It’s important for animal advocates to know why people choose the food they do. Previous researchers have emphasized the importance of looking at food choices across different groups (e.g., rural vs. urban residents). One important factor to consider is how income levels affect the decisions people make about food. 

In this study, researchers in South Africa talked to a variety of people from different income levels (high income, middle income, and low income) in 13 focus groups to find out what influences their food choices. 

When conducting the study, the authors noticed that the focus groups differed based on income group. For example, high- and middle-income participants mentioned more food drivers than low-income participants. Furthermore, focus groups with low-income participants tended to be shorter, which the authors explained by noting they had less to say. 

The authors revealed 17 major food drivers across the income groups. The following ten drivers were frequently mentioned across all or two out of three groups:

1. Price: Price was most important for those with low incomes. This group tended to ignore other factors (such as health) in order to purchase products they could afford. They also mentioned bargain hunting, comparing food prices, and purchasing in-season produce to save money.
2. Household preferences (including protein type): Across all groups (but especially the high- and middle-income groups), participants tended to choose food with their children in mind. Regardless of income level, there were participants who expressed the need to eat meat at every meal and those who felt that meat wasn’t necessary for protein. 
3. Personal values and food waste: Many participants valued “traditional” foods, while some high- and middle-income individuals discussed buying from trusted brands or things they knew how to cook. Regardless of income, participants tried to avoid food waste. 
4. Availability: For many low-income and some middle-income individuals, their food choices were limited based on the cooking devices in their home, their transportation access, and the time and resources needed to prepare certain meals. Low-income participants described having to rely on one type of nutrient-poor food for as long as possible to make their groceries last, which the authors point out puts them at risk for malnutrition.
5. Health: Most participants valued health in their food choices, but middle- and high-income participants described purchasing more expensive items for health reasons. High-income individuals were more likely to avoid certain unhealthy foods, follow special diets, and rely on health-oriented food labels. 
6. Familiarity and exploration: While some participants preferred foods they were familiar with, many individuals (but especially middle- and high-income people) liked to try new foods and recipes. The low-income group tended to avoid foods they weren’t sure how to prepare.
7. Sensory aspects: Taste is often cited in research as an important food choice driver, and this study was no different. Even low-income participants tried to find ways of making their affordable recipes taste better and would sometimes “splurge” on certain food items that they perceived to have a better taste than their usual foods (e.g., premium breakfast cereals). Meanwhile, high-income participants valued food presentation as much as taste. 
8. Mood: Across all income groups, many participants sought out sweet or oily foods or other “comfort foods” when they were in a bad mood. 
9. Weight management: Participants (especially in the high- and middle-income groups) tried to choose foods that would help them achieve weight loss. While low-income individuals also considered weight management in their food choices, the authors note that some low-income participants placed an emphasis on wanting to gain weight instead. 
10. Social media and other social influences: While participants didn’t rely on social media for food health and safety information, they did turn to social media for ideas on new foods to try. A few middle-income participants mentioned choosing foods that would help them fit in with a social group, while high-income participants described being conscious about food privilege in the face of wealth inequality. 

Other relevant factors mentioned by the participants included culture, beliefs, and religion; convenience; a food’s naturalness; food safety and spoilage; a desire to feel “full;” and choosing foods based on the context they were in. 

Of particular note for animal advocates, one category included ethical and environmental considerations. The authors found that low-income participants showed minimal concern for ethical and environmental aspects of food choices, due to personal challenges. Middle-income individuals hesitated to buy products that would harm the environment, while high-income participants were more attentive to these concerns, preferring biodegradable packaging and free-range animal products.

The authors point out that many of the drivers they identified in their research aren’t typically studied in conventional food choice questionnaires that prioritize basic factors like taste, price, and convenience. They also flag a few limitations of their study, such as the fact that they relied on a convenience sample and used a mix of online and in-person focus groups, which may have impacted the results. 

From an advocacy perspective, the findings underscore the need for tailored approaches to promote plant-based products across income groups. For example, affordability and accessibility seem to be most important for low-income individuals, but advocates should also help them prioritize their health (as this is important to them but is often disregarded due to price constraints). Meanwhile, personal values, trying new foods, and health seem to be the key considerations for middle- and high-income groups. 

In summary, a nuanced understanding of the distinct factors influencing each income group allows for targeted advocacy strategies, ultimately contributing to the broader goal of making plant-based products and alternative proteins more widely embraced across diverse socioeconomic contexts.