ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To evaluate food consumption in Brazil by race/skin color of the population. METHODS Food consumption data from the Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares (POF – Household Budget Survey) 2017–2018 were analyzed. Food and culinary preparations were grouped into 31 items, composing three main groups, defined by industrial processing characteristics: 1 – in natura/minimally processed, 2 – processed, and 3 – ultra-processed. The percentage of calories from each group was estimated by categories of race/skin color – White, Black, Mixed-race, Indigenous, and Yellow– using crude and adjusted linear regression for gender, age, schooling, income, macro-region, and area. RESULTS In the crude analyses, the consumption of in natura/minimally processed foods was lower for Yellow [66.0% (95% Confidence Interval 62.4–69.6)] and White [66.6% (95%CI 66.1–67.1)] groups than for Blacks [69.8% (95%CI 68.9–70.8)] and Mixed-race people [70.2% (95%CI 69.7–70.7)]. Yellow individuals consumed fewer processed foods, with 9.2% of energy (95%CI 7.2–11.1) whereas the other groups consumed approximately 13%. Ultra-processed foods were less consumed by Blacks [16.6% (95%CI 15.6–17.6)] and Mixed-race [16.6% (95%CI 16.2–17.1)], with the highest consumption among White [20.1% (95%CI 19.6–20.6)] and Yellow [24.5% (95%CI 20.0–29.1)] groups. The adjustment of the models reduced the magnitude of the differences between the categories of race/skin color. The difference between Black and Mixed-race individuals from the White ones decreased from 3 percentage points (pp) to 1.2 pp in the consumption of in natura/minimally processed foods and the largest differences remained in the consumption of rice and beans, with a higher percentage in the diet of Black and Mixed-race people. The contribution of processed foods remained approximately 4 pp lower for Yellow individuals. The consumption of ultra-processed products decreased by approximately 2 pp for White and Yellow groups; on the other hand, it increased by 1 pp in the consumption of Black, Mixed-race, and Indigenous peoples. CONCLUSION Differences in food consumption according to race/skin color were found and are influenced by socioeconomic and demographic conditions. raceskin race skin population POF Survey 20172018 2017 2018 2017–201 analyzed items characteristics naturaminimally natura minimally ultraprocessed. ultraprocessed ultra processed. Mixedrace, Mixedrace Mixed race, gender age schooling income macroregion, macroregion macro region, region macro-region area analyses 66.0% 660 66 0 [66.0 95% 95 (95 62.4–69.6 624696 62 69 6 62.4–69.6) 66.6% 666 [66.6 95%CI 95CI CI 66.1–67.1 661671 67 66.1–67.1) 69.8% 698 8 [69.8 68.9–70.8 689708 68 9 70 68.9–70.8) 70.2% 702 [70.2 69.7–70.7. 697707 69.7–70.7 . 7 69.7–70.7)] 92 9.2 7.2–11.1 72111 11 13 13% Ultraprocessed Ultra 16.6% 166 16 [16.6 15.6–17.6 156176 15 17 15.6–17.6) 16.2–17.1, 162171 16.2–17.1 , 16.2–17.1)] 20.1% 201 20 [20.1 19.6–20.6 196206 19 19.6–20.6) 24.5% 245 24 5 [24.5 20.0–29.1 200291 29 20.0–29.1) (pp 12 1. beans hand peoples conditions 2017201 2017–20 66.0 [66. (9 62.4–69. 62469 66.6 66.1–67. 66167 69.8 [69. 68.9–70. 68970 70.2 [70. 69770 69.7–70. 69.7–70.7) 9. 7.2–11. 7211 16.6 [16. 15.6–17. 15617 16217 16.2–17. 16.2–17.1) 20.1 [20. 19.6–20. 19620 24.5 [24. 20.0–29. 20029 201720 2017–2 66. [66 ( 62.4–69 6246 66.1–67 6616 69. [69 68.9–70 6897 70. [70 6977 69.7–70 7.2–11 721 16. [16 15.6–17 1561 1621 16.2–17 20. [20 19.6–20 1962 24. [24 20.0–29 2002 20172 2017– [6 62.4–6 624 66.1–6 661 68.9–7 689 [7 697 69.7–7 7.2–1 72 [1 15.6–1 156 162 16.2–1 [2 19.6–2 196 20.0–2 200 [ 62.4– 66.1– 68.9– 69.7– 7.2– 15.6– 16.2– 19.6– 20.0– 62.4 66.1 68.9 69.7 7.2 15.6 16.2 19.6 20.0 62. 68. 7. 15. 19.
