Estimating the cost of food for a school lunch /

"July 1948."

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.

Development of a rapid low cost fluorescent biosensor for the detection of food contaminants

A prototype fluorescent based biosensor has been developed for the antibody based detection of food related contaminants. Its performance was characterised and showed a typical antibody binding signal of 200-2000 mV, a short term noise of 9.1 mV, and baseline slope of -0.016 mV/s over 4 h. Bulk signal detection repeatability (n=23) and reproducibility (n=3) were less than 2.4%CV. The biosensor detection unit was evaluated using two food related model systems proving its ability to monitor both binding using commercial products and inhibition through the development of an assay. This assay development potential was evaluated by observing the biosensor's performance whilst appraising several labelled antibody and glass slide configurations. The molecular interaction between biotin and an anti-biotin antibody was shown to be inhibited by 41% due to the presence of biotin in a sample. A food toxin (domoic acid) calibration curve was produced, with %CVs ranging from 2.7 to 7.8%, and a midpoint of approximately 17 ng/ml with further optimisation possible. The ultimate aim of this study was to demonstrate the working principles of this innovative biosensor as a potential portable tool with the opportunity of interchangeable assays. The biosensor design is applicable for the requirements of routine food contaminant analysis, with respect to performance, functionality and cost. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Assessing the impact on chronic disease of incorporating the societal cost of greenhouse gases into the price of food: an econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study

Objectives To model the impact on chronic disease of a tax on UK food and drink that internalises the wider costs to society of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to estimate the potential revenue. Design An econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. Setting The UK. Participants The UK adult population. Interventions Two tax scenarios are modelled: (A) a tax of £2.72/tonne carbon dioxide equivalents (tCO2e)/100 g product applied to all food and drink groups with above average GHG emissions. (B) As with scenario (A) but food groups with emissions below average are subsidised to create a tax neutral scenario. Outcome measures Primary outcomes are change in UK population mortality from chronic diseases following the implementation of each taxation strategy, the change in the UK GHG emissions and the predicted revenue. Secondary outcomes are the changes to the micronutrient composition of the UK diet. Results Scenario (A) results in 7770 (95% credible intervals 7150 to 8390) deaths averted and a reduction in GHG emissions of 18 683 (14 665to 22 889) ktCO2e/year. Estimated annual revenue is £2.02 (£1.98 to £2.06) billion. Scenario (B) results in 2685 (1966 to 3402) extra deaths and a reduction in GHG emissions of 15 228 (11 245to 19 492) ktCO2e/year. Conclusions Incorporating the societal cost of GHG into the price of foods could save 7770 lives in the UK each year, reduce food-related GHG emissions and generate substantial tax revenue. The revenue neutral scenario (B) demonstrates that sustainability and health goals are not always aligned. Future work should focus on investigating the health impact by population subgroup and on designing fiscal strategies to promote both sustainable and healthy diets.

Simulating the impact on health of internalising the cost of carbon in food prices combined with a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages

Rising greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) have implications for health and up to 30 % of emissions globally are thought to arise from agriculture. Synergies exist between diets low in GHGEs and health however some foods have the opposite relationship, such as sugar production being a relatively low source of GHGEs. In order to address this and to further characterise a healthy sustainable diet, we model the effect on UK non-communicable disease mortality and GHGEs of internalising the social cost of carbon into the price of food alongside a 20 % tax on sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs). Developing previously published work, we simulate four tax scenarios: (A) a GHGEs tax of £2.86/tonne of CO2 equivalents (tCO2e)/100 g product on all products with emissions greater than the mean across all food groups (0.36 kgCO2e/100 g); (B) scenario A but with subsidies on foods with emissions lower than 0.36 kgCO2e/100 g such that the effect is revenue neutral; (C) scenario A but with a 20 % sales tax on SSBs; (D) scenario B but with a 20 % sales tax on SSBs. An almost ideal demand system is used to estimate price elasticities and a comparative risk assessment model is used to estimate changes to non-communicable disease mortality. We estimate that scenario A would lead to 300 deaths delayed or averted, 18,900 ktCO2e fewer GHGEs, and £3.0 billion tax revenue; scenario B, 90 deaths delayed or averted and 17,100 ktCO2e fewer GHGEs; scenario C, 1,200 deaths delayed or averted, 18,500 ktCO2e fewer GHGEs, and £3.4 billion revenue; and scenario D, 2,000 deaths delayed or averted and 16,500 ktCO2e fewer GHGEs. Deaths averted are mainly due to increased fibre and reduced fat consumption; a SSB tax reduces SSB and sugar consumption. Incorporating the social cost of carbon into the price of food has the potential to improve health, reduce GHGEs, and raise revenue. The simple addition of a tax on SSBs can mitigate negative health consequences arising from sugar being low in GHGEs. Further conflicts remain, including increased consumption of unhealthy foods such as cakes and nutrients such as salt.

