Consumer/Household Economics, Food Security and Poverty,

Dirkson, Margo

Godwin, Sandria L.

Speller-Henderson, Leslie

Tegegne, Fisseha

English

Research Papers in Economics

Food-Security Status and Food-Purchase Decisions of Low-
Income Households in Tennessee
Fisseha Tegegne, Sandria Godwin, Leslie Speller-Henderson, and Margo Dirkson
Food security remains a challenge in the U.S. An-
drews et al. (2000) reported that more than 30 mil-
lion Americans lived in households that were food 
insecure in 1999. A recent work by Nord, Andrews, 
and Carlson (2003) indicates that 11.2% of American 
households were food insecure at least sometime 
during the year. The authors note that this rate is 
not statistically different from what was observed 
for 2002 (11.1%). The percentage of those who are 
food insecure with hunger remained at 3.5% in 2003. 
According to Rowley (2000), food insecurity among 
households in the Southern region has consistently 
been above the national average since 1995.
Research by Siefert and Corcoran (2000) shows 
that an inadequate supply of food in households is 
signiﬁ  cantly associated with low energy, and low 
nutrient intakes having negative impact on health. 
Work by Godwin, Tegegne, and Speller-Henderson 
(2003) shows that the dietary status of non-proﬁ  t 
food-assistance recipients in Middle Tennessee 
leaves much to be desired.
A recent study by Leibtag and Kauﬁ  nan (2003) 
examined food purchase behavior of low-income 
households using national survey data. They note 
that “households can economize on food spending 
by purchasing more discounted products, favoring 
private-label (generic) products over brand, pursuing 
volume discounts, or settling for a less expensive 
product” (p. 1). Our study differs from the above 
study as it examines the issue of food-purchase deci-
sions of low-income households in relation to their 
food-security status using primary data. 
The objectives were to establish the food-security 
status of the households surveyed; to analyze the 
relationship between food-security status and food-
purchase decisions of the households; and to derive 
implications for households, food businesses, and 
policy makers.
Data and Methods
Participants were recruited by placing ﬂ  yers at 
various places such as neighborhood supermar-
kets, low-income housing, food pantries and Sec-
ond Harvest food-distribution centers. An incentive 
coupon worth $15, to be used for food purchases, 
was given to those who participated in the face-to-
face interview. A total of 85 people with an income 
of less than $25,000 from different racial and age 
groups were interviewed on the campus of Ten-
nessee State University. The interview lasted ap-
proximately thirty minutes and was conducted by 
personnel with experience in collecting data from 
this type of population.
The core USDA food-security module with eigh-
teen questions was used to collect the data, and the 
scoring system that accompanies it was applied to 
establish the food-security status of the households 
(Bickel et al. 2000). Data was also collected on 
the households’ demographic and socio-economic 
characteristics (Table 1). Data on the frequency of 
shopping practices of households involving various 
types of foods and issues affecting their purchase 
decision was also gathered (Table 2). Another set 
of data collected relates to households’ purchase of 
speciﬁ  ed food items during the month before the 
interview (Table 3). The data was analyzed using 
SPSS-PC.
Results
Sixty-ﬁ  ve percent of the households were found to 
be food secure with the balance (35%) being food 
insecure (Table 1). Females and those between 25 
and 50 years of age represented the vast major-
ity of the respondents both in the food secure and 
food insecure categories. A very high percentage 
of respondents were black. The survey also shows 
that the education level of the vast majority of 
respondents falls in the category of high school 
and below, and more than 50% of the respondents 
receive food stamps.
A comparison of the frequency with which the 
Tegegne is research associate professor , Institute of Agricultural 
and Environmental Research; Godwin is professor of Family 
