IT SEEMS to make no difference whether you prefer pasta al dente to a chip butty, or guacamole to mushy peas. One of the biggest studies into the eating habits of Britain’s poorest families has gone against conventional wisdom by finding their nutritional intake is similar to the rest of the country.

Food experts have argued for years that the poorest families suffer from “food poverty”, meaning they consume less nourishing food than the better-off and are at greater risk of long-term health problems.

But the £5m study by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) – which looked at the eating habits of 3,500 people – found the nutritional value of the food eaten by the poorest 15% in society was little different from the average.

The study also found the rate of obesity, which has often been linked to poverty, was at a similar level among the poor as it is in the general population.

The poorest families were consuming similar amounts of saturated fat, but were eating slightly more sugar and slightly less fruit and vegetables.

Rosemary Hignett, head of nutrition at the FSA, said the research found no direct links between a poor diet and income, or access to shops or cooking skills. She said: “The gap between the diets of people on low incomes and those of the rest of the population is not as big as some feared.”

The study also found increasing awareness among lower-income families about the need to eat healthier food, with more than 75% of those surveyed saying they wanted to improve their diet. It is likely to be influenced by the wider availability and pro-motion of more nutritional food.

Another factor is likely to be the low cost of the weekly shopping basket of food compared with household income.

The findings are controversial, however, because they appear to contradict other research that has indicated a strong link between poverty and a poor diet.

Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, said: “It flies in the face of previous research showing social inequality having a direct impact upon health. But it can’t be dismissed because it’s a large and significant study and it shows that we are all eating just as bad a diet as each other.”

The findings will now be circulated to relevant government departments and agencies. They suggest any drive to improve the nation’s diet should be targeted at all social groups.

The Low Income Diet and Nutrition Study looked at shops used, eating habits, health and physical activity. Those surveyed were also questioned about their smoking and drinking habits.

Under the government’s dietary guidelines, 50% of intake should be comprised of carbohydrates, such as bread, potatoes and rice. In the study, the adult intake was about 48%, similar to the amount in the general population.

The study group were eating above the recommended levels of saturated fat, but their consumption – about 13% of energy intake – was similar to the general population.

The children were also similar to their more affluent counterparts, eating the same amounts of snacks and fizzy drinks.

Average consumption of fruit and vegetables was half the recommended five portions a day. This was slightly lower than in the general population.

The report suggested supermarkets – which typically set out fruit and vegetable displays near the entrance of stores – might in some ways be helping to improve the nation’s diet.

Researchers found women who shopped at large supermarkets consumed significantly higher amounts of fruit and vegetables than other women.

Food manufacturers are likely to cite the survey as evidence that they are not to blame for the nation’s poor diet, but that it is the result of personal choice.

Kevin Hawkins, director-general of the British Retail Con-sortium, said: “This confirms that British retailers have made healthy food accessible to families of all incomes.

“Today an average trolley of food from the supermarket costs 15% less [in real terms] than in 1990. Customers have a bigger food choice, including more healthy options.”

Those surveyed drank less frequently than the general population. However, they were more likely to smoke and took less exercise.

Dr Michael Nelson, a principal investigator for the FSA survey, said the results did not necessarily contradict other research. He said: “There are a number of small differences in the diets of those surveyed and the general population and they could have an impact on health.”

Times Recommends

• Everyone will get vaccine against swine flu
• Artificial sperm and the race to build a baby
• BBC staff lavished with trips to lobby for awards