Filippo Oncini – PhD Student

Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Università degli Studi di Trento

Sitting at the (Inequality) TableClassi sociali e consumo alimentare in Italia

Contributi sociologici: i classici

• ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’ - Engels (1844)

• Booth (1886-1903), Rowntree (1908), Pember Reeves (1914)

• Bourdieu ‘La distinction’ (1984)

Literature review• Generalmente, le ricerche mostrano che lo status socio-economico è ancora oggi

determinante per indagare il consumo di alcuni alimenti (e.g. Darmon & Drwnoski, 2008);• Rilevanza del tema: obesità (definita la “epidemia globale” dalla WHO);

• Verdura, frutta, cibi biologici, pesce, carni bianche, prodotti integrali: upper Ses• Carne, junk food, fast food, pasta-pane-riso, legumi e patate: lower SeS

• Higher SeS = cibo più salutare, pochi grassi e pochi alimenti con contenuto chilocalorico elevato;

• Lower SeS = carne, grassi aggiunti, zuccheri

Quali problemi?• Variabili socioeconomiche: spesso trattate in modo troppo vago

(Lalluka et al., 2006; Braveman et al., 2003).• Il consumo di cibo deve essere considerato come un insieme di

pratiche (Warde, 2000). Molti dataset…ma informazioni tendenzialmente scarse.

• Quali variabili considerare? Status, classe, istruzione, reddito…

Dati e metodo• Multiscopo: 2003-2012 (Lavoratori: 25-55; N=156,169, 64% del

campione)• Variabili che riguardano il cibo: porzioni alla settimana;

trasformazione da ordinale a metrica per facilitarne l’interpretazione. • Variabili di controllo: classe sociale (6 categorie), livello di istruzione (4

categorie), bmi, stato civile, età, regione, sesso

Variables Original Cat. Transformed Cat.

Pane-pasta-riso, salumi, carne bianca, carne rossa, maiale, latte, formaggio, verdura in foglia, verdura in frutto, frutta, pesce, uova, snack, legumi, patate, dolci

1. Mai2. Meno di una volta a settimana3. Qualche volta alla settimana4. Una volta al giorno 5. Più di una volta al giorno

1. 0 portions2. 0.5 portions3. 4 portions4. 7 portions5. 12 portions

Soft Drinks

1. Mai2. Solo stagionalmente3. Più raramente4. 1-2 bicchieri al giorno5. Da mezzo a un litro al giorno6. Più di un litro al giorno

1. 0 portions2. 0.1 portions3. 0.4 portions4. 2.1 portions5. 3.5 portions6. 7 portions

Table 1. Ordinal to metric transformation. Occasional missing s treated as 0.

Figure 5. Food consumption trends. 2003-2012.

Figure 5. Food consumption trends. 2003-2012.

Costruzione delle variabili dipendenti: PCA

Variable CarniFrutta e verdura Square Dolci e Junk Latticini Base Uniqueness

Carni bianche 0.76 0.45

Carni rosse 0.82 0.37

Maiale 0.68 0.48

Verdure foglia 0.86 0.26

Verdura frutto 0.86 0.27

Frutta 0.60 0.60

Legumi 0.83 0.37

Uova     0.43   0.38   0.51

Patate 0.74 0.43

Snack 0.77 0.39

Dolci 0.71 0.47

Soft Drinks 0.61 0.63

Latte 0.82 0.37

Formaggio 0.71 0.41

Pasta-pane-riso 0.80 0.35

Salumi 0.48 0.52

Pesce -0.40 0.54 Table 5. PCA. Rotated factor loadings (promax). (Blanks represents loadings < 0.35).

Regressione OLS

Meat

Veg&Fru

Snack&Sweets

Square

Dairy

Essential

Fish

Controls

2005 0.01 (0.05) 0.15* (0.08) 0.07* (0.04) 0.05 (0.04) 0.03 (0.05) -0.11** (0.04) 0.03 (0.02)

2006 -0.08* (0.05) 2.55*** (0.08) 0.17*** (0.04) -0.10** (0.04) -0.15*** (0.05) -0.17*** (0.04) 0.04** (0.02)

2007 0.08 (0.05) 0.21*** (0.08) 0.17*** (0.04) -0.32*** (0.04) -0.24*** (0.05) -0.30*** (0.04) 0.06*** (0.02)

