| Literature DB >> 35807811 |
Abstract
Dietary patterns in China have changed dramatically over the past few decades as the Internet has become rapidly available. Based on data from the China Health and Nutrition Survey (2006-2011), we use a two-way fixed effects model and an instrumental variable approach to determine the impact of Internet use on the dietary quality of rural residents. The results indicate that Internet use could significantly improve the dietary quality of Chinese rural residents, with an increase of about 10.4% in the China Food Pagoda Score (CFPS), mainly due to the increase in the dietary quality score for five food groups: fruits, meats, eggs, oil, and salt. We also found that Internet use significantly increased the consumption amounts of milk and its products (4 g), fruits (31 g), eggs (8 g), and vegetables (34 g), while also decreasing the intake of salts (2 g) and oil (6 g). A possible mechanism is that Internet use improves the dietary knowledge of rural residents, thus optimizing their dietary structure. Moreover, the effect of the Internet was greater among females and those who prepare food for a family. Rural residents without a college degree enjoyed more benefits. In summary, governments should further promote Internet penetration in rural areas for health purposes.Entities:
Keywords: dietary quality; fixed effect; instrumental variable; internet use; rural China
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35807811 PMCID: PMC9268265 DOI: 10.3390/nu14132630
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Figure A1Internet penetration rate in some countries (regions) from 1991–2020. Source: World Bank database, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS (accessed on 1 March 2022).
Chinese Food Pagoda Score (CFPS) for various calorie intakes.
| Food Group | Guideline | 1600 kcal | 1800 kcal | 2000 kcal | 2200 kcal | 2400 kcal | 2600 kcal | 2800 kcal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
| Score “1” | 250–400 | 175–225 | 200–250 | 225–275 | 250–300 | 275–325 | 325–375 | 350–400 |
| Score “0.5” | 88–175 | 100–200 | 113–225 | 125–250 | 138–275 | 163–325 | 175–350 | |
| Score “0.5” | 225–338 | 250–375 | 275–413 | 300–450 | 325–488 | 375–563 | 400–600 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Score “1” | 40–75 | ≥40 | ≥50 | ≥50 | ≥75 | ≥75 | ≥75 | ≥100 |
| Score “0.5” | 20–40 | 25–50 | 25–50 | 38–75 | 38–75 | 38–75 | 50–100 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Score “1” | 40–75 | 40–75 | 40–75 | 40–75 | 40–75 | 40–75 | 40–75 | 40–75 |
| Score “0.5” | 20–40 | 20–40 | 20–40 | 20–40 | 20–40 | 20–40 | 20–40 | |
| Score “0.5” | 50–75 | 50–75 | 50–75 | 50–75 | 50–75 | 50–75 | 50–75 | |
| Score “1” | 300 | ≥300 | ≥300 | ≥300 | ≥300 | ≥300 | ≥300 | ≥300 |
| Score “0.5” | 150–300 | 150–300 | 150–300 | 150–300 | 150–300 | 150–300 | 150–300 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Score “1” | 200–350 | ≥200 | ≥200 | ≥300 | ≥300 | ≥350 | ≥350 | ≥400 |
| Score “0.5” | 100–200 | 100–200 | 150–300 | 150–300 | 175–350 | 175–350 | 200–400 | |
| Score “1” | 40–50 | 15–65 | 25–75 | 25–75 | 50–100 | 50–100 | 50–100 | 75–125 |
| Score “0.5” | 8–15 | 13–25 | 13–25 | 25–50 | 25–50 | 25–50 | 38–75 | |
| Score “0.5” | 65–98 | 75–113 | 75–113 | 100–150 | 100–150 | 100–150 | 125–188 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Score “1” | 300–500 | ≥300 | ≥400 | ≥450 | ≥450 | ≥500 | ≥500 | ≥500 |
| Score “0.5” | 150–300 | 200–400 | 225–450 | 225–450 | 250–500 | 250–500 | 250–500 | |
| Score “1” | 25 | 15–25 | 15–25 | 15–25 | 25–35 | 25–35 | 25–35 | 25–35 |
| Score “0.5” | 8–15 | 8–15 | 8–15 | 13–25 | 13–25 | 13–25 | 13–25 | |
| Score “0.5” | 25–38 | 25–38 | 25–38 | 35–53 | 35–53 | 35–53 | 35–53 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Score “1” | 25–30 | ≤25 | ≤30 | ≤30 | ≤30 | ≤30 | ≤30 | ≤30 |
| Score “0.5” | 25–38 | 30–45 | 30–45 | 30–45 | 30–45 | 30–45 | 30–45 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Score “1” | 6 | ≤6 | ≤6 | ≤6 | ≤6 | ≤6 | ≤6 | ≤6 |
| Score “0.5” | 6–9 | 6–9 | 6–9 | 6–9 | 6–9 | 6–9 | 6–9 |
Notes: The calorie intake level is the upper bound for each interval. For example, individuals with a calorie intake lower than or equal to 1600 kcal are regarded as falling within the 1600 kcal group.
