In addition to some food that gets from the rural to the urban areas through extended families, more importantly, there are remittances that flow from urban to rural areas to help improve farming methods. The quality of food is better in urban areas because of increased variety, larger price elasticities, and greater substitution effects. These factors have both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side, even low-income populations consume a more varied diet then their rural counterparts, which leads to increased intakes of certain nutrients and improved absorption of others. On the negative side, there is a greater intake of nutritionally poor foods such as soft drinks, commercially baked goods, fried snacks, and sweets.
Urban populations have to purchase all or most of their food.
The purchase of adequate food in urban areas may be prevented in part by expenses for transportation to and from work, as well as housing and utilities, which are often not concerns of rural households. Many governments' current policies have adverse effects on urban nutrition, which undermine political stability. While it is true that medical, social, and cultural services are better and more readily available in urban areas, it is also true that low-income populations do not necessarily have access to them. Some conditions with nutrition-related consequences, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, rickets, and osteomalacia are more severe in urban centres than elsewhere. Other conditions that may result from environmental changes associated with urbanization are cancer and cardiovascular disease.