Food availability, cost disparity and improvement in relation to accessibility and remoteness in Queensland

This study is the first to describe disparity and change in the food supply between metropolitan, rural and remote stores by Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA)1 category. A total of 92 stores (97% response rate) within five aggregate ARIA categories participated throughout Queensland in 2000. There was a strong association between ARIA category and the cost of the basket of basic foods, with prices being significantly higher (20% and 31% respectively) in the ‘remote’ and ‘very remote’ categories than in the ‘highly accessible’ category. The association with ARIA was less marked for fruit and vegetables than for other food groups, but not for tobacco and take-away food items. Basic food items were less available in the more remote stores. Over the past two years, relative improvements in food prices have been seen in stores in the ‘very remote’ category, with observed increases less than the consumer price index (CPI) for food. Some factors which may have contributed to this improvement are discussed.

The contribution of psychosocial factors to socioeconomic differences in food purchasing

In developed countries the relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and health is unequivocal. Those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged are known to experience higher morbidity and mortality from a range of chronic diet-related conditions compared to those of higher SEP. Socioeconomic inequalities in diet are well established. Compared to their more advantaged counterparts, those of low SEP are consistently found to consume diets less consistent with dietary guidelines (i.e. higher in fat, salt and sugar and lower in fibre, fruit and vegetables). Although the reasons for dietary inequalities remain unclear, understanding how such differences arise is important for the development of strategies to reduce health inequalities. Both environmental (e.g. proximity of supermarkets, price, and availability of foods) and psychosocial (e.g. taste preference, nutrition knowledge) influences are proposed to account for inequalities in food choices. Although in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and parts of Australia, environmental factors are associated with socioeconomic differences in food choices, these factors do not completely account for the observed inequalities. Internationally, this context has prompted calls for further exploration of the role of psychological and social factors in relation to inequalities in food choices. It is this task that forms the primary goal of this PhD research. In the small body of research examining the contribution of psychosocial factors to inequalities in food choices, studies have focussed on food cost concerns, nutrition knowledge or health concerns. These factors are generally found to be influential. However, since a range of psychosocial factors are known determinants of food choices in the general population, it is likely that a range of factors also contribute to inequalities in food choices. Identification of additional psychosocial factors of relevance to inequalities in food choices would provide new opportunities for health promotion, including the adaption of existing strategies. The methodological features of previous research have also hindered the advancement of knowledge in this area and a lack of qualitative studies has resulted in a dearth of descriptive information on this topic. This PhD investigation extends previous research by assessing a range of psychosocial factors in relation to inequalities in food choices using both quantitative and qualitative techniques. Secondary data analyses were undertaken using data obtained from two Brisbane-based studies, the Brisbane Food Study (N=1003, conducted in 2000), and the Sixty Families Study (N=60, conducted in 1998). Both studies involved main household food purchasers completing an interviewer-administered survey within their own home. Data pertaining to food-purchasing, and psychosocial, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics were collected in each study. The mutual goals of both the qualitative and quantitative phases of this investigation were to assess socioeconomic differences in food purchasing and to identify psychosocial factors relevant to any observed differences. The quantitative methods then additionally considered whether the associations examined differed according to the socioeconomic indicator used (i.e. income or education). The qualitative analyses made a unique contribution to this project by generating detailed descriptions of socioeconomic differences in psychosocial factors. Those with lower levels of income and education were found to make food purchasing choices less consistent with dietary guidelines compared to those of high SEP. The psychosocial factors identified as relevant to food-purchasing inequalities were: taste preferences, health concerns, health beliefs, nutrition knowledge, nutrition concerns, weight concerns, nutrition label use, and several other values and beliefs unique to particular socioeconomic groups. Factors more tenuously or inconsistently related to socioeconomic differences in food purchasing were cost concerns, and perceived adequacy of the family diet. Evidence was displayed in both the quantitative and qualitative analyses to suggest that psychosocial factors contribute to inequalities in food purchasing in a collective manner. The quantitative analyses revealed that considerable overlap in the socioeconomic variation in food purchasing was accounted for by key psychosocial factors of importance, including taste preference, nutrition concerns, nutrition knowledge, and health concerns. Consistent with these findings, the qualitative transcripts demonstrated the interplay between such influential psychosocial factors in determining food-purchasing choices. The qualitative analyses found socioeconomic differences in the prioritisation of psychosocial factors in relation to food choices. This is suggestive of complex cultural factors that distinguish advantaged and disadvantaged groups and result in socioeconomically distinct schemas related to health and food choices. Compared to those of high SEP, those of lower SEP were less likely to indicate that health concerns, nutrition concerns, or food labels influenced food choices, and exhibited lower levels of nutrition knowledge. In the absence of health or nutrition-related concerns, taste preferences tended to dominate the food purchasing choices of those of low SEP. Overall, while cost concerns did not appear to be a main determinant of socioeconomic differences in food purchasing, this factor had a dominant influence on the food choices of some of the most disadvantaged respondents included in this research. The findings of this study have several implications for health promotion. The integrated operation of psychosocial factors on food purchasing inequalities indicates that multiple psychosocial factors may be appropriate to target in health promotion. It also seems possible that the inter-relatedness of psychosocial factors would allow health promotion targeting a single psychosocial factor to have a flow-on affect in terms of altering other influential psychosocial factors. This research also suggests that current mass marketing approaches to health promotion may not be effective across all socioeconomic groups due to differences in the priorities and main factors of influence in food purchasing decisions across groups. In addition to the practical recommendations for health promotion, this investigation, through the critique of previous research, and through the substantive study findings, has highlighted important methodological considerations for future research. Of particular note are the recommendations pertaining to the selection of socioeconomic indicators, measurement of relevant constructs, consideration of confounders, and development of an analytical approach. Addressing inequalities in health has been noted as a main objective by many health authorities and governments internationally. It is envisaged that the substantive and methodological findings of this thesis will make a useful contribution towards this important goal.

