The Price of Foods, Beverages, and Diets in Australia: An Updated Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: The price and affordability of food are priorities for public health and health equity; however, Australia lacks a consistent method to evaluate healthy versus unhealthy diets, creating a gap in routine food price reporting. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify and summarize recent methods used to assess and monitor the price and/or affordability of food and beverages in Australia using a health lens. DATA SOURCES: Four academic databases (MEDLINE Complete, Global Health, CINAHL Complete, and Business Source Complete) were searched in English from 2016 to 2022. Relevant gray literature was searched through Google Scholar and government websites. DATA EXTRACTION: Five reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and full-text screening was conducted by 1 reviewer, with eligibility confirmed by a second reviewer. The quality of studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute "Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies." DATA ANALYSIS: Twenty-five eligible studies were identified. Eleven studies used a version of the Healthy Diets Australian Standardized Affordability and Pricing protocol to collect prices for a "healthy" diet modelled on dietary guidelines and an "unhealthy" diet based on a habitual Australian diet. These studies consistently found unhealthy diets to be more expensive than healthy diets. Other identified methods included assessing the price of household diets across healthy baskets (n = 6), store types (n = 5), a planetary health diet (n = 1), packaged foods according to their Health Star Rating (n = 1), a fruit and vegetable basket (n = 1), school canteen foods against a traffic light system (n = 1), and weekly healthy meal plans (n = 1). Healthy diets tended to be less costly than less healthy diets, but both diets were often unaffordable in regional areas, for people on low incomes, and for First Nations peoples. CONCLUSION: Consistent country-wide application of methods for monitoring the price and affordability of foods and diets in Australia is needed-including tailored approaches for priority groups. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022333531.

Benchmarking for healthy food stores: protocol for a randomised controlled trial with remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia to enhance adoption of health-enabling store policy and practice.

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in remote Australia have initiated bold policies for health-enabling stores. Benchmarking, a data-driven and facilitated 'audit and feedback' with action planning process, provides a potential strategy to strengthen and scale health-enabling best-practice adoption by remote community store directors/owners. We aim to co-design a benchmarking model with five partner organisations and test its effectiveness with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community stores in remote Australia. METHODS: Study design is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with consenting eligible stores (located in very remote Northern Territory (NT) of Australia, primary grocery store for an Aboriginal community, and serviced by a Nutrition Practitioner with a study partner organisation). The Benchmarking model is informed by research evidence, purpose-built best-practice audit and feedback tools, and co-designed with partner organisation and community representatives. The intervention comprises two full benchmarking cycles (one per year, 2022/23 and 2023/24) of assessment, feedback, action planning and action implementation. Assessment of stores includes i adoption status of 21 evidence-and industry-informed health-enabling policies for remote stores, ii implementation of health-enabling best-practice using a purpose-built Store Scout App, iii price of a standardised healthy diet using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healthy Diets ASAP protocol; and, iv healthiness of food purchasing using sales data indicators. Partner organisations feedback reports and co-design action plans with stores. Control stores receive assessments and continue with usual retail practice. All stores provide weekly electronic sales data to assess the primary outcome, change in free sugars (g) to energy (MJ) from all food and drinks purchased, baseline (July-December 2021) vs July-December 2023. DISCUSSION: We hypothesise that the benchmarking intervention can improve the adoption of health-enabling store policy and practice and reduce sales of unhealthy foods and drinks in remote community stores of Australia. This innovative research with remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities can inform effective implementation strategies for healthy food retail more broadly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12622000596707, Protocol version 1.

Cost and Affordability of Habitual and Recommended Diets in Welfare-Dependent Households in Australia.

