Context: It is well established in the literature that healthier diets cost more than unhealthy diets. Objective: The aim of this review was to examine the contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic inequalities in diet quality. Data Sources: A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases was performed. Study Selection: Publications linking food prices, dietary quality, and socioeconomic status were selected. Data Extraction: Where possible, review conclusions were illustrated using a French national database of commonly consumed foods and their mean retail prices. Data Synthesis: Foods of lower nutritional value and lower-quality diets generally cost less per calorie and tended to be selected by groups of lower socioeconomic status. A number of nutrient-dense foods were available at low cost but were not always palatable or culturally acceptable to the low-income consumer. Acceptable healthier diets were uniformly associated with higher costs. Food budgets in poverty were insufficient to ensure optimum diets. Conclusions: Socioeconomic disparities in diet quality may be explained by the higher cost of healthy diets. Identifying food patterns that are nutrient rich, affordable, and appealing should be a priority to fight social inequalities in nutrition and health.

https://hal-amu.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01774670/document

Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: a systematic review and analysis.

Objective 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. Data sources MEDLINE (2000–2011), supplemented with expert consultations and hand reviews of reference lists and related citations. Design 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. Results 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 Conclusions 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.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/3/12/e004277.full.pdf

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

Background: Interventions to promote healthy eating make a potentially powerful contribution to the primary prevention of non communicable diseases. It is not known whether healthy eating interventions are equally effective among all sections of the population, nor whether they narrow or widen the health gap between rich and poor. We undertook a systematic review of interventions to promote healthy eating to identify whether impacts differ by socioeconomic position (SEP). Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases using a pre-piloted search strategy. Retrieved articles were screened independently by two reviewers. Healthier diets were defined as the reduced intake of salt, sugar, trans-fats, saturated fat, total fat, or total calories, or increased consumption of fruit, vegetables and wholegrain. Studies were only included if quantitative results were presented by a measure of SEP. Extracted data were categorised with a modified version of the “4Ps” marketing mix, expanded to 6 “Ps”: “Price, Place, Product, Prescriptive, Promotion, and Person”. Results: Our search identified 31,887 articles. Following screening, 36 studies were included: 18 “Price” interventions, 6 “Place” interventions, 1 “Product” intervention, zero “Prescriptive” interventions, 4 “Promotion” interventions, and 18 “Person” interventions. “Price” interventions were most effective in groups with lower SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All interventions that combined taxes and subsidies consistently decreased inequalities. Conversely, interventions categorised as “Person” had a greater impact with increasing SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All four dietary counselling interventions appear likely to widen inequalities. We did not find any “Prescriptive” interventions and only one “Product” intervention that presented differential results and had no impact by SEP. More “Place” interventions were identified and none of these interventions were judged as likely to widen inequalities. Conclusions: Interventions categorised by a “ 6P s” framework show differential effects on healthy eating outcomes by SEP. “Upstream” interventions categorised as “Price” appeared to decrease inequalities, and “downstream ”“ Person” interventions, especially dietary counselling seemed to increase inequalities. However the vast majority of studies identified did not explore differential effects by SEP. Interventions aimed at improving population health should be routinely evaluated for differential socioeconomic impact.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs12889-015-1781-7.pdf

Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact

Objective: To study differences in the role of price and value in food choice between low-income and higher-income consumers and to study the perception of consumers about pricing strategies that are of relevance during grocery shopping. Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted using structured, written questionnaires. Food choice motives as well as price perceptions and opinion on pricing strategies were measured. Setting: The study was carried out in point-of-purchase settings, i.e. supermarkets, fast-food restaurants and sports canteens. Subjects: Adults (n 159) visiting a point-of-purchase setting were included. Results: Price is an important factor in food choice, especially for low-income consumers. Low-income consumers were significantly more conscious of value and price than higher-income consumers. The most attractive strategies, according to the consumers, were discounting healthy food more often and applying a lower VAT (Value Added Tax) rate on healthy food. Low-income consumers differ in their preferences for pricing strategies. Conclusions: Since price is more important for low-income consumers we recommend mainly focusing on their preferences and needs.

/pdf/consumer-food-choices-the-role-of-price-and-pricing-5ek0cd6cnz.pdf

Consumer food choices: The role of price and pricing strategies.

Relation of food cost to healthfulness of diet among US women

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between energy density and energy costs in single food items and composed diets, and to explore differences in energy density and energy cost between income levels. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using data from two Dutch cohort studies and recent national food prices. Food prices were retrieved from two market leader supermarkets. Data on dietary intake were measured using a computerized face-to-face interview (cohort 1) and 24 h recalls (cohort 2). SETTING: The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: A sample of 373 young adults from the Amsterdam Growth and Health Longitudinal Study (AGHLS, measured in 2000) and a sample of 200 community-dwelling elderly from the Longitudinal Ageing Study Amsterdam (LASA, measured in 2007). RESULTS: We found significant inverse associations between energy density and energy costs in single food items (r = -0.436, P < 0.01) and composed diets (AGHLS men r = -0.505, women r = -0.413, P < 0.001; LASA men r = -0.559, women r = -0.562, P < 0.001). Furthermore, we found that people stratified into higher energy density quartiles consumed significantly more energy per day, less fruits and vegetables, and had significantly lower diet costs. Explorative analyses on income did not reveal significant differences regarding energy density, costs, or fruit and vegetable intake. CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands also, energy density was inversely related with energy costs, implying that healthier diets cost more. However, we could not find differences in energy density or costs between income levels. Future research, using precise food expenditures, is of main importance in studying the economics of obesity and in the aim of making the healthier choice easier.

/pdf/energy-density-energy-costs-and-income-how-are-they-related-rax1zfaubo.pdf

Energy density, energy costs and income - how are they related?

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Wendy E de Haas

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Energy density, energy costs and income - how are they related?