Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To 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 sources

MEDLINE (2000-2011), supplemented with expert consultations and hand reviews of reference lists and related citations.

Design

Studies 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 I(2) statistics.

Results

27 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.

Conclusions

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Rao M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3855594 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPlacing food further away from people decreases likelihood of consumption ("Proximity Effect"). However, it is unclear how proximity affects consumption when both healthier and less healthy foods are available and cognitive resource for self-control is limited.AimsTo test the hypothesis that when both healthier (raisins) and less healthy (chocolate M&Ms) foods are available, placing less healthy food far, rather than near, increases the likelihood that healthier food is consumed.MethodsGeneral population participants (N = 248) were all put under cognitive load and randomised to one of four groups: 1. Raisins near (20 cm), M&Ms far (70 cm); 2. Both foods near; 3. M&Ms near, raisins far; 4. Both far.Primary outcomeproportions of participants consuming raisins and M&Ms, respectively.ResultsThe results did not support the primary hypothesis: when healthier and less healthy foods were both available, placing M&Ms far, rather than near, did not increase likelihood of consuming raisins (OR = 1.54, p = .432). Regardless of the M&Ms proximity, likelihood of consuming raisins was unaffected by the raisins' proximity (62.9%(near) vs. 56.5%(far) OR = 0.61, p = .211). Likelihood of consuming M&Ms non-significantly decreased when they were far and raisins were near, and when both foods were far (OR = 2.83, p = .057). Likelihood of consuming M&Ms was affected by M&Ms proximity, being higher when near (68.3%) than far (55.6%), OR = 0.39, p = .015. Indices of cognitive load impact (higher vs lower) were unrelated to consumption of either food.ConclusionsLikelihood of consuming a healthier food was unaffected by its proximity and that of a less healthy food. By contrast, likelihood of consuming a less healthy food was influenced by its proximity and possibly by that of a healthier food. These effects need replication in studies designed to detect smaller effect sizes.Trial registrationThis study was registered online with ISRCTN (ISRCTN11740813).

Project description:BackgroundAvailability interventions have been hypothesised to make limited demands on conscious processes and, as a result, to be less likely to generate health inequalities than cognitively-oriented interventions. Here we synthesise existing evidence to examine whether the impact of altering the availability of healthier vs. less-healthy options differs by socioeconomic position.MethodsIndividual-level data (21,360 observations from 7,375 participants) from six studies (conducted online (n = 4) and in laboratories (n = 2)) were pooled for mega-analysis. Multilevel logistic regressions analysed the impact of altering the availability of healthier options on selection of a healthier (rather than a less-healthy) option by socioeconomic position, assessed by (a) education and (b) income.ResultsParticipants had over threefold higher odds of selecting a healthier option when the available range was predominantly healthier compared to selections when the range offered was predominantly less-healthy (odds ratio (OR): 3.8; 95%CIs: 3.5, 4.1). Less educated participants were less likely to select healthier options in each availability condition (ORs: 0.75-0.85; all p < 0.005), but there was no evidence of differences in healthier option selection by income. Compared to selections when the range offered was predominantly less-healthy, when predominantly healthier options were available there was a 31% increase in selecting healthier options for the most educated group vs 27% for the least educated. This modest degree of increased responsiveness in the most educated group appeared only to occur when healthier options were predominant. There was no evidence of any differential response to the intervention by income.ConclusionIncreasing the proportion of healthier options available increases the selection of healthier options across socioeconomic positions. Availability interventions may have a slightly larger beneficial effect on those with the highest levels of education in settings when healthier options predominate.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a growing concern, but limited evidence, that price promotions contribute to a poor diet and the social patterning of diet-related disease.ObjectiveWe examined the following questions: 1) Are less-healthy foods more likely to be promoted than healthier foods? 2) Are consumers more responsive to promotions on less-healthy products? 3) Are there socioeconomic differences in food purchases in response to price promotions?DesignWith the use of hierarchical regression, we analyzed data on purchases of 11,323 products within 135 food and beverage categories from 26,986 households in Great Britain during 2010. Major supermarkets operated the same price promotions in all branches. The number of stores that offered price promotions on each product for each week was used to measure the frequency of price promotions. We assessed the healthiness of each product by using a nutrient profiling (NP) model.ResultsA total of 6788 products (60%) were in healthier categories and 4535 products (40%) were in less-healthy categories. There was no significant gap in the frequency of promotion by the healthiness of products neither within nor between categories. However, after we controlled for the reference price, price discount rate, and brand-specific effects, the sales uplift arising from price promotions was larger in less-healthy than in healthier categories; a 1-SD point increase in the category mean NP score, implying the category becomes less healthy, was associated with an additional 7.7-percentage point increase in sales (from 27.3% to 35.0%; P < 0.01). The magnitude of the sales uplift from promotions was larger for higher-socioeconomic status (SES) groups than for lower ones (34.6% for the high-SES group, 28.1% for the middle-SES group, and 23.1% for the low-SES group). Finally, there was no significant SES gap in the absolute volume of purchases of less-healthy foods made on promotion.ConclusionAttempts to limit promotions on less-healthy foods could improve the population diet but would be unlikely to reduce health inequalities arising from poorer diets in low-socioeconomic groups.

Project description:New Zealand farm working dogs are supreme athletes that are crucial to agriculture in the region. The effects that low or high dietary carbohydrate (CHO) content might have on their interstitial glucose (IG) and activity during work are unknown. The goals of the study were to determine if the concentration of IG and delta-g (a measurement of activity) will be lower in dogs fed an ultra-low CHO high fat diet in comparison to dogs fed a high CHO low fat diet, and to determine if low concentrations of IG are followed by reduced physical activity. We hypothesized that feeding working farm dogs an ultra-low CHO diet would reduce their IG concentrations which in turn would reduce physical activity during work. We prospectively recruited 22 farm dogs from four farms. At each farm, dogs were randomized to one of two diets and had a month of dietary acclimation to their allocated diet. The macronutrient proportions as a percentage of metabolizable energy (%ME) for the high CHO low fat diet (Diet 1) were 23% protein, 25% fat, and 52% CHO, and for the ultra-low CHO high fat diet (Diet 2) 37% protein, 63% fat, and 1% CHO. Following the acclimation period, we continuously monitored IG concentrations with flash glucose monitoring devices, and delta-g using triaxial accelerometers for 96 h. Dogs fed Diet 2 had a lower area under the curve (±SE) for IG (AUC Diet 2 = 497 ± 4 mmol/L/96h, AUC Diet 1 = 590 ± 3 mmol/L/96h; P = 0.002) but a higher area under the curve (±SE) for delta-g (AUC Diet 2 = 104,122 ± 6,045 delta-g/96h, AUC Diet 1 = 80,904 ± 4,950 delta-g/96h; P< 0.001). Interstitial glucose concentrations increased as the activity level increased (P < 0.001) and were lower for Diet 2 within each activity level (P < 0.001). The overall incidence of low IG readings (< 3.5 mmol/L) was 119/3810 (3.12%), of which 110 (92.4%) readings occurred in the Diet 2 group (P = 0.001). In the Diet 2 group, 99/110 (90%) of the low IG events occurred during the resting period (19:00-06:00). We conclude that feeding Diet 2 (ultra-low CHO high fat diet) to working farm dogs was associated with increased delta-g despite decreased IG concentrations. Interstitial glucose concentrations were positively associated with dogs' activity levels independent of diet. Lastly, events of low IG occurred at a low incidence and were predominantly seen between 19:00-06:00 in dogs fed the ultra-low CHO high fat diet.