Search

Aim: To measure the relative change in price of healthier and less healthy foods over 10 years in New Zealand. Methods: Foods in the New Zealand food price index were classified as healthy and less healthy (WHO Europe Nutrient Profile Model) and by degree of processing (according to the NOVA classification). The change in price from February 2007 to January 2017 was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures with healthiness (or level of processing), season and time added as covariates. Results: Eighty‐eight (of 155) relevant items had sufficient information on weight and healthiness. The trend of increasing food prices over time was similar for healthier and less healthy foods and between the three categories of processing. There was a statistically significant interaction (P = 0.014) between seasons and healthiness of foods, and seasons and degrees of processing (P < 0.001). The price of healthy foods and minimally processed foods fluctuated more by season compared to less healthy foods and processed foods. Conclusions: Food prices increased over time with no significant difference in the rate of change for healthier and less healthy foods, and between foods of different degrees of processing. This method can be used to routinely monitor relative changes in food prices according to healthiness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To compare food costs and variety of fresh fruits and vegetables ( F& V) available at three time points in December 2006, December 2008 and July 2009. Methods Data on the cost of a 44-item food basket across the main food groups including fresh and packaged foods were collected in 2006 (149 stores), 2008 (105 stores) and 2009 (129 stores). In addition, the number of varieties of 30 different fresh F& V was surveyed. Stores included the two major supermarket chains and smaller grocery chains using a convenience sample in NSW. The effects of rural/regional differences, socioeconomic differences, and store competition on cost and variety were assessed. Results The mean price of the food basket increased by 3.4% between December 2006 and 2008 and was lowest in July 2009, decreasing by 6.2% from December 2006. Variation between the cheapest and most expensive individual stores resulted in a $221 price difference in 2009, $148 in 2008 and $182 in 2006. Total food and F& V costs were more expensive in remote areas compared with highly accessible areas. The number of F& V varieties was influenced by increasing remoteness, low socioeconomic area and supermarket competition. Conclusions There was considerable variability in food costs by geographic areas and availability of fresh F& V also varied in both geographic and socio-demographic areas. Monitoring of food costs may help reduce price variability, enabling identification of areas where the cost of food is disproportionately high. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To undertake a systematic literature review to examine the effect of food cost on diet quality and risk factors for chronic disease, specifically focusing on diet-related lifestyle diseases affecting the Australian population. Methods: A search of six databases resulted in the inclusion of one systematic review, three cohort studies, 41 cross-sectional studies and four modelling studies in this review. Results: Between 2000 and 2006, the price of healthy foods has increased more than the price of less healthy foods. Healthy Food Access Basket surveys show that a healthy diet may often be unaffordable for low- and average-income households. Diets of higher energy density were associated with lower diet cost, whereas diets of higher nutrient density and nutritional quality were associated with higher diet cost. Recent studies report an inverse association between food price and food consumption. Consequently, an increase in food cost was associated with a significant reduction in weight, waist circumference, body mass index, obesity and insulin resistance. Conclusions: Manipulation of food cost may alter food consumption and therefore risk factors for chronic disease. Further longitudinal studies investigating the impact of pricing strategies on diet quality and disease risk are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To investigate the cost, affordability, availability and quality of a healthy food basket in high and low household income areas of Adelaide, and to investigate food promotion in supermarkets. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in May 2009 with a sample of 61 supermarkets, 27 greengrocers and 34 butchers in metropolitan Adelaide. Samples were selected based on household income for extreme tertiles across Adelaide. Low-income families were significantly worse off in comparison with high-income families ( P < 0.05) regarding affordability of the healthy food basket. The data analysis demonstrated that families on welfare payments and low incomes would need to spend 28-34% of their income in order to be able to afford a healthy food basket. However, there was no significant difference in the cost, availability, and quality of the healthy food basket and food promotions between high and low household income areas. The present study examined the cost, affordability, availability and quality of the healthy food basket, as well as an assessment of food promotions in supermarkets, finding no difference between high and low household income areas. The study provides valuable information to assist in a deeper understanding of food security in Adelaide. It is recommended that a longitudinal study would assist in establishing a reliable healthy food basket monitoring system that could lead to more robust policy outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: There is evidence that some people in Australia do not have access to affordable, healthy foods. Information on food accessibility and affordability is essential in public health nutrition to assist in policy making and determining areas of intervention. The aim of the present study assess and compare the cost, availability and affordability of a standardised healthy food basket (HFB) in five local government areas (LGAs) in metropolitan Adelaide. Methods: Five LGAs in metropolitan Adelaide were selected based on ranges of socioeconomic status (SES). A reference family was used as the basis for the costing a HFB. Prices of food items were collected in selected suburbs in May, August and September in 2005. Cost of the Adelaide HFB was compared with welfare payment and average weekly earnings (AWE). Results: Average weekly cost of Adelaide HFB was $245.63 for the 11 suburbs: lowest in Coolabah, in low SES City of Fordlow ($224.17), and highest in Banksia, in high SES City of Sidehigh ($271.87). The proportion of AWE taken up by the average HFB was 35%, while that of the welfare payments was 31%. Conclusion: The study showed that the cost of HFB was lower in low-SES suburbs. Items in the HFB were found in most supermarkets surveyed; therefore, availability of healthy food at this geographical level is not a concern. However, the study highlighted the proportionately high costs of a healthy diet for families on welfare or on a single income based on AWE, which needs to be considered in programs encouraging healthy food choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]