RESUMO OBJETIVO Avaliar o consumo alimentar no Brasil por raça/cor da pele da população. MÉTODOS Foram analisados dados de consumo alimentar da Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares 2017–2018. Alimentos e preparações culinárias foram agrupados em 31 itens, compondo três grupos principais, definidos por características do processamento industrial: 1 – in natura/minimamente processados, 2 – processados e 3 – ultraprocessados. O percentual de calorias de cada grupo foi estimado por categorias de raça/cor da pele – branca, preta, parda, indígena e amarela –, utilizando-se regressão linear bruta e ajustada para sexo, idade, escolaridade, renda, macrorregião e área. RESULTADOS Nas análises brutas, o consumo de alimentos in natura/minimamente processados foi menor para amarelos [66,0% (Intervalo de Confiança 95% 62,4–69,6)] e brancos [66,6% (IC95% 66,1–67,1)] que para pretos [69,8% (IC95% 68,9–70,8)] e pardos [70,2% (IC95% 69,7–70,7)]. Amarelos consumiram menos alimentos processados, com 9,2% das calorias (IC95% 7,2–11,1) enquanto os demais consumiram aproximadamente 13%. Ultraprocessados foram menos consumidos por pretos [16,6% (IC95% 15,6–17,6)] e pardos [16,6% (IC95% 16,2–17,1)], e o maior consumo ocorreu entre brancos [20,1% (IC95% 19,6–20,6)] e amarelos [24,5% (IC95% 20,0–29,1)]. O ajuste dos modelos reduziu a magnitude das diferenças entre as categorias de raça/cor da pele. A diferença entre pretos e pardos em relação aos brancos diminuiu, de 3 pontos percentuais (pp), para 1,2 pp no consumo de alimentos in natura/minimamente processados e as maiores diferenças remanescentes foram no consumo de arroz e feijão, com maior percentual na alimentação de pretos e pardos. A participação de alimentos processados permaneceu aproximadamente 4 pp menor para amarelos. O consumo de ultraprocessados diminuiu aproximadamente 2 pp para brancos e amarelos; por outro lado, aumentou 1 pp no consumo de pretos, pardos e indígenas. CONCLUSÃO Diferenças no consumo alimentar segundo raça/cor da pele foram encontradas e são influenciadas por condições socioeconômicas e demográficas. raçacor raça cor população 20172018 2017 2018 2017–2018 itens principais industrial naturaminimamente natura minimamente branca preta parda utilizandose utilizando se sexo idade escolaridade renda área brutas 66,0% 660 66 0 [66,0 Intervalo 95 62,4–69,6 624696 62 69 6 62,4–69,6) 66,6% 666 [66,6 IC95% IC95 IC (IC95 66,1–67,1 661671 67 66,1–67,1) 69,8% 698 8 [69,8 68,9–70,8 689708 68 9 70 68,9–70,8) 70,2% 702 [70,2 69,7–70,7. 697707 69,7–70,7 . 7 69,7–70,7)] 92 9,2 7,2–11,1 72111 11 13 13% 16,6% 166 16 [16,6 15,6–17,6 156176 15 17 15,6–17,6) 16,2–17,1, 162171 16,2–17,1 , 16,2–17,1)] 20,1% 201 20 [20,1 19,6–20,6 196206 19 19,6–20,6) 24,5% 245 24 5 [24,5 20,0–29,1. 200291 20,0–29,1 29 20,0–29,1)] pp, (pp) 12 1, feijão lado indígenas demográficas 2017201 2017–201 66,0 [66, 62,4–69, 62469 66,6 IC9 (IC9 66,1–67, 66167 69,8 [69, 68,9–70, 68970 70,2 [70, 69770 69,7–70, 69,7–70,7) 9, 7,2–11, 7211 16,6 [16, 15,6–17, 15617 16217 16,2–17, 16,2–17,1) 20,1 [20, 19,6–20, 19620 24,5 [24, 20029 20,0–29, 20,0–29,1) (pp 201720 2017–20 66, [66 62,4–69 6246 (IC 66,1–67 6616 69, [69 68,9–70 6897 70, [70 6977 69,7–70 7,2–11 721 16, [16 15,6–17 1561 1621 16,2–17 20, [20 19,6–20 1962 24, [24 2002 20,0–29 20172 2017–2 [6 62,4–6 624 66,1–6 661 68,9–7 689 [7 697 69,7–7 7,2–1 72 [1 15,6–1 156 162 16,2–1 [2 19,6–2 196 200 20,0–2 2017– [ 62,4– 66,1– 68,9– 69,7– 7,2– 15,6– 16,2– 19,6– 20,0– 62,4 66,1 68,9 69,7 7,2 15,6 16,2 19,6 20,0 62, 68, 7, 15, 19,