(P02-046-23) Environmental, Climate, and Health-Related Dietary Motivations and Associations With Dietary Quality in a National Sample of Low-Income US Adults

Objectives: Plant-rich diets can have co-benefits for human and planetary health. How environmental, climate and health concerns influence dietary intake in US adults is unknown, particularly for underserved populations vulnerable to effects of environmental risks. We assessed how such motivations vary with sociodemographic characteristics and how they relate to diet quality and intake of various protein sources in low-income US adults.

Methods: A web-based survey was fielded to 1798 low-income ( < 250% FPL) US adults in December 2022. Data were collected on dietary intake (PDQS-30), sociodemographics, agreement with dietary motivations (environment, climate, and health), and perceptions of climate change mitigation behaviors. Differences in mean dietary outcomes and dietary motivation rankings by sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated using ANOVA and Kruskall-Wallis tests. Associations between dietary motivations and dietary intake were examined using generalized linear models adjusted for sociodemographics.

Results: Younger adults, women and non-binary persons, racial and ethnic minoritized groups, and those with the lowest income ( < 100% FPL) and food insecurity reported higher environmental and climate dietary motivations; men, older, higher-income and food secure groups were more strongly motivated by health than other subgroups. Compared to those with neutral rankings, agreeing with environmental (β: 2.28, CI: 1.09-3.47), climate (β: 2.15, CI: 0.90-3.40), and health (β: 5.27, CI: 3.98-6.56) dietary motivations was associated with higher diet quality scores. Similarly, agreement with environmental, climate, and health dietary motivations was associated with 14-41% higher intake of fish, fruits and vegetables, and plant proteins, but not with red and processed meats. Of several climate mitigation behaviors presented, participants perceived meat reduction as least effective (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Environment, climate, and health were positive motivators of several healthy dietary choices in low-income US adults, but such motivators did not translate to lower consumption of red and processed meat, possibly due to underestimating the co-benefits of reducing red meat intake for human and planetary health.

Funding Sources: The University of Michigan Office of Research