4.0 Article

Food consumption differences in Brazilian urban and rural areas: the National Health Survey

Journal

CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA
Volume 26, Issue -, Pages 3805-3813

Publisher

ABRASCO-ASSOC BRASILEIRA POS-GRADUACAO & SAUDE COLETIVA
DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232021269.2.26752019

Keywords

Food Consumption; Nutrition Surveys; Rural Area; Urban Area; Health status disparities

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study revealed that urban residents in Brazil tend to consume more fruits, vegetables, fish, and soft drinks, while rural residents tend to consume meat with excess fat and beans more. There are significant differences in food consumption habits between rural and urban areas, emphasizing the importance of implementing food policies that respect and value local culture and traditions.
This paper aimed to identify food consumption differences as per healthy and unhealthy diet markers among adults living in Brazilian urban and rural areas. A cross-sectional study was performed with data from the National Health Survey (2013). Diet was assessed by using healthy and unhealthy diet markers. Prevalence (%) was estimated, and sequential logistic regression models were adjusted to estimate odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (95%CI). Urban areas evidenced a higher consumption of fruits and vegetables, fish, soft drinks, and meal replacement by snacks, while rural areas showed higher consumption of meat with excess fat and beans. Adjusted analyses showed higher regular consumption of beans and meat with excess fat; and lower consumption of soft drinks, fruits and vegetables and meal replacement by snacks in rural areas compared to urban areas. Similar trends were observed in the macro-regions of the country. Food consumption differences among Brazilians living in rural and urban areas denote the importance of fostering food policies that respect and value food traditions and culture.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available