and Consumer Sciences; Speller-Henderson is extension 
assistant professor; and Dirkson is a senior dietetics major, 
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Tennessee 
State UniversityTegegne et al. Food-Security Status and Food-Purchase Decisions of Low-Income Households  173
respondents reported various food-shopping prac-
tices is summarized in Table 2. Few signiﬁ  cant dif-
ferences were seen between those in the food-secure 
and food-insecure categories. The food insecure buy 
store brands more often than do the food secure (P 
< 0.05). Moreover, the food insecure also compare 
price per unit and use bonus cards more often than 
do the food secure. On the other hand, the food 
secure more often buy fruits and vegetables at the 
farmers’ market and roadside stands and purchase 
name-brand cereals than do those who are food in-
secure. Although not signiﬁ  cantly different, it was 
noted that persons in food-insecure households 
use shopping lists and plan meals around foods 
that are on sale, try new recipes, use bonus cards, 
and eat leftovers more often than do those classi-
ﬁ  ed as food secure. Food-secure respondents more 
frequently throw away food that has spoiled and 
use coupons.
Speciﬁ  c items purchased by food-secure and 
food-insecure individuals are shown in Table 3. 
Again, few signiﬁ  cant differences were found be-
tween the groups. More persons within the food-
secure category purchased frozen pizza, name brand 
cereal, head lettuce, and dry noodles/pasta. 
Discussion and Implications 
Results of the purchase decisions of the food 
insecure are largely consistent with what is ex-
pected—namely, they use various thrifty measures 
to economize their ﬁ  nancial resources to avoid hun-
ger. Their lack of fruit and vegetable consumption, 
however, represents a noticeable omission. The 
results show that food businesses can capture this 
group of customers by providing price and quantity 
discounts and by offering store brands for various 
food products.
The decision to purchase more fruits and 
vegetables (represented as “head lettuce”) by the 
food-secure households may reﬂ  ect their desire to 
eat healthy and diversify their consumption. Their 
choice of farmers’ markets and roadside stands re-
ﬂ  ect their preference for fresh produce at a relatively 
Table 1. Demographics of Respondents (%).
Attribute
Food secure
 (n=55)
Food insecure
 (n=30)
Total
 (n=85)
Gender
   Male 15 30 20
   Female 85 70 80
Age
   19–24 9 0 6
   25–50 67 73 69
   51–70 15 24 18
   71 or above 9 3 7
Racea
   White 11 37 20
   Black 85 57 75
   Other 4 6 5
Education completed
   Less than high school 44 23 36
   High school or GED 24 43 31
   Additional training 23 27 24
   College degree 11 7 9
Receive food stamps 58 53 56
a Signiﬁ  cantly different P < 0.05.Journal of Food Distribution Research 36(1) 174   March 2005
Table 2. Food Shopping/Usage Practices of Respondents (%).
Shopping practice
Food secure
 (n=55)
Food insecure
 (n=30)
Total
 (n=85)
Buy store brandsa
   Always/often 25 53 35
   Sometimes 64 40 35
   Rarely/never 11 7 9
Use shopping list
   Always/often 20 33 25
   Sometimes 34 37 35
   Rarely/never 46 30 40
Plan meals around sale items
   Always/often 14 20 16
   Sometimes 44 47 45
   Rarely/never 42 33 39
Eat leftovers
   Always/often 47 53 49
   Sometimes 44 33 40
   Rarely/never 9 13 11
Try new recipes
   Always/often 18 27 21
   Sometimes 51 53 52
   Rarely/never 31 20 27
Throw away food that spoiled
   Always/often 22 10 18
   Sometimes 44 33 40
   Rarely/never 34 57 42
Compare price per unita
   Always/often 29 60 40
   Sometimes 49 23 40
   Rarely/never 22 17 20
Use bonus cards
   Always/often 69 83 74
   Sometimes 16 7 13
   Rarely/never 15 10 13
Use coupons
   Always/often 34 27 32
   Sometimes 29 43 34
   Rarely/never 36 30 34
Buy produce at farmer’s marketa
   Always/often 24 3 16
   Sometimes 38 43 40
   Rarely/never 38 53 44
Purchase through food coop
   Always/often 0 7 2
   Sometimes 7 10 8
   Rarely/never 93 83 89
Buy foods that are in season
   Always/often 40 37 39
   Sometimes 38 43 40
   Rarely/never 22 20 21
aSigniﬁ  cantly different P < 0.05.Tegegne et al. Food-Security Status and Food-Purchase Decisions of Low-Income Households  175
