A drop in family income does not lead to a cut in the amount of healthy food children eat, according to a new study.
The diets of all young children in Scotland deteriorated between the ages of two and five regardless of family income, a University of Edinburgh report found.
Researchers say the finding challenges the idea that a healthy diet is directly linked to income levels.
They found that perceived rather than actual changes in income were more likely to have an effect on the amount of unhealthy food a child eats.
Report author Dr Valeria Skafida, research fellow at the Centre for Population Health Sciences, said: "Changes in how parents felt about money were more strongly linked to their children's diets than their actual incomes.
"This could be because income is not evenly distributed within the home, or because it is perception of poverty rather than measured poverty that determines food choices."
The study, which used data from the Growing Up In Scotland survey, compared the diets of around 3,000 children at the ages of two and five and also tracked the income of their parents over the same period.
It found that at the age of two fewer than one in 10 (8.1%) drank soft drinks more than once a day, rising to three in 10 (28.7%) by the age of five.
One in 20 (6.4%) of the children never ate vegetables at the age of two, but this rate increased nearly five times (27.9%) by the time they turned five.
Researchers concluded this may be because children become more able to demand and reject foods as they grow up.
For parents whose financial situation changed from "feeling comfortable" to "finding it difficult" to cope as their offspring grew from age two to age five, children ate fewer varieties of fruit and vegetables, and ate crisps and sweets more often.
The findings are published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article