Article

Do healthier foods and diet patterns cost more than less healthy options? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
BMJ Open (Impact Factor: 2.06). 12/2013; 3(12):e004277. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004277
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prices of healthier versus less healthy foods/diet patterns while accounting for key sources of heterogeneity.
MEDLINE (2000-2011), supplemented with expert consultations and hand reviews of reference lists and related citations.
Studies reviewed independently and in duplicate were included if reporting mean retail price of foods or diet patterns stratified by healthfulness. We extracted, in duplicate, mean prices and their uncertainties of healthier and less healthy foods/diet patterns and rated the intensity of health differences for each comparison (range 1-10). Prices were adjusted for inflation and the World Bank purchasing power parity, and standardised to the international dollar (defined as US$1) in 2011. Using random effects models, we quantified price differences of healthier versus less healthy options for specific food types, diet patterns and units of price (serving, day and calorie). Statistical heterogeneity was quantified using I(2) statistics.
27 studies from 10 countries met the inclusion criteria. Among food groups, meats/protein had largest price differences: healthier options cost $0.29/serving (95% CI $0.19 to $0.40) and $0.47/200 kcal ($0.42 to $0.53) more than less healthy options. Price differences per serving for healthier versus less healthy foods were smaller among grains ($0.03), dairy (-$0.004), snacks/sweets ($0.12) and fats/oils ($0.02; p<0.05 each) and not significant for soda/juice ($0.11, p=0.64). Comparing extremes (top vs bottom quantile) of food-based diet patterns, healthier diets cost $1.48/day ($1.01 to $1.95) and $1.54/2000 kcal ($1.15 to $1.94) more. Comparing nutrient-based patterns, price per day was not significantly different (top vs bottom quantile: $0.04; p=0.916), whereas price per 2000 kcal was $1.56 ($0.61 to $2.51) more. Adjustment for intensity of differences in healthfulness yielded similar results.
This meta-analysis provides the best evidence until today of price differences of healthier vs less healthy foods/diet patterns, highlighting the challenges and opportunities for reducing financial barriers to healthy eating.

0 Followers
 · 
57 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The food environment in markets constrains and signals consumers what to purchase. It encompasses availability , affordability, convenience, and desirability of various foods. The effect of income on dietary consumption is always modified by the food environment. Many agricultural interventions aim to improve incomes, increase food availability and reduce food prices. Their effects on nutrition could be better understood if food environment measures helped to explain how additional income is likely to be spent, and how food availability and prices change as a result of large-scale interventions. Additionally, measurement of the food environment could elucidate food access gaps and inform the design of nutrition-sensitive interventions. This paper reviews existing measures of the food environment, and then draws from these tools to suggest ways the food environment could be measured in future studies and monitoring.
    Food Security 05/2015; 7(3):505-520. DOI:10.1007/s12571-015-0455-8 · 1.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although, the cost of food is commonly described as a barrier to consuming a healthy diet, the evidence for this viewpoint has been inconsistent to date. The purpose of this study was to assess whether a healthy diet is affordable for a sample population with major depressive disorder and current unhealthy eating patterns, enrolled in supporting the modification of lifestyle in lowered emotional states (SMILES) trial. The first 20 participants of the SMILES trial were invited to complete a 7-day food diary at baseline. A cost analysis of a modified Mediterranean diet (recommended for trial participants) and 7-day food diaries of participants enrolled in the randomized controlled trial was conducted. Trial participants spent an estimated mean of $138 per week on food and beverages for personal consumption, whereas the total food and beverage costs per person per week for the recommended modified Mediterranean diet was estimated at $112, both based on mid-range product cost. The modified Mediterranean diet at $1.54 per mega-joules (MJ) was cheaper per energy unit than the cost of the current dietary intake of the SMILES participants included in this study at a mean of $2.35 per MJ. These study findings suggest that the adoption of a healthy modified Mediterranean diet does not cost more than a poor quality diet. Thus, failure to comply with healthy diets is unlikely to reflect affordability. Public health messages should incorporate the finding that healthy eating is not associated with increased costs and in fact may well involve savings to the household budget. Practical strategies and techniques for selecting healthy nutritious foods on a budget could support the achievement of desired dietary goals for preventing and managing chronic disease.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Beyond quantity, variety of fruit and vegetable (FV) intake prevents chronic conditions and is widely recommended as critical to healthful eating. FV consumption is socially patterned, especially for women, but little is known about multiple economic determinants of variety or whether they differ from those of quantity. Objective: To examine socioeconomic status and financial hardships in relation to variety and quantity of FV intakes among older British women and men. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 9580 adults (50–79 years) in the nationally representative EPIC cohort who responded to a postal Health and Life Experiences Questionnaire (1996–2000) and Food Frequency Questionnaire (1998–2002). Variety counted unique items consumed (items/month) and quantity measured total intake (g/day). Results: No consistent differences by any economic factor were observed for quantity of fruits or vegetables, except education in men. Lower education, lower social class and renting were independently associated with lower fruit variety and vegetable variety (p-trend < 0.001), with differences stronger in men. Mean vegetable variety differed between top and bottom social classes by 2.9 items/month for men and 2.5 for women. Greater financial hardships were also independently associated with lower variety, with differences stronger in women for fruits and in men for vegetables. Conclusions: British older adults reporting greater economic disadvantage consistently consumed fewer different fruits or vegetables, but not lower amounts. Further nutrition studies of the protective effects, and underlying mechanisms, of FV variety are warranted for addressing social inequalities in older adults' diet quality. Dietary guidance should separately emphasise variety, and interventions should aim to address financial barriers to older adults' consumption of diverse FV.
    Appetite 09/2014; 83. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.038 · 2.69 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
4 Downloads
Available from