Search

ith the New Year come those grand statements of good intent — to eat less and live longer. But resolving to eat less is a luxury reserved for affluent people. This New Year, most of the world’s population will still be seeking to increase their food supply. This is not a matter irrelevant to Australia: Harrison and colleagues (page 9) remind us that not all Australians have an abundant, affordable and continuous supply of food. 1 In their article, they report on a series of surveys — the Healthy Food Access Basket (HFAB) surveys — of selected food stores in Queensland. The surveys showed that, to meet their families’ basic food needs, Australian residents in very remote areas paid an average of about 30% ($114) more each fortnight than people living in cities. The price disparity was greater for basic, healthy food items than for “unhealthy” items such as takeaway food, soft drinks and tobacco. Moreover, at the time of the surveys, fewer of the basic healthy foods were available in remote stores than in city stores. Of particular concern were the higher increases in food prices over time in very remote areas — for example, between 2001 and 2004, the cost of the HFAB in very remote areas increased by 18% ($77.00), which was greater than the rise in the Consumer Price Index. Remote Australia is home to many Indigenous Australians. They are doubly disadvantaged, paying more for food and other essential goods, and having the lowest incomes of any population group. A detailed study of costs and incomes in a remote Indigenous community in South Australia found that basic living costs consumed up to 85% of family incomes, with food accounting for 35% of the total. 2 In contrast, Australians in general spend less than 20% of the family income on food. 3