It is crucial to ensure healthy diets are affordable in low socioeconomic groups, such as welfare-dependent households, who experience higher rates of diet-related disease than others. This study assessed the cost of habitual (unhealthy) and recommended (healthy) diets in six welfare-dependent and six other, comparable Australian households, using either popular branded products or the cheapest available alternatives. It also assessed diet affordability in welfare-dependent households, before and after modest increases in government welfare payments introduced in early September 2023. Results confirmed that recommended diets were less expensive than habitual diets in all households unless the cheapest available products were included. This strategy reduced habitual diet costs by 35-37% and recommended diet costs by 30-32%. The lower cost differential could aid perceptions that healthy foods are more expensive than unhealthy foods. In April 2023, 23-37% of the income of welfare-dependent households with children was required to purchase recommended diets; this reduced only to 20-35% in September 2023. Hence, the increases in welfare payments were insufficient to meaningfully improve the affordability of healthy diets in the most vulnerable Australians. In the current cost-of-living crisis, there is an urgent need for more welfare support to help purchase healthy diets. Monitoring of diet cost and affordability is also required.

CO-Creation and Evaluation of Food Environments to Advance Community Health (COACH).

Introduction: Food environments are a key determinant of food intake and diet-related health. This paper describes the development of an iterative, adaptive, context-specific framework for health-enabling food environments embedded in cocreation theory. Methods: A 3-stage multimethod framework for the coproduction and prototyping of public health interventions was followed in an iterative manner during the development of the framework. These 3 stages were (1) evidence review, including systematic review, consultation with experts, and observation of current work; (2) codesign of the framework prototype with multiple stakeholders; and (3) coproduction through refinement of the prototype through stakeholder workshops and expert reviews with incorporation of researcher notes and workshop evaluation. We use the term prototype during the development phase and the term framework to report on the final product. Results: COACH (CO-creation and evaluation of food environments to Advance Community Health) is a process framework that describes what best practice application of cocreation in health-enabling food retail environments should involve. COACH consists of 10 interdependent factors within a 4-phase continuous quality improvement cycle. The 4 phases of the cycle are engagement and governance establishment, communication and policy alignment, codesign and implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. Conclusions: Utilizing cocreation theory represents an innovative step in research and practice to improve the healthiness of food retail environments. COACH provides a specific, unique, and comprehensive guide to the utilization of cocreation to improve the healthiness of food environments in practice.

Habitual Diets Are More Expensive than Recommended Healthy Diets.

Understanding food prices and affordability is crucial for promoting healthy dietary habits and informing policy actions. We assessed changes in the cost and affordability of habitual and recommended healthy diets in Northwest Tasmania from 2021 to 2023. The recommended diet was 16-22% less expensive than the habitual diet during the period. Notably, 60% of the total cost of the habitual diet was spent on discretionary items. The cost of the habitual diet increased by 9% in this period, whereas the cost of the recommended diet increased by only 2%. The habitual diet was unaffordable for households with median gross, minimum wage disposable or welfare-dependent incomes. The recommended diet, however, was affordable for some groups but posed a risk of food stress for those with median gross and minimum wage disposable income and remained unaffordable for those who were welfare dependent. Our findings reveal that adhering to a healthy Australian Dietary Guidelines-recommended diet can be more cost-effective than following a habitual unhealthy diet. However, adopting a healthy diet can be challenging for low-income families. Interventions such as financial support, nutrition education, community gardens and food hubs, as well as price regulation and subsidies for farmers, can help address food insecurity in Northwest Tasmania.

Healthy Food Prices Increased More Than the Prices of Unhealthy Options during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Concurrent Challenges to the Food System.

Food prices have escalated due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on global food systems, and other regional shocks and stressors including climate change and war. Few studies have applied a health lens to identify the most affected foods. This study aimed to assess costs and affordability of habitual (unhealthy) diets and recommended (healthy, equitable and more sustainable) diets and their components in Greater Brisbane, Queensland, Australia from 2019 to 2022 using the Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing protocol. Affordability was determined for reference households at three levels of income: median, minimum wage, and welfare-dependent. The recommended diet cost increased 17.9%; mostly in the last year when the prices of healthy foods, such as fruit, vegetables and legumes, healthy fats/oils, grains, and meats/alternatives, increased by 12.8%. In contrast, the cost of the unhealthy foods and drinks in the habitual diet 'only' increased 9.0% from 2019 to 2022, and 7.0% from 2021 to 2022. An exception was the cost of unhealthy take-away foods which increased by 14.7% over 2019-2022. With government COVID-19-related payments, for the first time recommended diets were affordable for all and food security and diets improved in 2020. However, the special payments were withdrawn in 2021, and recommended diets became 11.5% less affordable. Permanently increasing welfare support and providing an adequate minimum wage, while keeping basic, healthy foods GST-free and increasing GST to 20% on unhealthy foods, would improve food security and diet-related health inequities. Development of a Consumer Price Index specifically for healthy food would help highlight health risks during economic downturns.

Cost and affordability of healthy, equitable and more sustainable diets in the Torres Strait Islands.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost, cost differential and affordability of current and recommended (healthy, equitable, culturally acceptable and more sustainable) diets in the Torres Strait Islands and compare with other Queensland locations. METHODS: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healthy Diets ASAP (Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing) methods protocol was applied in five randomly selected communities in the Torres Strait Islands. RESULTS: The current diet was 32% more expensive than that recommended; 'discretionary' foods comprised 64% of the current diet cost. Families could save at least A$281.38 a fortnight by switching to recommended diets. However, these cost 35-40% more than elsewhere in Queensland. Recommended diets would cost 35% of median and 48% of welfare household income in the Torres Straits. CONCLUSIONS: While less expensive than the current diet, recommended diets are unaffordable for most households. Consequently, many Torres Strait Islander families are at high risk of food insecurity and diet-related disease. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Urgent policy action is required to further lower the relative price of recommended diets, and also increase household incomes and welfare supplements to equitably improve food security and diet-related health, and contribute to environmental sustainability in the Torres Strait Islands.

Costing recommended (healthy) and current (unhealthy) diets in urban and inner regional areas of Australia using remote price collection methods.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost and affordability of two fortnightly diets (representing the national guidelines and current consumption) across areas containing Australia's major supermarkets. DESIGN: The Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing protocol was used. SETTING: Price data were collected online and via phone calls in fifty-one urban and inner regional locations across Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: Healthy diets were consistently less expensive than current (unhealthy) diets. Nonetheless, healthy diets would cost 25-26 % of the disposable income for low-income households and 30-31 % of the poverty line. Differences in gross incomes (the most available income metric which overrepresents disposable income) drove national variations in diet affordability (from 14 % of the median gross household incomes in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory to 25 % of the median gross household income in Tasmania). CONCLUSIONS: In Australian cities and regional areas with major supermarkets, access to affordable diets remains problematic for families receiving low incomes. These findings are likely to be exacerbated in outer regional and remote areas (not included in this study). To make healthy diets economically appealing, policies that reduce the (absolute and relative) costs of healthy diets and increase the incomes of Australians living in poverty are required.

Affordability of Heathy, Equitable and More Sustainable Diets in Low-Income Households in Brisbane before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased food insecurity worldwide, yet there has been limited assessment of shifts in the cost and affordability of healthy, equitable and sustainable diets. This study explores the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and income supplements provided by the Australian government on diet cost and affordability for low-income households in an Australian urban area. The Healthy Diets ASAP method protocol was applied to assess the cost and cost differential of current and recommended diets before (in 2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (late 2020) for households with a minimum-wage and welfare-only disposable household income, by area of socioeconomic disadvantage, in Greater Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Data were collected between August and October, 2020, from 78 food outlets and compared with data collected in the same locations between May and October, 2019, in an earlier study. The price of most healthy food groups increased significantly during the pandemic-with the exception of vegetables and legumes, which decreased. Conversely, the price of discretionary foods and drinks did not increase during the pandemic. The cost of the current and recommended diets significantly increased throughout this period, but the latter continued to be less expensive than the former. Due to income supplements provided between May and September 2020, the affordability of the recommended diet improved greatly, by 27% and 42%, for households with minimum-wage and welfare-only disposable household income, respectively. This improvement in the affordability of the recommended diet highlights the need to permanently increase welfare support for low-income families to ensure food security.

Dietary Intake, Cost, and Affordability by Socioeconomic Group in Australia.

Few Australians consume diets consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines. A major problem is high intake of discretionary food and drinks (those not needed for health and high in saturated fat, added sugar, salt and/or alcohol). Low socioeconomic groups (SEGs) suffer particularly poor diet-related health. Surprisingly, detailed quantitative dietary data across SEGs was lacking. Analysis of the most recent national nutrition survey data produced habitual intakes of a reference household (two adults and two children) in SEG quintiles of household income. Cost and affordability of habitual and recommended diets for the reference household were determined using methods based on the Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing protocol. Low SEGs reported significantly lower intakes of healthy food and drinks yet similarly high intakes of discretionary choices to high SEGs (435 serves/fortnight). Total habitual diets of low SEGs cost significantly less than those of high SEGs (AU$751/fortnight to AU$853/fortnight). Results confirmed low SEGs cannot afford a healthy diet. Lower intakes of healthy choices in low SEGs may help explain their higher rates of diet-related disease compared to higher SEGs. The findings can inform potential policy actions to improve affordability of healthy foods and help drive healthier diets for all Australians.

Cost and Affordability of Healthy, Equitable and Sustainable Diets in Low Socioeconomic Groups in Australia.

Few Australians consume a healthy, equitable and more sustainable diet consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs). Low socioeconomic groups (SEGs) suffer particularly poor diet-related health problems. However, granular information on dietary intakes and affordability of recommended diets was lacking for low SEGs. The Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing protocol was modified for low SEGs to align with relevant dietary intakes reported in the National Nutrition Survey 2011-2012(which included less healthy and more discretionary options than the broader population), household structures, food purchasing habits, and incomes. Cost and affordability of habitual and recommended diets of low SEGs were calculated using prices of 'standard brands' and 'cheapest options'. With 'standard brands', recommended diets cost less than habitual diets, but were unaffordable for low SEGs. With 'cheapest options', both diets were more affordable, but recommended diets cost more than habitual diets for some low SEGs, potentially contributing to perceptions that healthy food is unaffordable. The study confirms the need for an equity lens to better target dietary guidelines for low SEGs. It also highlights urgent policy action is needed to help improve affordability of recommended diets.

Affordability of current, and healthy, more equitable, sustainable diets by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness in Queensland: insights into food choice.

BACKGROUND: Poor diet is the leading preventable risk factor contributing to the burden of disease globally and in Australia, and is inequitably distributed. As the price of healthy foods is a perceived barrier to improved diets, evidence on the cost and affordability of current (unhealthy) and recommended (healthy, more equitable and sustainable) diets is required to support policy action. METHODS: This study applied the Healthy Diets ASAP (Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing) methods protocol to measure the cost, cost differential and affordability of current and recommended diets for a reference household in Queensland, Australia. Food prices were collected in 18 randomly selected locations stratified by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness. Diet affordability was calculated for three income categories. RESULTS: Surprisingly, recommended diets would cost 20% less than the current diet in Queensland as a whole. Households spent around 60% of their food budget on discretionary choices (that is, those not required for health that are high in saturated fat, added sugar, salt and/or alcohol). Queensland families would need to spend around 23% of their income on recommended diets. However, recommended diets would not be affordable in low socioeconomic or very remote areas, costing 30 and 35% of median household income respectively. The government supplements due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic would improve affordability of recommended diets by 29%. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings highlight that while price is one factor affecting consumer food choice, other drivers such as taste, convenience, advertising and availability are important. Nevertheless, the study found that recommended diets would be unaffordable in very remote areas, and that low-income families are likely experiencing food stress, irrespective of where they live in Queensland. Policy actions, such as increasing to 20% the current 10% tax differential between basic healthy, and unhealthy foods in Australia, and supplementing incomes of vulnerable households, especially in remote areas, are recommended to help improve diet equity and sustainability, and health and wellbeing for all.

