Table 4.
Linear regression analyses of inedible food waste by sociodemographic indicators.
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coeff | p-Value | 95% CI | Coeff | p-Value | 95% CI | |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| Female | 12.61 | 0.002 | (4.82, 20.40) | 18.84 | 0.0001 | (9.87, 27.82) |
| Age | ||||||
| 21–40 | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| 40–50 | −6.73 | 0.063 | (−13.84, 0.38) | −4.86 | 0.240 | (−12.97, 3.24) |
| >50 | −0.80 | 0.844 | (−8.78, 7.18) | −2.67 | 0.570 | (−11.87, 6.54) |
| Race/ethnicity | ||||||
| NonHispanic White | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| Hispanic | −1.12 | 0.874 | (−14.88, 12.65) | 5.76 | 0.468 | (−9.80, 21.31) |
| Other | 3.02 | 0.604 | (−8.39, 14.43) | 4.39 | 0.506 | (−8.55, 17.33) |
| Education | ||||||
| High school or less | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| Some College | 3.04 | 0.513 | (−6.07, 12.14) | 4.89 | 0.355 | (−5.46, 15.24) |
| College graduate/Grad school | 19.18 | 0.0001 | (8.68, 29.67) | 20.66 | 0.001 | (8.90, 32.42) |
| Residential Property value | ||||||
| Tertile 1 (<$128,675) | ||||||
| Tertile 2 ($128,675.20–$290,866) | 1.22 | 0.774 | (−7.12, 9.56) | 5.44 | 0.287 | (−4.57, 15.45) |
| Tertile 3 (>$290,866) | 0.46 | 0.933 | (−10.11, 11.02) | 6.22 | 0.314 | (−5.90, 18.33) |
| Food expenditure ($/month) | ||||||
| ≤$142.6 | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| >$142.6–≤250 | −4.30 | 0.256 | (−11.73, 3.13) | |||
| ≥$250 | 11.22 | 0.042 | (0.42, 22.03) | |||
| FFQ diet cost ($/month) | ||||||
| ≤$320 | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| >$320–≤400 | 18.44 | 0.0001 | (12.58, 24.30) | |||
| ≥$400 | 55.94 | 0.0001 | (48.26, 63.62) | |||
$ United States dollars, HEI = Healthy Eating Index, SD = standard deviation, Ref. = reference group.