U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Affordability on the Thrifty Food Plan Depends on Purchasing Power and Safety Net Supports

Abstract

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) increases the food purchasing power of lower-income households so that they can better afford a nutritious diet. Benefit amounts are based in part on the cost for a household to follow the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), a meal pattern designed to meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. In October 2021, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reformulated the TFP and increased its cost by 21%. However, the TFP still does not account for differences in food prices across the country. This study examines: (1) how geographic variation in food prices affects fruit and vegetable affordability and (2) to what extent raising the cost of the TFP (and therefore the maximum SNAP benefit) has mitigated these effects. We use data on fruit and vegetable prices from the USDA and simulation techniques to create and cost out food baskets with a sufficient quantity and variety of fruits and vegetables for a representative household to satisfy guidelines over one week. We find that the increase in SNAP benefits will increase fruit and vegetable affordability for participating households. However, households facing food prices greater than national average food prices may still face tradeoffs to purchase a balanced diet.

Improving Fruit and Vegetable Accessibility, Purchasing, and Consumption to Advance Nutrition Security and Health Equity in the United States

“…Young and Stewart (2022) [ 63 ] examined the sufficiency of the TFP increase in SNAP benefits to afford FVs around the country. Importantly, TFP guidance is a standard estimate that does not account for variations in food prices across different U.S. geographies/contexts [ 60 ].…”

“…While authors found, on average, increased SNAP benefits to be sufficient for households to meet DGA recommendations for FV purchases, affordability barriers by location were evident. Households residing in areas with higher than average food prices likely need to spend a larger percentage of their overall food budget on FVs to meet the DGA relative to households in areas with average or lower than average food prices [ 63 ]. As such, this reality likely prevents many Americans with lower incomes who face disproportionate access barriers [ 64 ] from purchasing FVs.…”

“…As such, this reality likely prevents many Americans with lower incomes who face disproportionate access barriers [ 64 ] from purchasing FVs. Authors note the importance of understanding the impact of such policy changes on FV consumption while understanding targeted solutions to mitigate disparities, which deserves more focus in the field [ 63 ].…”

“…To date, the NTAE has established perhaps the largest compilation resources to support the nutrition incentive and produce prescription fields [ 67 ]. Initial evidence from a GusNIP impact evaluation suggests that both programs help to provide the resources necessary to improve food security and dietary quality among Americans with lower incomes [ 63 ]. More evidence using shared metrics is needed.…”

Revisiting fruit and vegetable determinants: Evidence from Latin America

“…Arce et al (2021) found that the acceptability of some FVs is reported to have a high influence on consumption. In this sense, price as an FV consumption barrier is likely to be hiding other determinants (Livingstone et al, 2020;Hohoff et al, 2022;Young and Stewart, 2022). Of course, price is relevant in many consumption decisions; however, in some cases, it is likely to have overstated their actual effect on consumption.…”