NUTRITION STANDARDS among low earners compared with the rest of the population are not as bad as once feared, according to a new report by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

A study of nearly 4000 respondents on lower incomes contradicts the common assumption that they have a significantly poorer diet - although it revealed high levels of obesity and low levels of exercise.

The respondents' diet choices were not linked to their income, their access to food stores or their cooking skills, the FSA said. Instead, it found that consumers in this group were simply choosing not to eat as healthily as they should.

Overall, they had higher levels of smoking and alcohol consumption and lower levels of physical activity than the population as a whole.

The Low Income Nutrition and Diet Survey studied the dietary habits of 3728 people who were in the bottom 15% of the population in terms of material deprivation.

Their diet-related problems were similar to those of the wider population. These included low fruit and vegetable consumption, not eating enough oily fish and eating too much saturated fat and sugar.

Obesity levels were also "very high" - but this was in line with the UK population as a whole. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of the women questioned were overweight or obese, compared with 62% of men, 35% of boys and 34% of girls.

However, some differences did emerge between the diets of low earners and the rest of the population.

People on low incomes were less likely to eat wholemeal bread, but were more likely to eat more processed meat. On average, they drank more sugary soft drinks and whole milk, and consumed more sugar.

As with the rest of the population, their average daily fruit and vegetable intake was below the recommended five portions. Fewer than 10% of respondents hit this target, while around 20% ate less than one portion per day.

The average fruit and vegetable consumption was 2.5 portions for women, 2.4 portions for men, two for girls and only 1.6 portions for boys.

Vitamin C levels among the lower-income group were at a decreased level compared with the wider population - possibly as a result of lower fruit and vegetable consumption and higher average smoking rates.

The respondents also had "very low" average oily fish consumption, with less than a quarter eating any at all during the year-long survey period. This contrasts starkly with the FSA's recommendation that all adults eat one portion of oily fish per week.

The FSA report also found that more than three-quarters (76%) of men and 81% of women did less than one 30-minute session of moderate or vigorous exercise per week. Of the over-19s questioned, 45% of men and 40% of women were smokers. This showed a marked increase from a survey of the general population conducted in 2003, which found 28% of men and 24% of women aged 20 and over smoked.

In a foreword to the study, FSA chair Dame Deirdre Hutton said: "The report highlights areas of concern for the low-income population which are, in many respects, similar to those already identified in the general population although often to a greater degree.

"Also identified were higher levels of smoking, increased alcohol intake amongst consumers and reduced physical activity, all of which are known risk factors for chronic disease."

The £5 million Low Income Diet and Nutrition Survey, commissioned by the FSA, was carried out between November 2003 and January 2005.

THE average per-household earnings of the respondents was £200 per week. But respondents were selected according to a number of factors, besides their income, which indicated material deprivation.

British Retail Consortium director general Kevin Hawkins said: "Over the past 30 years, consumers have spent less and less of their weekly income on food. Today an average trolley of food from the supermarket costs 7% less in real terms than it did in 2000 and 15% less than in 1990."

Julian Hunt, director of communications at the Food and Drink Federation, which represents manufacturers in the industry, said: "This important piece of research supports what many of us have long believed: that, while there is still room for improvement, the diet of those on lower incomes is not much worse than the general population.

"They have good access to a range of foods and they feel relatively comfortable about cooking."