Figure 1Actual consumption of various food groups by rural residents in China (2006–2011). Source: Author calculated by CHNS.
Descriptive statistics of the variables.
| Variable | Definition | Mean | Std. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|
| CFPS | Chinese Food Pagoda Score | 3.19 | 1.18 |
| Internet | Whether use the Internet? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.07 | 0.25 |
| Age | Responder’s age | 45.34 | 8.91 |
| Edu. | Education level, 0 = Illiterate; 1 = Primary school; 2 = Junior high school; 3 = High school; 4 = Secondary specialized school; 5 = Junior college or university; 6 = Postgraduate or above | 1.74 | 1.20 |
| log(hhincome) | Annual household income (log-form) | 8.92 | 0.95 |
| Household size | Total household number | 4.01 | 1.54 |
| Activity intensity | 1 = very light; 2 = light; 3 = moderate; 4 = heavy; 5 = very heavy | 3.14 | 1.08 |
| Refrigerator | Has a refrigerator? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.60 | 0.49 |
| Pressure Cooker | Has a pressure cooker? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.51 | 0.50 |
| Car | Has a pressure car? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.08 | 0.28 |
| Moto | Has a pressure moto? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.48 | 0.50 |
| Agri-work | Percentage of household members participating in agricultural production (%) | 43.15 | 28.36 |
| Workout | Percentage of household members who leave the home for work (%) | 28.47 | 20.42 |
| Pave road | Connected to paved roads? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.72 | 0.45 |
| Num. free markets | Number of free markets in the village | 2.88 | 5.65 |
Impact of Internet use on dietary quality of rural Chinese residents.
| Dependent var. | CFPS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| [Mean] | [3.19] | ||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
| Internet | 0.3677 *** | 0.3400 *** | 0.3326 *** |
| (0.1170) | (0.1128) | (0.1126) | |
| Age | −0.0746 | −0.0758 | |
| (0.0983) | (0.0987) | ||
| Age2 | 0.0010 * | 0.0010 ** | |
| (0.0005) | (0.0005) | ||
| Edu. | 0.0387 | 0.0375 | |
| (0.0359) | (0.0362) | ||
| log(hhincome) | 0.0289 | 0.0279 | |
| (0.0303) | (0.0300) | ||
| Household size | −0.1017 *** | −0.1015 *** | |
| (0.0210) | (0.0211) | ||
| Activity intensity | −0.0052 | −0.0072 | |
| (0.0179) | (0.0182) | ||
| Refrigerator | 0.1081 * | 0.1126 * | |
| (0.0612) | (0.0614) | ||
| Pressure Cooker | −0.0239 | −0.0247 | |
| (0.0810) | (0.0809) | ||
| Car | −0.1213 | −0.1210 | |
| (0.0863) | (0.0868) | ||
| Moto | 0.0066 | 0.0052 | |
| (0.0423) | (0.0424) | ||
| Agri-work | 0.0048 *** | 0.0051 *** | |
| (0.0015) | (0.0015) | ||
| Workout | −0.0004 | −0.0006 | |
| (0.0015) | (0.0016) | ||
| Pave road | 0.0027 | ||
| (0.0383) | |||
| Num. free markets | 0.0064 ** | ||
| (0.0031) | |||
| Individual FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 |
Notes: ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. Robust standard errors are in parentheses and clustering is at the household ID.
Internet use effects on dietary quality scores of rural adults for various food groups.
| Dependent Var. | Milk and Its Products_ Score | Fruits_ Score | Legumes and Nuts_ Score | Meat and Poultry_ Score | Aquatic Products_ Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Mean] | [0.003] | [0.08] | [0.34] | [0.43] | [0.18] |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
| Internet | 0.0003 | 0.1006 ** | 0.0246 | 0.0805 ** | −0.0502 |
| (0.0055) | (0.0397) | (0.0506) | (0.0300) | (0.0439) | |
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Internet | 0.0791 ** | 0.0256 | 0.0514 | 0.1518 *** | 0.1045 ** |
| (0.0328) | (0.0264) | (0.0461) | (0.0200) | (0.0416) | |
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 |
Notes: *** and ** indicate significance at the 1% and 5%, respectively. Robust standard errors are in parentheses and clustering is at the household ID.
