Who doesn't love snacking? Ninety percent of Americans eat at least three snacks a day. What you snack on matters, of course, and if you live in a lower income neighborhood with fewer local food stores, you're probably eating more unhealthy snacks than folks living in higher income areas with plenty of food stores.

The relationship between income, the availability of food stores carrying fresh foods and nutrition is well established. In fact, areas with limited options for fresh foods have been labeled “food deserts” by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But past studies have focused either on fruits and vegetable consumption or on the overall quality of diets, not exclusively on the intake of snacks and sweets.

Even though people living in USDA-defined food deserts ate the same number of snacks and sweets as people who did not live in food deserts — they ate less nutritious snacks.

A new study drills down into our snacking habits. Researchers at the University of Michigan and the University of Alabama-Birmingham looked at the amount of snacking participants did in general and also broke down snack consumption into four sub-categories: 1) bakery sweets, 2) candy and desserts, 3) savory snacks and crackers, and 4) nutrition bars and low-fat snacks and sweets.

Their information came from over 21,200 people who took part in the ongoing Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, which is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and based at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

They found:

  • Compared to people living in neighborhoods without food stores nearby, people in neighborhoods with many food stores ate 9 percent fewer snacks and sweets overall,10 percent fewer sweet bakery products and 6 percent fewer candy and desserts.
  • People in the highest income areas ate 11 percent fewer snacks and sweets overall, 19 percent fewer bakery products and 6 percent fewer savory snack and crackers than those living in food deserts.
  • Higher-income households ate healthier snacks like nutrition bars and low-fat snacks and sweets compared to lower-income households.

“Our neighborhood income findings may be explained by previous research showing lower-income areas are unjustly exposed to greater targeted marketing for snacks and sweets, high prices for healthy food, fewer healthy food options in stores, and greater stress,” first author, Ian-Marshall Lang, a researcher at Michigan's School of Kinesiology, said in a press release.

The study also reports that even though people living in USDA-defined food deserts ate the same number of snacks and sweets as people who did not live in food deserts — they ate less nutritious snacks.

“This could be because the USDA defines food stores as large supermarkets (for example, Walmart), whereas our study defines primary food stores as places where 94 percent of U.S. households do the majority of their food shopping, regardless of income,” Lang explained.

What is the upshot of their findings? Since it's known that snacks and sweets consumption is associated with higher calorie intake and body weight in adults, Lang says “We also know that making even small, positive dietary changes — like swapping a one-calorie-dense snack or sweet for a more nutrient-dense snack like fresh fruits — can have benefits for population health.”

Interested in healthier snack strategies? Try:

  • Cottage cheese
  • Nuts
  • Yogurt
  • Cucumber
  • Kale chips
  • Spiced chickpeas
  • Popcorn

The study is published in the Journal of Nutrition