2008 0.07 (0.05) 0.18** (0.08) 0.20*** (0.04) -0.22*** (0.04) -0.23*** (0.05) -0.31*** (0.04) 0.00 (0.02)

2009 0.21*** (0.05) -0.17** (0.08) 0.32*** (0.04) 0.02 (0.04) -0.28*** (0.05) -0.32*** (0.04) 0.04* (0.02)

2010 0.18*** (0.05) -0.00 (0.08) 0.39*** (0.04) -0.07* (0.04) -0.20*** (0.05) -0.43*** (0.04) 0.06*** (0.02)

2011 0.13*** (0.05) -0.05 (0.08) 0.42*** (0.04) -0.09** (0.04) -0.33*** (0.05) -0.49*** (0.04) 0.05*** (0.02)

2012 0.10** (0.05) -0.21** (0.08) 0.19*** (0.04) -0.11** (0.04) -0.48*** (0.05) -0.72*** (0.04) -0.02 (0.02)

White Coll. 0.04 (0.04) 0.04 (0.06) 0.09*** (0.03) 0.13*** (0.03) 0.12*** (0.04) 0.12*** (0.03) -0.04** (0.02)

Pet. Agri. 0.60*** (0.10) 0.79*** (0.16) -0.04 (0.09) 0.72*** (0.09) 0.87*** (0.11) 1.12*** (0.08) -0.19*** (0.04)

Pet. Urban 0.25*** (0.05) 0.06 (0.08) 0.25*** (0.04) 0.30*** (0.04) 0.05 (0.05) 0.32*** (0.04) -0.01 (0.02)

W.C. Agri 0.12 (0.08) -0.16 (0.13) 0.08 (0.07) 0.80*** (0.07) 0.07 (0.09) 0.63*** (0.07) -0.20*** (0.03)

W.C. Urban 0.45*** (0.04) -0.12* (0.07) 0.47*** (0.04) 0.63*** (0.04) 0.21*** (0.05) 0.42*** (0.04) -0.07*** (0.02)

Low. Sec. 0.11** (0.05) 0.40*** (0.09) 0.30*** (0.05) -0.46*** (0.05) 0.42*** (0.06) 0.08 (0.05) 0.06*** (0.02)

Upper Sec. -0.05 (0.06) 0.83*** (0.10) 0.19*** (0.05) -0.61*** (0.05) 0.43*** (0.06) -0.05 (0.05) 0.19*** (0.03)

Tert. or high. -0.45*** (0.06) 1.53*** (0.11) -0.09 (0.06) -0.82*** (0.06) 0.54*** (0.07) -0.17*** (0.06) 0.26*** (0.03)

Married 0.45*** (0.03) 0.36*** (0.05) -0.17*** (0.03) 0.26*** (0.03) 0.29*** (0.03) 0.34*** (0.03) 0.05*** (0.01)

Div. or widow. 0.14*** (0.05) -0.33*** (0.08) -0.09** (0.04) 0.18*** (0.04) 0.16*** (0.05) -0.27*** (0.04) 0.03 (0.02)

Centre 1.14*** (0.03) 0.21*** (0.05) -0.49*** (0.03) 0.64*** (0.03) -0.12*** (0.04) 0.20*** (0.03) 0.43*** (0.01)

South 0.55*** (0.03) -1.09*** (0.04) -0.50*** (0.02) 1.42*** (0.02) -0.55*** (0.03) 0.07*** (0.02) 0.52*** (0.01)

Normal 18.5-24 0.30*** (0.06) 0.19** (0.10) -0.35*** (0.05) -0.02 (0.05) 0.24*** (0.06) -0.14*** (0.05) -0.02 (0.03)

Overweight 25-30 0.55*** (0.06) 0.11 (0.10) -0.44*** (0.05) -0.04 (0.06) 0.13* (0.07) -0.15*** (0.05) -0.02 (0.03)

Obese 31- 1.00*** (0.07) 0.12 (0.12) -0.34*** (0.06) -0.06 (0.06) -0.02 (0.08) -0.03 (0.06) -0.03 (0.03)

35-44 -0.56*** (0.03) 0.78*** (0.05) -0.88*** (0.03) -0.04 (0.03) -0.20*** (0.03) -0.27*** (0.03) 0.08*** (0.01)

45-55 -0.87*** (0.03) 1.72*** (0.06) -1.58*** (0.03) -0.02 (0.03) -0.48*** (0.04) -0.33*** (0.03) 0.13*** (0.01)