Internet use effects on food consumption amounts of rural adults for various food groups.
| Dependent Var. | Milk and Its Products | Fruits | Legumes and Nuts | Meat and Poultry | Aquatic Products |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Mean] | [1.93] | [43.25] | [46.84] | [71.80] | [19.03] |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
| Internet | 3.9745 * | 31.3773 * | −11.3289 | −9.7582 | −5.3423 |
| (2.1201) | (16.4657) | (7.2369) | (8.1868) | (4.0659) | |
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Internet | 7.6571 ** | −5.0877 | 33.6832 *** | −6.1190 ** | −1.8749 ** |
| (3.1644) | (17.9368) | (8.3880) | (2.8298) | (0.8694) | |
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 |
Notes: ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. Robust standard errors are in parentheses and clustering is at the household ID.
Diet knowledge.
| Do You Strongly Agree, Agree, Are Neutral About, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree with this Statement? | True or False |
|---|---|
| Choosing to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables is good for your health | TRUE |
| Eating more sugar is good for your health | FALSE |
| Eating different kinds of food is good for your health | TRUE |
| A high-fat diet is good for your health | FALSE |
| Choosing a diet with more staple foods (rice products, wheat products) is not good for your health | TRUE |
| Eating many animal products (fish, poultry, eggs, lean meat) every day is good for your health | FALSE |
| Reducing fat and animal fat in the diet is good for your health | TRUE |
| Drinking milk and its products is good for your health | TRUE |
| Eating beans and its products is good for your health | TRUE |
Mechanism test: Internet use, diet knowledge, and diet quality.
| Dependent Var. | DKS | Knew about Chinese Dietary Pagoda | CFPS | CFPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Mean] | [4.29] | [0.11] | [3.09] | [3.09] |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| Internet | 0.4980 * | 0.4020 *** | ||
| (0.2613) | (0.0941) | |||
| DKS | 0.0127 *** | |||
| (0.0043) | ||||
| Knew about Chinese dietary pagoda | 0.1877 ** | |||
| (0.0648) | ||||
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 3607 | 3398 | 3607 | 3398 |
Notes: ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. Robust standard errors are in parentheses and clustering is at the household ID.
Heterogeneous effects of Internet use on diet quality.
| Dependent Var. | CFPS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Mean] | [3.19] | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| Internet | 0.4703 *** | 0.7676 *** | 0.5980 * | 0.4881 *** |
| (0.1536) | (0.2162) | (0.2846) | (0.1270) | |
| Internet × Female | 0.2734 * | |||
| (0.1523) | ||||
| Internet × Cook | 0.5163 ** | |||
| (0.2468) | ||||
| Internet × High edu | −0.3915 * | |||
| (0.1847) | ||||
| Internet × High income | −0.3059 | |||
| (0.2606) | ||||
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 | 3607 |
Notes: ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. Robust standard errors are in parentheses and clustering is at the household ID.
Impact of Internet use on dietary quality of rural Chinese residents: results of 2SLS method.
| 2nd Stage Regression | Dependent Var.: CFPS | |
|---|---|---|
| [Mean] | [3.19] | |
| (1) | (2) | |
| Internet | 0.8994 * | 0. 7861 *** |
| (0.5227) | (0.1751) | |
| Control variables | No | Yes |
| Individual FE | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| |
| Computer (Yes = 1, No = 0) | 0.1098 *** | 0.1101 *** |
| (0.0132) | (0.0134) | |
| Control variables | No | Yes |
| Individual FE | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes |
| F-value | 17.72 | 13.52 |
| Observations | 3607 | 3607 |
Notes: *** and * indicate significance at the 1% and 10% levels, respectively. Robust standard errors are in parentheses and clustering is at the household ID.
Impact of Internet use on other health-related food intake: sugared drinks and alcohol.
| Dependent Var. | Sugared Drinks Consumption Frequency | Weekly Beer Consumption | Weekly Liquor Consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Mean] | [0.71] | [0.55] | [2.36] |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
| Internet | 0.3359 * | −0.1666 | −0.1400 |
| (0.1983) | (0.2383) | (0.7870) | |
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 3597 | 3600 | 3599 |
Notes: * indicates significance at 10% levels. Robust standard errors are in parentheses and clustering is at the household ID. “Sugared drinks consumption frequency” is expressed by numbers 0–5, with “0” as “never drink”, “1” as “drink less than once monthly”, “2” as “1–3 times monthly”, “3” as “once or twice weekly”, “4” as “3–4 times weekly”, and “5” as “everyday”. Unit of weekly beer consumption is “bottle (500 g)”. Unit of weekly liquor consumption is “liang (50 g)”.