval and consent to participate: The University of Nevada, Reno Institutional Review Board reviewed this project and has determined it is EXEMPT from IRB review according to federal regulations and University policy.