EAT FOR HEALTH Australian Dietary Guidelines

EAT FOR HEALTH – AusTRALiAn diETARy guidELinEs
104

• Consumption of milk and milk products increased slightly with social advantage – about a 10% increase across
the groups.

• Consumption of meat, poultry and game was slightly higher in the middle quintiles.

• Fish and seafood consumption increased with social advantage – this was thought to be due to better access
to seafood in coastal areas where cities are located, and the higher price of seafood products compared to
other foods^36 ).

• Consumption of sugar products and dishes tended to decrease with social advantage.

• Consumption of cereals and cereal-based foods (e.g. rice, pasta and breads) was lower in the most
disadvantaged group and the middle group compared with all other groups. Consumption of cereal-based
products and dishes (e.g. cakes and biscuits) was about 20% lower in the two most disadvantaged groups
compared with the other three.

In other more recent studies, higher occupation level is associated with consumption of cheese and skim milk and
higher education level is associated with consumption of cheese. There is also a significant positive relationship
between skim milk consumption and occupation level based on four individual studies.^991

nutrients

An assessment of energy and nutrient intakes across the SEIFA quintiles showed that energy intake increased
with social advantage, as did intakes of most nutrients.^990 However, when correcting for energy differences
across groups, few differences were apparent in dietary quality, defined as nutrient intake per unit energy.
Social advantage as indicated by SEIFA was positively associated with higher nutrient densities for iron, zinc,
magnesium and potassium and with intake of intrinsic sugars but inversely associated with energy from fat.^36

It is unclear from the published data whether other factors, such as the age profile, differed across the quintiles
of disadvantage and how much variation in factors such as age (which are known to influence total food intake)
might account for the differences that were apparent (e.g. in total energy intake). Physical activity may also vary
across quintiles.

Neither is it clear whether these relatively small differences in nutrient profiles could explain a significant
proportion of the variation in the health profiles across the groups. In interpreting the data set, however, it should
be borne in mind that a relatively crude, area-based measure of social disadvantage was used. It is also possible
that many of the most disadvantaged individuals in the community did not take part in the survey.

Table A2: Mean daily intakes of energy and nutrient densities, adults aged 19 years and over, by SEIFA quintile

Food group

First quintile

(most

disadvantaged)

Second

quintile

Third

quintile

Fourth

quintile

Fifth quintile

(least

disadvantaged)

Energy (MJ) 8.82 9.18 9.37 9.31 9.45

Nutrient density (per 10 MJ energy)

Protein (g) 98.2 98.4 98.5 98.6 99.4

Fat (g) 89.8 90.7 91.1 88.9 88.8

Saturated (g) 35.7 35.5 36.0 35.2 35.0

Monounsaturated (g) 32.5 32.8 33.4 32.4 32.3

Polyunsaturated (g) 13.5 13.5 13.9 13.4 13.4

Cholesterol (mg) 332 331 332 319 305

Total carbohydrate (g) 276 277 272 276 277

Sugars (g) 128 125 123 124 123

Starch (g) 147 150 148 151 152

Fibre (g) 24.4 24.4 24.9 25.2 25.6