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

Abstract

ObjectiveTo 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 sourcesMEDLINE (2000–2011), supplemented with expert consultations and hand reviews of reference lists and related citations.DesignStudies 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 I2 statistics.Results27 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<0.05 each) and not significant for soda/juice ($0.11, p=0.64). Comparing extremes (top vs bottom quantile) of food-based diet patterns, healthier diets cost $1.48/day ($1.01 to $1.95) and $1.54/2000 kcal ($1.15 to $1.94) more. Comparing nutrient-based patterns, price per day was not significantly different (top vs bottom quantile: $0.04; p=0.916), whereas price per 2000 kcal was $1.56 ($0.61 to $2.51) more. Adjustment for intensity of differences in healthfulness yielded similar results.ConclusionsThis 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.

Providing healthy diets for young children: the experience of parents in a UK inner city

“…In contrast to findings of previous research, cost and related availability of healthy food was not reported by participants in this study as a barrier, despite the relatively higher cost of providing a diet characterized by fresh fruit and vegetables (Rao, Afshin, Singh, & Mozaffarian, 2013). However this may be due to economics and cost not being the focus of this study, rather interview questions focused on sources of information and barriers and techniques around healthy eating relating to parent/carer and child interactions.…”

The food environment, its effects on dietary consumption, and potential for measurement within agriculture-nutrition interventions

“…A growing literature consistently shows that the cost of a healthy diet is higher than the cost of an unhealthy diet. A systematic review of cost-ofdiet studies globally found that healthy diets were, on average, approximately $10.50/week more expensive than less-healthy diets, and that this difference was similar across countries adjusting for purchasing power parity (Rao et al 2013). 4 In the UK, a recent study disaggregated diets into five categories of Bhealthfulness^and found that the healthiest diet was double the price of the least healthy diet (Morris et al 2014).…”

The Sustainability Challenges of Our Meat and Dairy Diets

“…In sustainability terms, economic, social, and environmental externalities should be built into prices by selective taxing of and/or fees for resource use, inputs, and wastes. 31 We are entering an economic world where the notion of the "externality" is no longer valid. 32 The issue here is the strength and reliability of the scientific evidence and longer term prognoses for the well-being of people and the planet of continuing with such externalities.…”