The Timeliness and Cost-Effectiveness of the Local and Regional Procurement of Food Aid

Local and regional procurement (LRP) of food aid is often claimed to lead to quicker and more cost-effective response. We generate timeliness and cost-effectiveness estimates by comparing US-funded LRP activities in nine countries against in-kind, transoceanic food aid shipments from the US to the same countries during the same timeframe. Procuring food locally or distributing cash or vouchers results in a time savings of nearly 14 weeks, a 62 percent gain. Cost-effectiveness varies significantly by commodity type. Procuring grains locally saved over 50 percent, on average, while local procurement of processed commodities was not always cost-effective. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Japan : production and imports of food : an analysis of the welfare cost of protection /

Cover title.

Food and the people : the problem of the high cost of living in the New York Legislature /

Mode of access: Internet.

The cost of a minimum essential food basket in Northern Ireland : Pilot study for two household types

A good diet and adequate food supply is central to promoting health and wellbeing. A poor quality diet is associated with higher rates of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. Social and economic conditions impact on diet quality which in turn contributes to health inequalities. This relationship is recognised and addressed at a policy level in NI through the Fitter Future for all framework(1). Access to a healthy diet requires transport, money and skills such as budgeting and food preparation. Food is the most flexible aspect of the household budget due to the fact the consumers can meet hunger and calorie needs on cheaper, nutritionally-poor foods.

The cost of a minimum essential food basket in the Republic of Ireland: Study for six household types.

A Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) is derived from a negotiated consensus on what people believe is a minimum standard. It is a standard of living that meets an individual’s or a household’s physical, psychological and social needs. This is calculated by identifying the goods and services required by different household types in order to meet their needs. While an MESL is based on needs, not wants, it is a standard of living below which nobody should be expected to live. This report focuses on food, one of the 16 elements of the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) data. It is based on a methodology called Consensual Budget Standards (CBS). The report is presented in the context of increasing concerns about the issue of food poverty in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and an increase in the number of people reporting that they do not have enough money to buy food. Recent data from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have shown that the number of people believing they cannot afford food doubled from 4.2% in 2008 to 9% in 2014. Data from Eurostat show that in 2013, food and non-alcoholic beverage prices in Ireland were 17% higher than the EU average. Moreover, research by Carney and Maitre, using data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC), found that one in ten people are living in food poverty in Ireland. Food poverty is defined as the inability to have an adequate and nutritious diet due to issues of affordability and access to food. This has related effects on health, culture and social participation. The 2013 data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) show that 1.4 million people, almost 31% of the population, suffer from deprivation. This means that they are unable to afford two items from a list of 11 very basic items (of which one is not being able to eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or a vegetarian equivalent every second day). The highest levels of deprivation are experienced by lone parents (63%), unemployed people (55%) and people not at work because of illness or disability (53%). The experience of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (VPSJ) is that expenditure on food tends to be one of the least important considerations when households are dealing with competing demands on an inadequate income. A Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) is derived from a negotiated consensus on what people believe is a minimum standard. It is a standard of living that meets an individual’s or a household’s physical, psychological and social needs. This is calculated by identifying the goods and services required by different household types in order to meet their needs. While an MESL is based on needs, not wants, it is a standard of living below which nobody should be expected to live. This report focuses on food, one of the 16 elements of the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) data. It is based on a methodology called Consensual Budget Standards (CBS). The report is presented in the context of increasing concerns about the issue of food poverty in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and an increase in the number of people reporting that they do not have enough money to buy food. Recent data from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have shown that the number of people believing they cannot afford food doubled from 4.2% in 2008 to 9% in 2014. Data from Eurostat show that in 2013, food and non-alcoholic beverage prices in Ireland were 17% higher than the EU average. Moreover, research by Carney and Maitre, using data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC), found that one in ten people are living in food poverty in Ireland. Food poverty is defined as the inability to have an adequate and nutritious diet due to issues of affordability and access to food. This has related effects on health, culture and social participation. The 2013 data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) show that 1.4 million people, almost 31% of the population, suffer from deprivation. This means that they are unable to afford two items from a list of 11 very basic items (of which one is not being able to eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or a vegetarian equivalent every second day). The highest levels of deprivation are experienced by lone parents (63%), unemployed people (55%) and people not at work because of illness or disability (53%). The experience of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (VPSJ) is that expenditure on food tends to be one of the least important considerations when households are dealing with competing demands on an inadequate income. - See more at: http://www.safefood.eu/Publications/Research-reports/The-cost-of-a-healthy-food-basket.aspx#sthash.RiBpj5no.dpuf A Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) is derived from a negotiated consensus on what people believe is a minimum standard. It is a standard of living that meets an individual’s or a household’s physical, psychological and social needs. This is calculated by identifying the goods and services required by different household types in order to meet their needs. While an MESL is based on needs, not wants, it is a standard of living below which nobody should be expected to live. This report focuses on food, one of the 16 elements of the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) data. It is based on a methodology called Consensual Budget Standards (CBS). The report is presented in the context of increasing concerns about the issue of food poverty in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and an increase in the number of people reporting that they do not have enough money to buy food. Recent data from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have shown that the number of people believing they cannot afford food doubled from 4.2% in 2008 to 9% in 2014. Data from Eurostat show that in 2013, food and non-alcoholic beverage prices in Ireland were 17% higher than the EU average. Moreover, research by Carney and Maitre, using data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC), found that one in ten people are living in food poverty in Ireland. Food poverty is defined as the inability to have an adequate and nutritious diet due to issues of affordability and access to food. This has related effects on health, culture and social participation. The 2013 data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) show that 1.4 million people, almost 31% of the population, suffer from deprivation. This means that they are unable to afford two items from a list of 11 very basic items (of which one is not being able to eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or a vegetarian equivalent every second day). The highest levels of deprivation are experienced by lone parents (63%), unemployed people (55%) and people not at work because of illness or disability (53%). The experience of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (VPSJ) is that expenditure on food tends to be one of the least important considerations when households are dealing with competing demands on an inadequate income. - See more at: http://www.safefood.eu/Publications/Research-reports/The-cost-of-a-healthy-food-basket.aspx#sthash.RiBpj5no.dpuf A Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) is derived from a negotiated consensus on what people believe is a minimum standard. It is a standard of living that meets an individual’s or a household’s physical, psychological and social needs. This is calculated by identifying the goods and services required by different household types in order to meet their needs. While an MESL is based on needs, not wants, it is a standard of living below which nobody should be expected to live. This report focuses on food, one of the 16 elements of the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) data. It is based on a methodology called Consensual Budget Standards (CBS). The report is presented in the context of increasing concerns about the issue of food poverty in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and an increase in the number of people reporting that they do not have enough money to buy food. Recent data from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have shown that the number of people believing they cannot afford food doubled from 4.2% in 2008 to 9% in 2014. Data from Eurostat show that in 2013, food and non-alcoholic beverage prices in Ireland were 17% higher than the EU average. Moreover, research by Carney and Maitre, using data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC), found that one in ten people are living in food poverty in Ireland. Food poverty is defined as the inability to have an adequate and nutritious diet due to issues of affordability and access to food. This has related effects on health, culture and social participation. The 2013 data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) show that 1.4 million people, almost 31% of the population, suffer from deprivation. This means that they are unable to afford two items from a list of 11 very basic items (of which one is not being able to eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or a vegetarian equivalent every second day). The highest levels of deprivation are experienced by lone parents (63%), unemployed people (55%) and people not at work because of illness or disability (53%). The experience of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (VPSJ) is that expenditure on food tends to be one of the least important considerations when households are dealing with competing demands on an inadequate income. - See more at: http://www.safefood.eu/Publications/Research-reports/The-cost-of-a-healthy-food-basket.aspx#sthash.RiBpj5no.dpuf

