Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-p6h7k Total loading time: 0.355 Render date: 2022-05-27T03:48:50.883Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Food budget standards and dietary adequacy in low-income families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2007

Katie Dick
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NN, UK
Bridget Holmes
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NN, UK
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Budget standards are specified baskets of goods and services which, when priced, can represent predefined living standards. ‘Low cost but acceptable’ (LCA) is a minimum income standard, adequate to provide warmth and shelter, a healthy and palatable diet, social necessities, social integration, avoidance of chronic stress and the maintenance of good health (physical, mental and social) in a context of free access to good-quality health care, good-quality education and social justice. The LCA food budget standard identifies a basket of foods and corresponding menus which provides (for a given household composition) a palatable diet that is consistent with prevailing cultural norms, and that satisfies existing criteria for health in relation to dietary reference values, food-based dietary guidelines and safe levels of alcohol consumption. Two previous studies that explored the relationship between diet and food expenditure in low-income households suggested that the amount spent on food was a good predictor of dietary adequacy, growth and health in children. The current paper will focus on diet and measures of deprivation in 250 low-income households in London. Households were screened for material deprivation (e.g. no car, no fixed line telephone, in receipt of Income Support) using a doorstep questionnaire. Diet was assessed using four 24 h recalls based on the ‘triple pass’ method. Expenditure on food and other aspects of household circumstances were assessed by face-to-face interview. Food expenditure in these households was characterized in relation to food budget standards. Further analyses explored the relationships between food expenditure and dietary adequacy, growth in children and measures of deprivation.

Type
Meeting Report
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2002

References

Chesher, A (1997) Diet revealed?: Semi-parametric estimation of nutrient intake age relationships. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 160A, 389420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health (1991) Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom.Report on Health and Social Subjects no. 41. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Friel, S, Nelson, M, McCormack, K, Kelleher, C & Thriskos, P (2001) Methodological issues using household budget survey expenditure data for individual food availability estimation: Irish experience in the DAFNE pan-European project. Public Health Nutrition 4, 11431148.Google ScholarPubMed
Gordon, D & Pantazis, C (editors) (1997) Breadline Britain in the 1990's. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Gordon, D & Townsend, P (editors) (2000) Breadline Europe. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Health Education Authority (1996a) Enjoy Healthy Eating. London: HEA.Google Scholar
Health Education Authority (1996b) Think About Drink. London: HEA.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1996) Household Food Consumption and Expenditure, 1995. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1997) Household Food Consumption and Expenditure, 1996. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1998) Household Food Consumption and Expenditure, 1997. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1999) Household Food Consumption and Expenditure, 1998. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Nelson, M (2000) Childhood nutrition and poverty. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 59, 307315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, M & Naismith, DJ (1979) The nutritional status of poor children living in London. Journal of Human Nutrition 33, 3345.Google Scholar
Office For National Statistics (1996) Family Spending 1995. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Office For National Statistics (1997) Family Spending 1996. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Office For National Statistics (1998) Family Spending 1997. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Office For National Statistics (1999) Family Spending 1998. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Orshansky, M (1965) Counting the poor. Another look at the poverty profile. Social Security Bulletin 28, 329.Google Scholar
Parker, H (editor) (1998) Low Cost but Acceptable: A Minimum Income Standard for Families with Children in the UK. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Parker, H (editor) (1999) Low Cost but Acceptable Incomes for Older People. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Paterakis, S & Nelson, M (1999) Household food survey and individual nutrition survey estimates of food availability in selected households. Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition 34, Suppl., 88S.Google Scholar
Prior, G, Teers, R, Brookes, M & Primatesta, P (2002) Health Survey for England 2000. Methodology and Documentation. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Trichopoulou A and members of DAFNE II (1998) Network for the Pan-European Food Data Bank based on Household Budget Surveys. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Veit-Wilson, J (1998) Setting Adequacy Standards. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Watts, H (1980) New American Family Budget Standards: Report by the Expert Committee on Family Budget Revisions. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Wynn, M (1970) Family Policy. London: Michael Joseph.Google Scholar
You have Access
13
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Food budget standards and dietary adequacy in low-income families
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Food budget standards and dietary adequacy in low-income families
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Food budget standards and dietary adequacy in low-income families
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *