The most direct consequence of unemployment is financial impoverishment. In a study of unemployed adults by Latalski et al., (Poland, 2003), most participants claimed that their income did not allow them to cover their basic needs. Managing a very limited budget, they had to give up buying new clothes, more expensive food and toilet items as well as spending money on cultural and leisure pursuits. They were unable to use paid medical services and to meet household payments deadlines. These consequences are borne not only by the unemployed themselves but also by their families. Those with school children had to cut their expenditures on education and in extreme cases the children were unable to attend school. These results indicate that poverty has a negative impact on many different spheres of family life and in the long run it has a negative impact on the life of the whole society. Poverty is both an immediate problem in terms of inadequate living standards and a long term issue regarding educational attainment, health status and job opportunities (Reynolds and O’ Dwyer, Ireland, 2002).
Food insecurity is associated with health problems for young, low-income children. Ensuring food security may reduce health problems, including the need for hospitalisation (Cook et al., USA, 2004). Economic inequality has been hypothesised to be a determinant of population health, independent of poverty and household income. Maternal education, basic housing conditions, access to health services, ethnicity, fertility, maternal age and diet composition were independently associated with stunting in young children (Larrea and Kawachi, Ecuador, 2005). Shields and Tanner (Australia, 2004) found that the costs for food and parking for one accompanying parent of a child to hospital can exceed Aus$200 per week. For parents of children admitted for long periods or those on low incomes and/or social security benefits, this would be a large proportion of their weekly income. In Ireland, an exceptional needs payment can be made in such circumstances.
The likelihood of reporting food insufficiency increased dramatically as income adequacy deteriorated. Individuals from food insufficient households had significantly higher odds of reporting poor/fair health, of having poor functional health, restricted activity and multiple chronic conditions, of suffering from major depression and distress, and of having poor social support. Individuals in food insufficient households were also more likely to report heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and food allergies (Vozoris and Tarasuk, Canada, 2003). These findings add to growing evidence that household food insufficiency is associated with poor physical and mental health (Siefert et al, USA, 2004, USA, 2001, Wehler et al., USA, 2004).
The dual burden of nutritional diseases encompasses the problems caused by malnutrition/micronutrient deficiencies and chronic, non-communicable diseases of adults e.g. obesity (Beaglehole, Switzerland, 2004). The highest rates of obesity in the United States occur among population groups with the highest poverty rates and the least education. The impact of socio–economic variables on obesity may be mediated, in part, by the low cost of energy dense foods. The observed inverse relationship between energy density of foods, defined as available energy per unit weight (kilocalories per gram or megajoules per gram) and energy cost (dollars per kilocalorie or dollars per megajoule) means that diets based on refined grains, added sugars and added fats (e.g. doughnuts) are more affordable than the recommended diets based on lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables and fruit. Taste and convenience of added sugars and added fats can also skew food choices in the direction of prepared and pre-packaged foods. Paradoxically, attempting to reduce diet costs may lead to increased energy intakes and obesity through the selection of energy dense foods (i.e. high fat and cheap foods). If higher food costs represent both a real and perceived barrier to dietary change, especially for lower income families, then the ability to adopt healthier diets may have less to do with psycho social factors, self–efficacy or readiness to change than with household economic resources and the food environment (Drewnowski, USA, 2004). In a study by Eikenberry and Smith (USA, 2004), fruit and vegetables were most often given as definitions of healthy eating, regardless of income, race or sex. Subjects said they eat healthily primarily for health, weight and family concerns. Almost half of the subjects indicated that time was a barrier to healthy eating, and more than one third cited money concerns.
Total food expenditures, expenditures at stores and expenditures in restaurants were lower among low–income households compared to other households according to Kirkpatrick and Tarasuk (Canada, 2003). Despite allocating a slightly higher proportion of their food dollars to milk products, low–income households purchased significantly fewer servings of these foods. They also purchased fewer servings of fruit and vegetables than did higher income households. The effect of low income on milk product purchases persisted when the sample was stratified by education, and expenditure patterns were examined in relation to income within the strata. Among low-income households, the purchase of milk products and meat (and alternatives) were significantly lower for households that had to pay rents or mortgages than for those without housing payments. However, social capital, particularly in terms of reciprocity among neighbours, contributes to household food security. Households may have similarly limited financial or food resources, but households with higher levels of social capital are less likely to experience hunger (Martin et al., USA, 2004).
A consensus has been forged in the last decade that recent periods of sustained economic growth and reduced poverty are closely associated with improvements in a populations child nutrition, adult health and schooling, particularly in low income countries (Schultz, USA, 2003). It has also been found that low-income pregnant women are aware of healthy behaviours and report practising them during their pregnancies (Lewallan, USA, 2004). Food insufficiency is not related to the overall variety of food consumed by young children in low – income families. Nutrition education and food assistance programmes are important factors in enhancing dietary variety (Knol, Haughton and Fitzhugh, USA, 2004).
Contents
Acknowledgements
Terms of reference
- - Background
- Overview of the Examination
- Key tasks
- Duration of the contract
- Deliverables
Introduction
Methodology
- - Overview
- Method
- The diets
- Data collection
Stage 1: examination of the cost of a healthy eating diet
- - Healthy eating diet
- Results
Stage 2: examination of the costs for specialised diets
- - Specialised Diets
- High Protein, High Calorie Diet
- Results of the High Protein, High Calorie Diet
- Gluten Free Diet
- Results of the Gluten Free Diet
- Low Lactose, Milk Free Diet
- Results of the Low Lactose, Milk Free Diet
- Liquidised (Altered Consistency) Diet
- Results of the Liquidised (Altered Consistency) Diet
- Low Protein, High Calorie Diet
- Results of the Low Protein, High Calorie Diet
- High Protein, Low Salt Diet
- Results of the High Protein, Low Salt Diet
- Modified Protein, High Calorie Diet
- Results of the Modified protein, high calorie diet
Discussion
Conclusions
Recommendations
References