Table 3. Percentage of Respondents Purchasing Speciﬁ  ed Food Items in the Previous Month.
Food item purchased
Food secure
 (n=55)
Food insecure
 (n=30)
Total
 (n=85)
Ground round 51 33 45
Ready-made patties 29 27 28
Chicken parts 76 70 74
Whole chicken 38 27 34
Boneless chicken breast 42 23 35
Chicken nuggets 45 50 47
Chuck roast 40 37 39
Steak 51 30 43
Sliced deli meat 60 57 59
Wrapped hot dogs 27 16 28
Precooked meat 13 23 16
Shrimp 27 10 21
Canned tuna 65 53 61
Frozen pizza 58 33 49a
Pre-peeled potatoes 20 10 16
Bag of whole potatoes  73 60 68
Instant potatoes 49 47 48
Store brand cereal 73 60 68
Name brand cereal 87 53 75a
Refrigerator breads 38 50 42
Dry noodles/pasta 85 67 79a
Toaster pastries/cereal bars 27 23 26
Premium pastries 42 50 45
Frozen dinners 14 7 12
Dried beans 65 53 61
Pre-cut salad 44 37 41
Head lettuce 64 40 55a
Pre-cut fruit/vegetables 42 47 43
Flavored milk 24 37 28
Frozen vegetables with sauce 33 23 29
Asparagus 11 13 12
Premium soups 34 23 30
Lunchables 42 40 41
Meal “kits” 24 20 22
Hamburger helper 47 53 49
Squeezable peanut butter/yogurt 14 20 15
Candy 74 73 73
Pre-sweetened drink mix 40 47 42
100% juice 85 73 81
Bottled water 60 60 60
Juice/drink boxes 51 33 45Journal of Food Distribution Research 36(1) 176   March 2005
low cost compared to supermarkets.
Given that the food secure are also in the low-
income category, their purchase decision involving 
products such as name-brand cereals, canned sodas, 
and bottled water does not represent optimal use of 
their limited income. Thus it is necessary to provide 
training that will promote wiser decisions regarding 
shopping for food. In addition, there is a need to 
encourage the food-insecure households to consume 
fruits and vegetables. Not only will this enhance 
their nutritional well-being, it will also provide op-
portunities both for small-business development and 
a niche market for fruit and vegetable producers. 
The public sector can also assist by supporting de-
velopment of farmers’ markets. Thus consumers, 
producers, and food businesses can all beneﬁ  t from 
the above changes. The ﬁ  ndings of this study are 
consistent with the national study by Leibtag and 
Kaufman (2003). 
References
Andrews, M., M. Nord, G. Bickel, and S. Carl-
son. 2000. “Household Food Security in the 
U.S.”Food Assistance and Nutrition Research 
Report, Number 8 (FANRR-8), Fall. Food and 
Rural Economics Division. USDA, Economic 
Research Service.
Bickel, G., M. Nord, C. Price, H. Hamilton and 
J. Cook. 2000. Guide to Measuring Household 
Food Security: Revised 2000, USDA/FNS, Of-
ﬁ  ce of Analysis Nutrition and Evaluation.
Godwin, S., F. Tegegne, and L. Speller-Hender-
son. 2003. “A Comparison of Household Food 
Security Status and Dietary Intake of Food Box 
Recipients in Middle Tennessee.” Journal of 
Food Distribution Research 34(1):1–6.
Leibtag, E. and P. Kaufman. 2003. “Exploring 
Food Purchase Behavior of Low-Income 
Households.” Agricultural Information Bul-
letin No. 747-0. USDA, Economic Research 
Service. June.
Nord, M., M. Andrews, and S. Carlson. 2003 
“Household Food Security in the United States, 
2003.” Food Assistance and Nutrition Research 
Report Number 42. FANRR-42. USDA, Eco-
nomic Research Service.
Rowley, T. 2000. “Food assistance Needs of the 
South’s Vulnerable Populations.” Southern 
Rural Development Center, Mississippi State 
University.
Siefert, K. and M. Corcoran. 2000. “Food In-
security and Welfare Reform.” In Executive 
Summaries of 2000 Research Grants, USDA, 
Economic Research Service.

A Comparison of Household Food Security Status and Dietary Intake of Food Box Recipients in Middle Tennessee.”

Exploring Food Purchase Behavior of Low-Income Households.”

Food assistance Needs of the South’s Vulnerable Populations.”

Food Insecurity and Welfare Reform.”

Guide to Measuring Household Food Security: Revised

Household Food Security in the U.S.”Food Assistance and

Household Food Security in the United States,

Food-Security Status and Food-Purchase Decisions of Low-Income Households in Tennessee

Food-Security Status and Food-Purchase Decisions of Low-Income Households in Tennessee

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics