Food trucks sit within a large U.S. food-away-from-home market, but customer behavior varies sharply by location and study population. Recent U.S. spending data provides the market context, while surveys from Brazil, France, and Los Angeles show how customers visit, spend, choose meals, and evaluate service.
Contents
- The food-away-from-home market
- How often customers visit
- Who food truck customers are
- What customers buy and spend
- Where and when customers eat
- Why customers choose or avoid trucks
- Food safety and visible hygiene
The food-away-from-home market
The broader U.S. market shows why mobile food businesses compete for an important share of eating occasions. U.S. food sales at foodservice and food retailing outlets totaled $2.51 trillion in inflation-adjusted 2025 dollars. Inflation-adjusted food-away-from-home spending reached $1.41 trillion in 2025, and food away from home represented 56.3% of total U.S. food expenditures. These figures are national spending measures, not food-truck sales estimates. (Food Prices and Spending)
Restaurants accounted for large portions of that away-from-home spending. Limited-service restaurants represented 36.5% of U.S. food-away-from-home spending in 2025, while full-service restaurants represented 34.5%. Average daily inflation-adjusted sales at limited-service restaurants were $1,277 million in January 2025 and peaked at $1,493 million in May. Full-service restaurants averaged $1,193 million per day in January and peaked at $1,427 million in May. (Food Service Industry - Market Segments)
U.S. per-capita food-away-from-home purchases reached $3,936 in nominal dollars in 2025. Washington, DC recorded the highest U.S. per-capita food-away-from-home sales, at $9,287. Per-capita figures describe food-away-from-home spending broadly; they should not be read as the amount an individual spends at food trucks. (Food Service Industry - Market Segments)
How often customers visit
Food truck frequency differs considerably across surveys. In a 2019 study of consumers in a Federal District of Brazil, 95.5% ate from food trucks one to two times per week. Another 3.8% ate from food trucks three to four times per week, and 0.7% did so at least five times per week. (Brazilian Food Truck Consumers’ Profile, Choices, Preferences, and Food Safety Importance Perception)
The Los Angeles results show a more mixed relationship with a particular truck. Among 488 Los Angeles lonchera customers surveyed in 2013–2014, 30.7% ate at food trucks two to four times per week and 18.4% ate at them five to seven times per week. At the same time, 34.2% ate at their particular food truck no more than once per month. The distinction matters: a customer may use food trucks often without returning to one specific vehicle frequently. (Can Latino food trucks (loncheras) serve healthy meals? A feasibility study)
The French survey, conducted in 2022, placed respondents into broader frequency categories. Fourteen percent never consumed food from food trucks, 28% consumed it rarely, 38% occasionally, and 20% regularly. These results indicate that occasional customers formed the largest reported group in that survey, while regular customers were a smaller segment. (When technology leads social business: Food truck innovation)
Who food truck customers are
The Brazil survey describes a customer group with substantial employment and family representation. In that 2019 study, 54.1% of food-truck consumers were aged 31–50, while 33.1% were aged 30 or younger. Females represented 55.6% of consumers. Half, or 50.4%, were married or had a companion, and 67.7% had children. Employment was reported by 88.7% of respondents.
Education and income were also measured. Tertiary-level education was reported by 46.6% of Brazil’s food-truck consumers, and postgraduate education by 33.8%. Monthly income of at least nine minimum wages was reported by 48.1%; the study gave an approximate conversion of US$2,206 for that threshold. These are characteristics of the surveyed population, not a universal profile of food truck customers. (Brazilian Food Truck Consumers’ Profile, Choices, Preferences, and Food Safety Importance Perception)
The Los Angeles lonchera study covered a different population and period. Among customers surveyed in 2013–2014, 34.6% were female, 39.6% were aged 21–34, and 93.0% identified as Latino. Because the Brazil and Los Angeles studies used different samples, geographies, and measurement periods, their percentages should be compared as descriptions of separate customer groups rather than combined into one demographic estimate. (Can Latino food trucks (loncheras) serve healthy meals? A feasibility study)
What customers buy and spend
Menu preference in the Brazil survey was concentrated in familiar handheld and fast-casual formats. Hamburgers and sandwiches were preferred by 71.4% of food-truck consumers, while 10.5% preferred pizza and pasta. The study’s spending bands show the per-person purchase amounts it recorded:
| Per-person purchase in the Brazil survey | Share of consumers |
|---|---|
| US$5.14–$7.71 | 41.3% |
| US$7.71–$10.27 | 31.6% |
| US$10.27–$12.84 | 9.8% |
| More than US$12.85 | 6.0% |
The amounts above are the study’s reported U.S.-dollar conversions for a 2019 survey; they are not current U.S. prices or a forecast. The listed bands do not account for every respondent, so they should not be treated as a complete distribution. (Brazilian Food Truck Consumers’ Profile, Choices, Preferences, and Food Safety Importance Perception)
Taste led the stated reasons for choosing a food truck in Brazil: 30.1% named taste as the main reason. Accessibility or convenience followed at 23.4%. Nutritional value was named by only 0.7%. In Los Angeles, 72.8% cited food tastiness as a reason for visiting their particular truck, 54.5% cited the truck’s location, and 27.1% cited food value. The question wording and samples differ, but both surveys place taste among the central decision factors. (Brazilian Food Truck Consumers’ Profile, Choices, Preferences, and Food Safety Importance Perception; Can Latino food trucks (loncheras) serve healthy meals? A feasibility study)
Where and when customers eat
Proximity was prominent in the Brazil and French results. In the Brazil survey, 75.2% consumed food trucks near home and 9.8% consumed them near work. In the French 2022 survey, 65% cited proximity as a factor explaining food-truck consumption, while 58% cited price. The measures are not identical, but they point to location and affordability as recurring parts of the customer decision. (Brazilian Food Truck Consumers’ Profile, Choices, Preferences, and Food Safety Importance Perception; When technology leads social business: Food truck innovation)
In the Brazil study, 67.0% chose eat-in service and 18.0% chose takeout service. Nighttime was the dominant occasion: 96.2% consumed food trucks at nighttime. Family was also common, with 67.7% eating at food trucks with family. These figures suggest that the surveyed customers often treated the truck as a shared meal occasion rather than only a quick daytime purchase, although the study does not establish that pattern for every market.
The French survey also measured social discovery. Peer, press, or online recommendations were cited by 72% as a factor explaining food-truck consumption. Together with the proximity result, this indicates that customers may encounter a truck through local visibility while still relying on other people or media to decide whether to try it. (When technology leads social business: Food truck innovation)
Why customers choose or avoid trucks
The Los Angeles lonchera findings quantify three reasons for visiting a particular truck: tastiness at 72.8%, location at 54.5%, and food value at 27.1%. The Brazil survey similarly identified taste at 30.1% and accessibility or convenience at 23.4% as main reasons for choosing a food truck. While the percentages come from differently designed questions, the overlap is useful for understanding the customer experience: flavor attracts, and practical access helps convert that interest into a visit.
The Brazil survey also recorded reasons not to choose a food truck. Poor vehicle hygiene was cited by 30.9%, long lines by 20.3%, poor food hygiene by 19.5%, and limited options by 12.8%. These are reported barriers, not estimates of how often customers actually abandoned a purchase. They show that operational details can affect demand alongside the food itself. (Brazilian Food Truck Consumers’ Profile, Choices, Preferences, and Food Safety Importance Perception)
The French results add a broader participation pattern: 14% never consumed food from food trucks, while 28% did so rarely, 38% occasionally, and 20% regularly. The presence of both nonusers and regular users reinforces that a food truck audience can contain several distinct segments, from curious occasional visitors to habitual customers. (When technology leads social business: Food truck innovation)
Food safety and visible hygiene
Food safety perceptions were measured in detail in the Brazil study. Food hygiene was always considered by 78.2% of respondents, and vendors’ personal hygiene was always considered by 83.4%. Specific visible practices were also important: 63.2% rated food handlers wearing gloves as extremely important, 69.9% rated hair coverings as extremely important, and 67.0% rated a hand sink with soap and paper towels as extremely important.
The strongest rating in the reported list concerned pests. The absence of pests in the preparation area was rated extremely important by 88.0% of Brazil’s surveyed food-truck consumers. This aligns with the barriers reported elsewhere in the same study: poor vehicle hygiene was a reason not to choose a truck for 30.9%, and poor food hygiene was a reason for 19.5%.
These findings describe customer perceptions in a 2019 Federal District, Brazil study. They do not independently verify conditions at any particular food truck, and they should not be treated as current inspection results. They do show how strongly visible cleanliness and food-handling signals can shape the customer’s willingness to buy. (Brazilian Food Truck Consumers’ Profile, Choices, Preferences, and Food Safety Importance Perception)