Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
Where Cost of Food Hits Hardest: Investigation of Diet Cost and Affordability in a Low Socioeconomic Region of Australia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dean Samantha, Lewis Meron, Walton Karen, Kent Katherine, Charlton Karen E
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Residents in the Fowler electorate of NSW, Australia experience high socioeconomic disadvantage and may therefore be vulnerable to food insecurity. This study aimed to assess the cost, cost differential and affordability of recommended and current diets for various household structures in this electorate.
METHODS: This study applied the low socioeconomic group Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing protocol. Food and beverage prices, including both 'popular brand' and 'cheapest alternative' options, were collected from 43 outlets in five locations across Fowler using standardised recommended and current diet pricing tools. Fortnightly diet costs and the differential between both diets and pricing options were calculated for a family of four, a single-parent family and a single male. Diet affordability was assessed against low-minimum wage and welfare-dependent household incomes, characterising diet costs as causing 'food stress' or being 'unaffordable' if exceeding 25% and 30% of household income, respectively.
RESULTS: Recommended diets were less expensive than current diets for all households by 9%-31%. Pricing 'cheapest alternatives' reduced both diet costs by 30%-34%. For 'popular brands', recommended and current diets required 13%-34% and 19%-42% of household income, respectively, while 'cheapest alternatives' required 9%-23% and 13%-28% of household income, respectively. Recommended and current diets priced with 'popular brands' were unaffordable or caused 'food stress' for many welfare-dependent and low-income families with children.
CONCLUSION: Whilst recommended diets were less expensive than current diets, they were unaffordable or caused 'food stress' for many welfare-dependent and low-income families with children unless the households purchased the 'cheapest alternatives'.
IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH PROMOTION: Targeted policy interventions to improve diet affordability for regions with high socioeconomic disadvantage are urgently required, including expansion of local-level food access initiatives and, more broadly, stronger fiscal policy measures to address dietary inequities.
METHODS: This study applied the low socioeconomic group Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing protocol. Food and beverage prices, including both 'popular brand' and 'cheapest alternative' options, were collected from 43 outlets in five locations across Fowler using standardised recommended and current diet pricing tools. Fortnightly diet costs and the differential between both diets and pricing options were calculated for a family of four, a single-parent family and a single male. Diet affordability was assessed against low-minimum wage and welfare-dependent household incomes, characterising diet costs as causing 'food stress' or being 'unaffordable' if exceeding 25% and 30% of household income, respectively.
RESULTS: Recommended diets were less expensive than current diets for all households by 9%-31%. Pricing 'cheapest alternatives' reduced both diet costs by 30%-34%. For 'popular brands', recommended and current diets required 13%-34% and 19%-42% of household income, respectively, while 'cheapest alternatives' required 9%-23% and 13%-28% of household income, respectively. Recommended and current diets priced with 'popular brands' were unaffordable or caused 'food stress' for many welfare-dependent and low-income families with children.
CONCLUSION: Whilst recommended diets were less expensive than current diets, they were unaffordable or caused 'food stress' for many welfare-dependent and low-income families with children unless the households purchased the 'cheapest alternatives'.
IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH PROMOTION: Targeted policy interventions to improve diet affordability for regions with high socioeconomic disadvantage are urgently required, including expansion of local-level food access initiatives and, more broadly, stronger fiscal policy measures to address dietary inequities.