This study examines the sociodemographic factors associated with daily fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption in Malaysia. Based on a cross-sectional sample of 2447 individuals from the Malaysia Non-Communicable Disease Surveillance-1, a multivariate sample selection system is developed and estimated, to accommodate high frequencies of daily FV consumption and the days of servings among nondaily consumers. Results indicate that the authors’ attempt to account for endogenous sample selectivity and cross-equation correlations is justified. There exist positive correlations between FV consumption likelihoods and longer work hours, higher levels of education, high income, female gender, nonsmoking status, and being from East Malaysia. Among nondaily consumers, those with longer work hours, singles, and people with diabetes are less inclined to eat fruits on more days. Overall, higher-educated, affluent people, nonsmokers, and East Malaysians display more days of FV consumption. Based on these outcomes, several policy implications are recommended vis-à-vis FV consumption patterns in Malaysia.
World Health Organization (WHO). Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases: Report of a Joint WHO/Food and Agriculture Organization Expert Consultation. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1990. Technical Report Series No 916.
2.
CasagrandeSSWangYAndersonCGaryTL. Have Americans increased the fruit and vegetable intake? The trends between 1988 and 2002. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32:257-263.
3.
World Health Organization (WHO). The World Health Report 2002: Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2002.
MathersCDVosETStevensonCEBeggSJ. The burden of disease and injury in Australia. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:1076-1084.
7.
HallJNMooreSHarperSBLynchJW. Global variability in fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36:402-409.
8.
PopkinBM. Nutritional patterns and transitions. Popul Dev Rev. 1993;19:138-157.
9.
RegmiADyckJ. Effects of urbanization on global food demand. In: RegmiA., ed. Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and Trade Report, WRS-01-01; 2001.
10.
Department of Statistics Malaysia. Social Statistics Bulletin Malaysia 2008. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Department of Statistics Malaysia; 2008.
11.
HuangKLinB. Estimation of Food Demand and Nutrient Elasticities From Household Survey Data. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2000. Technical Bulletin No 1887.
12.
BlisardNStewartHJolliffeD. Low-Income Households’ Expenditures on Fruits and Vegetables. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2004. Agricultural Economic Report No 833.
13.
StewartHHarrisJMGuthrieJ. What Determines the Variety of a Household’s Vegetable Purchases?Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2004. Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 792-3.
14.
Nayga RM Jr. Determinants of U.S. household expenditures on fruit and vegetables: a note and update. J Agric Appl Econ. 1995;27:588-594.
15.
LinBHReedJLucierG. U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Who, What, Where, and How Much. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2004. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. (AIB792-2).
16.
CoxTLWohlgenantMK. Prices and quality effects in cross-sectional demand analysis. Am J Agric Econ. 1986;68:908-919.
17.
BleichSBlendonRAdamsA. Trust in scientific experts on obesity: implications for awareness and behavior change. Obesity. 2007;15:2145-2156.
18.
AgbolaFW. Estimation of food demand patterns in South Africa based on a survey of households. J Agric Appl Econ. 2003;35:663-670.
19.
GustavsenGWRickertsenK. Public policies and the demand for vegetables. Paper presented at: Xth EAAE Congress, Exploring Diversity in the European Agri-Food System; 28-31 August, 2002; Zaragoza, Spain.
20.
MorabiaAWynderEL. Dietary habits of smokers, people who never smoked, and ex-smokers. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;52:933-937.
21.
JitnarinNKosulwatVRojroongwasinkulNBoonpradermAHaddockCKPostonWSC. The relationship between smoking, body weight, body mass index, and dietary intake among Thai adults: results of the National Thai Food Consumption Survey. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2014;26(5):481-493.
22.
MoyFMAb SallamAWongML. Dietary modification in a workplace health promotion program in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2008;20:166-172.
23.
KimYLeeKShinEKimH. June KJ. Evaluation of the hypertension disease management program in Korea. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2010;22:365-374.
24.
EmmonsKMStoddardAMFletcherR. Cancer prevention among working class, multiethnic adults: results of the Health Directions—Health Centers Study. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:1200-1205.
25.
DevineCMJastranMJabsJWethingtonEFarellTJBisogniCA. “A lot of sacrifices”: work-family spillover and the coping strategies of low-wage employed parents. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:2591-2603.
26.
Ministry of Health Malaysia. Malaysia NCD Surveillance 2006: NCD Risk Factors in Malaysia. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Health, Disease Control Division; 2006.
27.
HeckmanJJ. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica. 1979;47:153-161.
28.
YenST. A multivariate sample-selection model: estimating cigarette and alcohol demands with zero observations. Am J Agric Econ. 2005;87:453-466.
29.
WallstromPWirfaltEJanzonL. Fruit and vegetable consumption in relation to risk factors for cancer: a report from the Malmo Diet and Cancer Study. Public Health Nutr. 2000;3:263-271.
30.
LinBYenSTDongDSmallwoodDM. Economic incentives in dietary improvement among food stamp recipients. Contemp Econ Policy. 2010;28:524-536.
31.
PrättäläRPaalanenLGrinbergaDHelasojaVKasmelAPetkevicieneJ. Gender difference in the consumption of meat, fruit and vegetables are similar in Finland and the Baltic countries. Eur J Public Health. 2006;17:520-525.
32.
McClureJBDivineGAlexanderG. A comparison of smokers’ and nonsmokers’ fruit and vegetable intake and relevant psychosocial factors. Behav Med. 2009;35:14-22.
