The rich eat almost as much junk food as the poor, study finds

No longer should we think of the poor as the junk food addicts of popular imagination. Following a £5m academic study, the Food Standards Agency, Britain's food watchdog, has concluded that people in the bottom 15 per cent of society eat pretty much as well – or, rather, as badly – as everyone else. The amount of fruit and vegetables, fat and fibre was only "slightly worse" than average.

Despite the perceived national lack of culinary skills, 91 per cent of women and 64 per cent of men said they could cook a meal from scratch. Moreover, diet was not affected by the fact that most people shopped in large supermarkets, undermining the theory that the disappearance of greengrocers has led to the creation of "food deserts" in inner cities.

During a 15-month period between November 2003 and January 2005, 3,728 children and adults took part in the study, the Low-Income Diet and Nutrition Survey, published today. Volunteers had a mean income of £201 a week and were selected on their overall pay, state benefits and living conditions.

Volunteers filled out food diaries for four random 24-hour periods and had their physical measurements noted and a blood sample taken by a nurse. (Researchers felt that taking a urine sample to measure salt would be too onerous.)

Like the rest of the population, the low earners were overweight, smoked too much, did too little exercise and did not eat enough fresh produce.

However, the low earners consumed less wholemeal bread and more sugary soft drinks, processed meat and sugar than average. They ate only two and a half portions of fresh fruit and vegetables, compared with the average of 2.8 portions and the target of five a day. Fat intake slightly exceeded, and intake of saturated fat more notably exceeded, the recommendation. Less than half ate enough fibre.

Sixty-two per cent of men and 63 per cent of women and more than a third of children were overweight or obese, in line with the general population, though there were more smokers – 45 per cent of men and 40 per cent of women. Most drank more alcohol than higher social groups, though twice as many were teetotal, perhaps reflecting the higher ethnic minority representation.

Poor people's average intake of vitamins – which are used to fortify bread and breakfast cereals – were close to the recommended level, apart from vitamins A and D. There were few noticeable regional or income differences.

Although bad in places, the overall picture was better than more general studies have indicated. Last year, the head of the FSA, Dame Deirdre Hutton, said that although spread across all social classes, poor diet was "particularly prevalent" among the lower socio-economic groups.

"The encouraging news from this research is that the gap between the diets of people on low incomes and those of the rest of the population is not as big as some had feared," said Rosemary Hignett, the FSA's head of nutrition.

"It is also positive that most people in this group say they feel confident about their cooking skills, have reasonable kitchen facilities and access to large supermarkets. However, the bad news is that this group – like the general population – are not eating as healthily as they could."

The FSA said that a lack of cooking skills appeared not to be a barrier to healthy eating but that people in all groups of the population were not choosing to eat as healthily as they should.

The study was carried out by King's College, London, the Royal Free and University College Medical School and the National Centre for Social Research.