The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland

Objective: To assess changes in the cost and availability of a standard basket of healthy food items (the Healthy Food Access Basket [HFAB]) in Queensland over time. Design and participants: A series of four cross-sectional surveys (in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004) describing the cost and availability of foods in the HFAB over time. In the latest survey, 97 Queensland food stores across the five Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness categories were compared. Main outcome measures: Cost comparisons for HFAB items by remoteness category for the 97 stores surveyed in 2004; changes in cost and availability of foods in the 81 stores surveyed since 2000; comparisons of food prices in the 56 stores surveyed in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004. Results: In 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB was $395.28 a fortnight. The cost of the HFAB was 29.6%($113.89) higher in “very remote” areas than in “major cities” (P<0.001). Between 2001 and 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB increased by 14.0% ($48.45), while in very remote areas the cost increased by 18.0% ($76.93) (P<0.001). Since 2000, the annualised per cent increase in cost of the HFAB has been higher than the increase in Consumer Price Index for food in Brisbane. The cost of healthy foods has risen more than the cost of some less nutritious foods, so that the latter are now relatively more affordable. Conclusions: Consumers, particularly those in very remote locations, need to pay substantially more for basic healthy foods than they did a few years ago. Higher prices are likely to be a barrier to good health among people of low socioeconomic status and other vulnerable groups. Interventions to make basic healthy food affordable and accessible to all would help reduce the high burden of chronic disease.

Indirect Cost Factors In Menu Pricing

In the discussion - Indirect Cost Factors in Menu Pricing – by David V. Pavesic, Associate Professor, Hotel, Restaurant and Travel Administration at Georgia State University, Associate Professor Pavesic initially states: “Rational pricing methodologies have traditionally employed quantitative factors to mark up food and beverage or food and labor because these costs can be isolated and allocated to specific menu items. There are, however, a number of indirect costs that can influence the price charged because they provide added value to the customer or are affected by supply/demand factors. The author discusses these costs and factors that must be taken into account in pricing decisions. Professor Pavesic offers as a given that menu pricing should cover costs, return a profit, reflect a value for the customer, and in the long run, attract customers and market the establishment. “Prices that are too high will drive customers away, and prices that are too low will sacrifice profit,” Professor Pavesic puts it succinctly. To dovetail with this premise the author provides that although food costs measure markedly into menu pricing, other factors such as equipment utilization, popularity/demand, and marketing are but a few of the parenthetic factors also to be considered. “… there is no single method that can be used to mark up every item on any given restaurant menu. One must employ a combination of methodologies and theories,” says Professor Pavesic. “Therefore, when properly carried out, prices will reflect food cost percentages, individual and/or weighted contribution margins, price points, and desired check averages, as well as factors driven by intuition, competition, and demand.” Additionally, Professor Pavesic wants you to know that value, as opposed to maximizing revenue, should be a primary motivating factor when designing menu pricing. This philosophy does come with certain caveats, and he explains them to you. Generically speaking, Professor Pavesic says, “The market ultimately determines the price one can charge.” But, in fine-tuning that decree he further offers, “Lower prices do not automatically translate into value and bargain in the minds of the customers. Having the lowest prices in your market may not bring customers or profit. “Too often operators engage in price wars through discount promotions and find that profits fall and their image in the marketplace is lowered,” Professor Pavesic warns. In reference to intangibles that influence menu pricing, service is at the top of the list. Ambience, location, amenities, product [i.e. food] presentation, and price elasticity are discussed as well. Be aware of price-value perception; Professor Pavesic explains this concept to you. Professor Pavesic closes with a brief overview of a la carte pricing; its pros and cons.