Dietary inequity? A systematic scoping review of dietary intake in low socio-economic groups compared with high socio-economic groups in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Low socio-economic groups (SEG) in Australia suffer poorer diet-related health than the rest of the population. Therefore, it is expected that low SEG are less likely to consume diets conforming to Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) than higher SEG. However, dietary intake of low SEG in Australia has not been synthesised methodically. This systematic scoping review aims to explore detailed dietary intake of low SEG in Australia in comparison to higher SEG. DESIGN: A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature and websites, since 1999. Data were extracted, synthesised and analysed in relation to study populations, dietary assessment methods, food groups studied, socio-economic measures and dietary intake. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Persons of any age and gender, differentiated by a socio-economic measure. RESULTS: Results from thirty-three included studies confirmed that overall dietary nutritional value/quality tended to be lower in low SEG than higher SEG in Australia. However, findings were inconsistent across studies for all food groups or all socio-economic measures. Large variations were found between study metrics, definitions, dietary assessment methods, granularity of results and conclusions. Quantitative intakes of all ADG food groups by SEG were not reported in most studies and, where reported, were not comparable. CONCLUSION: The review showed detailed dietary data are lacking to inform policy and practice and help develop targeted interventions to improve diet-related health of Australian low SEG. There is urgent need for regular, granular assessment of population dietary data to enable comparison of intake between SEG in the context of national food-based dietary guidelines in Australia.

Streamlined data-gathering techniques to estimate the price and affordability of healthy and unhealthy diets under different pricing scenarios.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of streamlined data-gathering techniques for examining the price and affordability of a healthy (recommended) and unhealthy (current) diet. We additionally estimated the price and affordability of diets across socio-economic areas and quantified the influence of different pricing scenarios. DESIGN: Following the Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing (ASAP) protocol, we compared a cross-sectional sample of food and beverage pricing data collected using online data and phone calls (lower-resource streamlined techniques) with data collected in-store from the same retailers. SETTING: Food and beverage prices were collected from major supermarkets, fast food and alcohol retailers in eight conveniently sampled areas in Victoria, Australia (n 72 stores), stratified by area-level deprivation and remoteness. PARTICIPANTS: This study did not involve human participants. RESULTS: The biweekly price of a healthy diet was on average 21 % cheaper ($596) than an unhealthy diet ($721) for a four-person family using the streamlined techniques, which was comparable with estimates using in-store data (healthy: $594, unhealthy: $731). The diet price differential did not vary considerably across geographical areas (range: 18-23 %). Both diets were estimated to be unaffordable for families living on indicative low disposable household incomes and below the poverty line. The inclusion of generic brands notably reduced the prices of healthy and unhealthy diets (≥20 %), rendering both affordable against indicative low disposable household incomes. Inclusion of discounted prices marginally reduced diet prices (3 %). CONCLUSIONS: Streamlined data-gathering techniques are a reliable method for regular, flexible and widespread monitoring of the price and affordability of population diets in areas where supermarkets have an online presence.

A systematic scoping review of the habitual dietary costs in low socioeconomic groups compared to high socioeconomic groups in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Low socioeconomic groups (SEGs) in Australia are less likely to consume diets consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs) and suffer poorer health than the broader population. The unaffordability, or perceived high cost, of healthy diets may be a factor. Detailed data on the cost of habitually consumed diets is required in order to inform strategies to alleviate socioeconomic impacts on dietary intake. This systematic scoping review aims to identify the cost of the habitual dietary intake of low SEGs in Australia, in terms of the whole diet and its composite foods, in comparison to the cost in higher SEGs. METHODS: A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature since 2000 and key government and non-government organisation (NGO) websites was undertaken. Data were extracted, synthesised and analysed in relation to study populations, dietary cost assessment measures, socioeconomic measures, and dietary cost and affordability. RESULTS: The review identified four studies meeting inclusion criteria. Results confirmed that overall, low SEGs spend a lower amount, yet a higher proportion of household income, on food and drinks than higher SEGs. Quantitative comparison of the dietary costs between included studies was not possible due to difference in populations and study metrics. Costs of the habitual diet in these studies were not reported for ADG food groups, so did not allow for assessment of the healthfulness of the dietary intake or comparison with costs of recommended diets at food group level. CONCLUSIONS: Existing research does not provide sufficiently granular data of the costs of habitual diets of low SEGs in comparison to higher SEGs or data in a form that can inform strategies and interventions to improve dietary intake and diet-related health of low SEGs in Australia. Future empirical health research requires more granular measures of habitual spending on ADG food groups across SEGs.