Female -0.66*** (0.03) 2.16*** (0.04) -0.40*** (0.02) -0.16*** (0.02) 0.87*** (0.03) -1.15*** (0.02) 0.01 (0.01)

Constant 8.70*** (0.09) 16.82*** (0.16) 5.74*** (0.08) 7.46*** (0.08) 8.70*** (0.11) 12.05*** (0.08) 2.15*** (0.04)

Observations 156,169 156,169 156,169 156,169 156,169 156,169 156,169

R-squared 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02

Risultati: classe e istruzione• Effetto classe sociale ≠ istruzione;• Tendenzialmente c’è coerenza con i risultati trovati in altri

paesi;• Effetto classe rimarrebbe al netto del reddito o dello status?• Ambiente rurale vs ambiente urbano?

Bourg.

White Coll.

Pet-Agri

Pet-Urb

Work-Agri

Work-Urb

0 .2 .4 .6 .8Meat Portions

primary or none

lower secondary

upper secondary

tertiary or higher

-.6 -.4 -.2 0 .2Meat Portions

Bourg.

White Coll.

Pet-Agri

Pet-Urb

Work-Agri

Work-Urb

-.5 0 .5 1Veg&Fru Portions

primary or none

lower secondary

upper secondary

tertiary or higher

0 .5 1 1.5 2Veg&Fru Portions

Carne Frutta e verdura

Fig. 1 Effetto Istruzione su Carne Fig. 2 Effetto Istruzione su Frutta e Verdura

Fig. 3 Effetto classe sociale su Carne Fig. 4 Effetto classe sociale su Frutta e verdura

Square Base

Bourg.

White Coll.

Pet-Agri

Pet-Urb

Work-Agri

Work-Urb

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Square Portions

primary or none

lower secondary

upper secondary

tertiary or higher

-1 -.8 -.6 -.4 -.2 0Square Portions

Bourg.

White Coll.

Pet-Agri

Pet-Urb

Work-Agri

Work-Urb

0 .5 1 1.5Dairy Portions

primary or none

lower secondary

upper secondary

tertiary or higher

-.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0 .1Dairy Portions

Fig. 5 Effetto Istruzione su Square Fig. 6 Effetto Istruzione su Base

Fig. 7. Effetto Classe sociale su Square Fig. 8. Effetto Classe sociale su Base

Bourg.

White Coll.

Pet-Agri

Pet-Urb

Work-Agri

Work-Urb

-.3 -.2 -.1 0 .1Fish Portions

primary or none

lower secondary

upper secondary

tertiary or higher

0 .1 .2 .3Fish Portions

Pesce

Bourg.

White Coll.

Pet-Agri

Pet-Urb

Work-Agri

Work-Urb

-.2 0 .2 .4 .6Snack&Sweets Portions

primary or none

lower secondary

upper secondary

tertiary or higher

-.2 0 .2 .4Snack&Sweets Portions

Dolci e junkEducation Education

Fig. 9 Effetto Istruzione su Pesce Fig. 10 Effetto Istruzione su Dolci e Junk

Fig. 11 Effetto Classe sociale su Pesce Fig. 11 Effetto Classe sociale su Dolci e Junk

E la spesa?

• Bisognerebbe considerare anche la spesa, non solo la quantità;

• Prezzo della carne: dipende da molti fattori (origine, taglio, etc.)

• E’ possibile ottenere una panoramica più dettagliata confrontando l’indagine Multiscopo con quella sui Consumi delle famiglie (2009);

• Dati e metodi: spesa mensile pro capite; adulti lavoratori 25-55 (N=9,619 - 42%). Confronto tra regressioni OLS: Bourgeoisie vs Working Class

Multiscopo vs Consumi delle famiglie (2009)

