Measuring cost and affordability of healthy and less healthy diet globally

The INFORMAS food prices module proposes a step-wise framework to measure the cost and affordability of population diets. The price differential and the tax component of healthy and less healthy foods, food groups, meals and diets will be benchmarked and monitored over time. Results can be used to model or assess the impact of fiscal policies, such as ‘fat taxes’ or subsidies. Key methodological challenges include: defining healthy and less healthy foods, meals, diets and commonly consumed items; including costs of alcohol, takeaways, convenience foods and time; selecting the price metric; sampling frameworks; and standardizing collection and analysis protocols. The minimal approach uses three complementary methods to measure the price differential between pairs of healthy and less healthy foods. Specific challenges include choosing policy relevant pairs and defining an anchor for the lists. The expanded approach measures the cost of a healthy diet compared to the current (less healthy) diet for a reference household. It requires dietary principles to guide the development of the healthy diet pricing instrument and sufficient information about the population’s current intake to inform the current (less healthy) diet tool. The optimal approach includes measures of affordability and requires a standardised measure of household income that can be used for different countries. The feasibility of implementing the protocol in different countries is being tested in New Zealand, Australia and Fiji. The impact of different decision points to address challenges will be investigated in a systematic manner. We will present early insights and results from this work.

Developing standardized methods to assess cost of healthy and unhealthy (current) diets in Australia

Unhealthy diets contribute at least 14% to Australia's disease burden and are driven by ‘obesogenic’ food environments. Compliance with dietary recommendations is particularly poor amongst disadvantaged populations including low socioeconomic groups, those living in rural/remote areas and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The perception that healthy foods are expensive is a key barrier to healthy choices and a major determinant of diet-related health inequities. Available state/regional/local data (limited and non-comparable) suggests that, despite basic healthy foods not incurring GST, the cost of healthy food is higher and has increased more rapidly than unhealthy food over the last 15 years in Australia. However, there were no nationally standardised tools or protocols to benchmark, compare or monitor food prices and affordability in Australia. Globally, we are leading work to develop and test approaches to assess the price differential of healthy and less-healthy (current) diets under the food price module of the International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases (NCDs) Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS). This presentation describes contextualization of the INFORMAS approach to develop standardised Australian tools, survey protocols and data collection and analysis systems. The ‘healthy diet basket’ was based on the Australian Foundation Diet, 1 The ‘current diet basket’ and specific items included in each basket, were based on recent national dietary survey data.2 Data collection methods were piloted. The final tools and protocols were then applied to measure the price and affordability of healthy and less healthy (current) diets of different household groups in diverse communities across the nation. We have compared results for different geographical locations/population subgroups in Australia and assessed these against international INFORMAS benchmarks. The results inform the development of policy and practice, including those relevant to mooted changes to the GST base, to promote nutrition and healthy weight and prevent chronic disease in Australia.

Symposium: Food pricing and affordability of ‘healthy’ versus ‘less healthy’ diets: An international approach to monitoring and surveillance

Symposium co-ordinated by The International Network for Food and Obesity/NCDs Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) Purpose Global monitoring of the price and affordability of foods, meals and diets is urgently needed. There are major methodological challenges in developing robust, cost-effective, standardized, and policy relevant tools, pertinent to nutrition, obesity, and diet-related non-communicable diseases and their inequalities. There is increasing pressure to take into account environmental sustainability. Changes in price differentials and affordability need to be comparable between and within countries and over time. Robust tools could provide baseline data for monitoring and evaluating structural, economic and social policies at the country/regional and household levels. INFORMAS offers one framework for consideration.

Psychological distress may affect nutrition indicators in Australian adults

- Objective The purpose of this research was to explore which demographic and health status variables moderated the relationship between psychological distress and three nutrition indicators: the consumption of fruits, vegetables and takeaway. - Method We analysed data from the 2009 Self-Reported Health Status Survey Report collected in the state of Queensland, Australia. Adults (N = 6881) reported several demographic and health status variables. Moderated logistic regression models were estimated separately for the three nutrition indicators, testing as moderators demographic (age, gender, educational attainment, household income, remoteness, and area-level socioeconomic status) and health status indicators (body mass index, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes status). - Results Several significant interactions emerged between psychological distress, demographic (age, area-level socioeconomic status, and income level), and health status variables (body mass index, diabetes status) in predicting the nutrition indicators. Relationships between distress and the nutrition indicators were not significantly different by gender, remoteness, educational attainment, high cholesterol status, and high blood pressure status. - Conclusions The associations between psychological distress and several nutrition indicators differ amongst population subgroups. These findings suggest that in distressed adults, age, area-level socio-economic status, income level, body mass index, and diabetes status may serve as protective or risk factors through increasing or decreasing the likelihood of meeting nutritional guidelines. Public health interventions for improving dietary behaviours and nutrition may be more effective if they take into account the moderators identified in this study rather than using global interventions.