Intermittent drying of food products : a critical review

Drying is very energy intensive process and consumes about 20-25% of the energy used by food processing industry. The energy efficiency of the process and quality of dried product are two key factors in food drying. Global energy crisis and demand for quality dried food further challenge researchers to explore innovative techniques in food drying to address these issues. Intermittent drying is considered one of the promising solutions for improving energy efficiency and product quality without increasing the capital cost of the drier. Intermittent drying has already received much attention. However, a comprehensive review of recent progresses and overall assessment of energy efficiency and product quality in intermittent drying is lacking. The objective of this article is to discuss, analyze and evaluate the recent advances in intermittent drying research with energy efficiency and product quality as standpoint. Current available modelling techniques for intermittent drying are reviewed and their merits and demerits are analyzed. Moreover, intermittent application of ultrasound, infrared (IR) and microwave in combined drying technology have been reviewed and discussed. In this review article the gaps in the current literature are highlighted, some important future scopes for theoretical and experimental studies are identified and the direction of further research is suggested.

Multiphysics modelling of convective drying of food materials

Currently, 1.3 billion tonnes of food is lost annually due to lack of proper processing and preservation method. Drying is one of the easiest and oldest methods of food processing which can contribute to reduce that huge losses, combat hunger and promote food security. Drying increase shelf life, reduce weight and volume of food thus minimize packing, storage, and transportation cost and enable storage of food under ambient environment. However, drying is a complex process which involves combination of heat and mass transfer and physical property change and shrinkage of the food material. Modelling of this process is essential to optimize the drying kinetics and improve energy efficiency of the process. Since material properties varies with moisture content, the models should not consider constant materials properties, constant diffusion .The objective of this paper is to develop a multiphysics based mathematical model to simulate coupled heat and mass transfer during convective drying of fruit considering variable material properties. This model can be used predict the temperature and moisture distribution inside the food during drying. Effect of different drying air temperature and drying air velocity on drying kinetics has been demonstrated. The governing equations of heat and mass transfer were solved with Comsol Multiphysics 4.3.

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.