Variables Multiscopo Consumi

Freq. % Freq. %

Social Class

Bourgeoisie 2,811 16.5 1,652 17.2

White Collar 5,446 32.0 3,153 32.8

Agri. Pet-Bourg. 280 1.7 114 1.2

Urban Pet-Bourg. 2,189 12.9 1,116 11.6

Agri. Work. Class 462 2.7 185 1.9

Urb. Work. Class 5,823 34.2 3,399 35.3

Education

Primary or none 800 4.7 402 4.2

Lower secondary 7,217 42.4 4,249 44.2

Upper secondary 6,215 36.5 3,518 36.6

Tertiary or higher 2,779 16.3 1,450 15.1

Marital StatusSingle 5,096 30.0 1,914 19.9

Married 10,252 60.3 6,657 69.2

Divorced/Widowed 1,663 9.8 1,048 10.9

Region

North 7,899 46.4 4,557 47.4

Centre 3,160 18.6 1,668 17.3

South and Island 5,952 35.0 3,394 35.3

Age

24-34 4,651 27.3 1,463 15.2

35-44 6,408 37.7 3,830 39.8

45-55 5,952 35.0 4,326 45.0

Gender

Male 9,036 53.1 7,429 77.2

Female 7,975 46.9 2,190 22.8

Total 17,011 100.0 9,619 100

Table 8. Independent variables. Multiscopo 2009 and Indagine sui consumi delle famiglie 2009.

Figure 1. Bourgeoisie and Urban Working Class differentials in expenditure and quantity. Black=expenditure; Blue=quantity.

28

30

32

34

Exp

end

iture

35

36

37

38

39

Qu

antit

y

Bourg. Work-Urb

Meat

14

15

16

17

18

Exp

end

iture

16

17

18

19

20

Qu

antit

y

Bourg. Work-Urb

Snack&Sweets

22

23

24

25

26

Exp

end

iture

35.

53

63

6.5

37

37.

53

8Q

uan

tity

Bourg. Work-Urb

Dairy

28

29

30

31

32

33

Exp

end

iture

43

44

45

46

47

Qu

antit

y

Bourg. Work-Urb

Essential

1. Spesa e quantità differiscono

2. Solo una dimensione differisce

Figure 1. Bourgeoisie and Urban Working Class differentials in expenditure and quantity. Black=expenditure; Blue=quantity.

24

26

28

30

Exp

end

iture

76

77

78

79

Qu

an

tity

Bourg. Work-Urb

Veg&Fruits

91

01

11

21

31

4E

xpe

nd

iture

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3Q

uan

tity

Bourg. Work-Urb

Wine

3.6

3.8

44

.24

.4E

xpe

nd

iture

29

30

31

32

33

34

Qu

an

tity

Bourg. Work-Urb

Square

14

15

16

17

18

19

Exp

end

iture

10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

11

Qu

an

tity

Bourg. Work-Urb

Fish

Discussione (1)

• Taste of luxury and taste of necessity? (Bourdieu, 1983);• Brand of luxury and of necessity?

e.g. cibo biologico in UK (Wier et al., 2008)

Possibile spiegazione:

• Hard Discount: 0.7 to 1.2 incremento nei multinomial log-odds per la working class (Dove compri di solito pane, pasta, carne, verdura, pesce etc.?)

• Negozi tradizionali e mercato: -0.2 punti per la working class

Discussione (2)

• Pattern culturali di disuguaglianze sono ancora radicati nello status socio-economico; necessario capire meglio quali dimensioni siano più importanti;

• Necessarie variabili più dettagliate, sia nelle variabili dipendenti che in quelle indipendenti; considerare «l’intreccio» tra le pratiche alimentari:

1. Quantità e spesa nello stesso dataset; 2. Condimenti, tipi di cottura; 3. Food-styles (etnico, fast-food, vegano, macrobiotico…); 4. Trasmissione del gusto: ‘indelible mark of infant learning’ [Bourdieu, p.76]); 5. Mangiar fuori (Warde, 2000).

Grazie!

Bibliografia• Bourdieu, (1983). La distinzione. Critica sociale del gusto. Il Mulino.• Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M et al. (2005). Socioeconomic

status in health research: one size does not fit all. Journal of American Medical Association 294, 2879–2888.

• Darmon, N., & Drewnowski, A. (2008). Does social class predict diet quality? The American journal of clinical nutrition, 87(5), 1107-1117.

• Lallukka, T., Laaksonen, M., Rahkonen, O., Roos, E., & Lahelma, E. (2006). Multiple socio-economic circumstances and healthy food habits. European journal of clinical nutrition, 61(6), 701-710.

• Warde, A., & Martens, L. (2000). Eating out: Social differentiation, consumption and pleasure. Cambridge University Press.

• Warde, A. (2004). La normalità del mangiar fuori. Rassegna italiana di sociologia, 45(4), 493-518.• World Health Organization. (2000). Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic (No.

894). • Wier, M., O’Doherty Jensen, K., Andersen, L. M., & Millock, K. (2008). The character of demand in

mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared. Food Policy, 33(5), 406-421.