{"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, Meron Lewis, Karen Walton, Katherine Kent, 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, Meron Lewis, Karen Walton, Katherine Kent, 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}
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.
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.