食品成本在哪里最严重:对澳大利亚低社会经济地区饮食成本和负担能力的调查

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Samantha Dean, Meron Lewis, Karen Walton, Katherine Kent, Karen E. Charlton
{"title":"食品成本在哪里最严重:对澳大利亚低社会经济地区饮食成本和负担能力的调查","authors":"Samantha Dean,&nbsp;Meron Lewis,&nbsp;Karen Walton,&nbsp;Katherine Kent,&nbsp;Karen E. Charlton","doi":"10.1002/hpja.70092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Recommended diets were less expensive than current diets for all households by 9%–31%. Pricing ‘cheapest alternatives’ reduced both diet costs by 30%–34%.</p>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>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’.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Implications for Health Promotion</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47379,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Journal of Australia","volume":"36 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hpja.70092","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Where Cost of Food Hits Hardest: Investigation of Diet Cost and Affordability in a Low Socioeconomic Region of Australia\",\"authors\":\"Samantha Dean,&nbsp;Meron Lewis,&nbsp;Karen Walton,&nbsp;Katherine Kent,&nbsp;Karen E. Charlton\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hpja.70092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Recommended diets were less expensive than current diets for all households by 9%–31%. Pricing ‘cheapest alternatives’ reduced both diet costs by 30%–34%.</p>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>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’.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Implications for Health Promotion</h3>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Promotion Journal of Australia\",\"volume\":\"36 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hpja.70092\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Promotion Journal of Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hpja.70092\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hpja.70092","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

澳大利亚新南威尔士州福勒选区的居民经历了很高的社会经济劣势,因此可能容易受到粮食不安全的影响。本研究旨在评估该选区各种家庭结构的推荐饮食和当前饮食的成本、成本差异和可负担性。方法本研究采用澳大利亚健康饮食标准可负担性和定价方案。食品和饮料的价格,包括“流行品牌”和“最便宜的替代品”选项,是用标准化的推荐和当前的饮食定价工具从福勒地区5个地点的43家门店收集的。研究人员计算了一个四口之家、一个单亲家庭和一个单身男性的两周饮食成本,以及两种饮食和定价选择之间的差异。饮食负担能力是根据最低工资和依赖福利的家庭收入来评估的,如果饮食成本分别超过家庭收入的25%和30%,就会导致“食物压力”或“负担不起”。结果所有家庭的推荐膳食比目前的膳食便宜9%-31%。“最便宜的替代品”定价使两种饮食的成本都降低了30%-34%。对于“流行品牌”,推荐和当前的饮食分别需要家庭收入的13%-34%和19%-42%,而“最便宜的替代品”分别需要家庭收入的9%-23%和13%-28%。对于许多依赖福利和有孩子的低收入家庭来说,推荐的和目前以“流行品牌”定价的饮食是负担不起的,或者造成了“食物压力”。结论:虽然推荐的饮食比目前的饮食便宜,但对于许多依赖福利和有孩子的低收入家庭来说,除非他们购买“最便宜的替代品”,否则他们负担不起或造成“食物压力”。迫切需要有针对性的政策干预措施,以提高社会经济高度劣势地区的饮食负担能力,包括扩大地方一级的粮食获取倡议,以及更广泛地采取更强有力的财政政策措施,以解决饮食不平等问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Where Cost of Food Hits Hardest: Investigation of Diet Cost and Affordability in a Low Socioeconomic Region of Australia

Where Cost of Food Hits Hardest: Investigation of Diet Cost and Affordability in a Low Socioeconomic Region of Australia

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Promotion Journal of Australia
Health Promotion Journal of Australia PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.50%
发文量
115
期刊介绍: The purpose of the Health Promotion Journal of Australia is to facilitate communication between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers involved in health promotion activities. Preference for publication is given to practical examples of policies, theories, strategies and programs which utilise educational, organisational, economic and/or environmental approaches to health promotion. The journal also publishes brief reports discussing programs, professional viewpoints, and guidelines for practice or evaluation methodology. The journal features articles, brief reports, editorials, perspectives, "of interest", viewpoints, book reviews and letters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信