Economics of Operating An Employee Food Service

The author, who has spent 30 years as an operations executive in the food service industry seeks to acquaint management with some of the basic economics of operating an employee food service. The article is designed to assist the executive in understanding the basic philosophies and concepts of providing a food service to employees, as well as the cost factors involved in giving that service.

Níveis de lisina em rações para frangos de corte determinados com base em uma abordagem econômica

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Análise da produtividade e viabilidade econômica de quatro sistemas de berçários do camarão-da-Amazônia, Macrobrachium amazonicum

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Níveis de isoleucina e de valina digestíveis para poedeiras comerciais

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Menu Engineering: A Model Including Labor

Menu engineering is a methodology to classify menu items by their contribution margin and popularity. The process discounts the importance of food cost percentage, recognizing that operators deposit cash, not percentages. The authors raise the issue that strict application of the principles of menu engineering may result in an erroneous evaluation of a menu item, and also may be of little use without considering the variable portion of labor. They describe an enhancement to the process by considering labor.

The increasing cost of healthy food

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the cost and availability of a standard basket of healthy food items (the Healthy Food Access Basket [HFAB]) in Queensland. METHODS: Analysis of five cross-sectional surveys (1998, 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2006) describes changes over time. Eighty-nine stores in five remoteness categories were surveyed during May 2006. For the first time a sampling framework based on randomisation of towns throughout the state was applied and the survey was conducted by Queensland Treasury. RESULTS: Compared with the costs in major cities, in 2006 the mean cost of the HFAB was $107.81 (24.2%) higher in very remote stores in Queensland, but $145.57 (32.6%) higher in stores more than 2,000 kilometres from Brisbane. Over six years the cost of the HFAB has increased by around 50% ($148.87) across Queensland and, where data was available, by more than the cost of less healthy alternatives. The Consumer Price Index for food in Brisbane increased by 32.5% over the same period. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Australians, no matter where they live, need access to affordable, healthy food. Issues of food security in the face of rising food costs are of concern particularly in the current global economic downturn. There is an urgent need to nationally monitor, but also sustainably address the factors affecting the price of healthy foods, particularly for vulnerable groups who suffer a disproportionate burden of poor health.

Nutritional evaluation of an indigenous low cost protein food

A study of supplementary feeding was conducted on children with a protein food (edible fish powder in the form of 'chutney') for 35 days and the effect assessed periodically. The most noticeable effect was gain in weight and mid arm circumference in children. 35% children showed a weight gain of 1 kg, 27% 0.5 kg, 21% 1.5 kg and 2.5% 2.5 kg. 48% children registered an increase in their mid-arm circumference by 0.5 cm, 16% 1 cm and 2.5% 1.5 cm. 10% children did not gain weight. However, these children had intercurrent infections like measles, whooping cough and asthma.

Age and gender influences on sensory perceptions of novel low cost nutrient-rich food products developed using traditional Ghanaian food ingredients

Background: A number of factors are known to influence food preferences and acceptability of new products. These include their sensory characteristics and strong, innate neural influences. In designing foods for any target group, it is important to consider intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics which may contribute to palatability, and acceptability of foods. Objective: To assess age and gender influences on sensory perceptions of novel low cost nutrient-rich food products developed using traditional Ghanaian food ingredients. Materials and Methods: In this study, a range of food products were developed from Ghanaian traditional food sources using the Food Multimix (FMM) concept. These products were subjected to sensory evaluation to assess the role of sensory perception on their acceptability among different target age groups across the life cycle (aged 11-68 years olds) and to ascertain any possible influences of gender on preference and choice. Variables including taste, odour, texture, flavour and appearance were tested and the results captured on a Likert scale and scores of likeness and acceptability analysed. Multivariate analyses were used to develop prediction models for targeted recipe development for different target groups. Multiple factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and logistic linear regression were employed to test the strength of acceptability and to ascertain age and gender influences on product preference. Results: The results showed a positive trend in acceptability (r = 0.602) which tended towards statistical significance (p = 0.065) with very high product favourability rating (91% acceptability; P=0.005). However, age [odds ratios=1.44 (11-15 years old) odds ratios=2.01 (18-68 years old) and gender (P=0.000)] were major influences on product preference with children and females (irrespective of age) showing clear preferences or dislike of products containing certain particular ingredients. Conclusion: These findings are potentially useful in planning recipes for feeding interventions involving different vulnerable and target groups.