Food cost and availability in a rural setting in Australia

Introduction: The burden of chronic diseases is rapidly increasing worldwide. In  Australia rural populations have a greater burden of disease. Chronic diseases are largely preventable with diet as a key risk factor. With respect to diet-related chronic disease, dietary risk may be due to poor food access, namely, poor availability and/or the high cost of healthy food. It is likely that poor food access is an issue in rural areas. Objective: To assess food access in rural south-west (SW) Victoria, Australia.

Methods: A total of 53 supermarkets and grocery stores in 42 towns participated in a survey of food cost and availability in the rural area of SW Victoria. The survey assessed availability and cost of a Healthy Food Access Basket (HFAB) which was designed to meet the nutritional needs of a family of 6 for 2 weeks.

Results: Seventy-two percent of the eligible shops in SW Victoria were surveyed. The study found that the complete HFAB was significantly more likely to be available in a town with a chain-owned store (p<0.00). The complete HFAB was less likely to be available from an independently owned store in a town with only one grocery shop (p<0.004). The average cost of the HFAB across SW Victoria was AU$380.30 ± $25.10 (mean ± SD). There was a mean range in difference of cost of the HFAB of $36.92. In particular, high variability was found in the cost of fruits and vegetables.

Conclusions: Cost and availability of healthy food may be compromised in rural areas. Implications: Improvements in food access in rural areas could reduce the high burden of disease suffered by rural communities.

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 comparative cost of food and beverages at remote Indigenous communities, Northern Territory, Australia

OBJECTIVE: To determine the average price difference between foods and beverages in remote Indigenous community stores and capital city supermarkets and explore differences across products.

METHODS: A cross-sectional survey compared prices derived from point-of-sale data in 20 remote Northern Territory stores with supermarkets in capital cities of the Northern Territory and South Australia for groceries commonly purchased in remote stores. Average price differences for products, supply categories and food groups were examined.

RESULTS: The 443 products examined represented 63% of food and beverage expenditure in remote stores. Remote products were, on average, 60% and 68% more expensive than advertised prices for Darwin and Adelaide supermarkets, respectively. The average price difference for fresh products was half that of packaged groceries for Darwin supermarkets and more than 50% for food groups that contributed most to purchasing.

CONCLUSIONS: Strategies employed by manufacturers and supermarkets, such as promotional pricing, and supermarkets' generic products lead to lower prices. These opportunities are not equally available to remote customers and are a major driver of price disparity.

IMPLICATIONS: Food affordability for already disadvantaged residents of remote communities could be improved by policies targeted at manufacturers, wholesalers and/or major supermarket chains.

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.

It's time to determine the cost of a healthy diet in Australia

Economic factors are important determinants of food security. In terms of food access, financial resources determine an individual’s ability to procure food; on the supply side, the cost of food is equally important. The interplay of these two factors, financial resources and cost, is perhaps the most immediate and important determinant of what people do (or do not) put into their shopping trolleys or purchase at the takeaway and ultimately eat – if you cannot afford it you cannot eat it even if you want to!

Does modifying the household food budget predict changes in the healthfulness of purchasing choices among low- and high-income women?

Food cost has a strong influence on food purchases and given that persons of low income often have more limited budgets, healthier foods may be overlooked in favour of more energy-dense lower-cost options. The aim of this study was to investigate whether modifications to the available household food budget led to changes in the healthfulness of food purchasing choices among women of low and high income. A quasi-experimental design was used which included a sample of 74 women (37 low-income women and 37 high-income women) who were selected on the basis of their household income and sent an itemised shopping list in order to calculate their typical weekly household shopping expenditure. The women were also asked to indicate those foods they would add to their list if they were given an additional 25% of their budget to spend on food and those foods they would remove if they were restricted by 25% of their budget. When asked what foods they would add with a larger household food budget, low-income women chose more foods from the ‘healthier’ categories whereas high-income women chose more foods from the less ‘healthier’ categories. However, making the budgets of low- and high-income women more ‘equivalent’ did not eradicate income differences in overall healthfulness of food purchasing choices. This study highlights the importance of cost when making food purchasing choices among low- and high-income groups. Public health strategies aimed at reducing income inequalities in diet might focus on promoting healthy diets that are low cost.

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.

A healthy diet consistent with Australian health recommendations is too expensive for welfare-dependant families

Objective: Examine the cost of healthy food habits for welfare-dependent families in Australia.

Method:  A seven-day meal plan was developed, based on Australian public health recommendations, for two typical welfare-dependent families: a couple-family (two adults, two children) and a one-parent family (one adult, two children). The cost of the meal plan was calculated using market brand and generic brand grocery items, and total cost compared to income.

Results: In Australia, the cost of healthy food habits uses about 40% of the disposable income of welfare-dependent families. Families earning an average income would spend only 20% of their disposable income to buy the same healthy food. Substituting generic brands for market brands reduced the weekly food cost by about 13%. This is one of few economic models to include generic brands.

Conclusion: Compared with average-income Australian families, healthy food habits are a fiscal challenge to welfare-dependent families.

Implications: These results provide a benchmark for economic and social policy analysis, and the influence disposable income has on prioritising healthy food habits.

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.