Maitjara Wangkanyi: Insights from an Ethnographic Study of Food Practices of Households in Remote Australian Aboriginal Communities.

Many historical, environmental, socioeconomic, political, commercial, and geographic factors underscore the food insecurity and poor diet-related health experienced by Aboriginal people in Australia. Yet, there has been little exploration of Aboriginal food practices or perspectives on food choice recently. This study, with 13 households in remote communities on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands, fills this gap using ethnographic and Indigenist methods. Results highlight Anangu resourcefulness, securing food despite poverty and adversity, and provide unique insights into factors influencing the three major types and range of dietary patterns identified. These factors include household economic cycles and budgeting challenges; overcrowding and family structures, mobility and 'organization'; available food storage, preparation and cooking infrastructure; and familiarity and convenience. Structural and systemic reform, respecting Aboriginal leadership, is required to improve food security.

A tale of two cities: the cost, price-differential and affordability of current and healthy diets in Sydney and Canberra, Australia.

BACKGROUND: The perception that healthy foods are more expensive than unhealthy foods has been reported widely to be a key barrier to healthy eating. However, assessment of the relative cost of healthy and unhealthy foods and diets is fraught methodologically. Standardised approaches to produce reliable data on the cost of total diets and different dietary patterns, rather than selected foods, are lacking globally to inform policy and practice. METHODS: This paper reports the first application, in randomly selected statistical areas stratified by socio-economic status in two Australian cities, of the Healthy Diets Australian Standardized Affordability and Pricing (ASAP) method protocols: diet pricing tools based on national nutrition survey data and dietary guidelines; store sampling and location; determination of household incomes; food price data collection; and analysis and reporting. The methods were developed by the International Network on Food and Obesity/NCD Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) as a prototype of an optimum approach to assess, compare and monitor the cost and affordability of diets across different geographical and socio-economic settings and times. RESULTS: Under current tax policy in Australia, healthy diets would be 15-17% less expensive than current (unhealthy) diets in all locations assessed. Nevertheless, healthy diets are likely to be unaffordable for low income households, costing more than 30% of disposable income in both cities surveyed. Households spent around 58% of their food budget on unhealthy food and drinks. Food costs were on average 4% higher in Canberra than Sydney, and tended to be higher in high socioeconomic locations. CONCLUSIONS: Health and fiscal policy actions to increase affordability of healthy diets for low income households are required urgently. Also, there is a need to counter perceptions that current, unhealthy diets must be less expensive than healthy diets. The Healthy Diets ASAP methods could be adapted to assess the cost and affordability of healthy and unhealthy diets elsewhere.

Testing the Price of Healthy and Current Diets in Remote Aboriginal Communities to Improve Food Security: Development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healthy Diets ASAP (Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing) Methods.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples suffer higher rates of food insecurity and diet-related disease than other Australians. However, assessment of food insecurity in specific population groups is sub-optimal, as in many developed countries. This study tailors the Healthy Diets ASAP (Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing) methods protocol to be more relevant to Indigenous groups in assessing one important component of food security. The resultant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healthy Diets ASAP methods were used to assess the price, price differential, and affordability of healthy (recommended) and current (unhealthy) diets in five remote Aboriginal communities. The results show that the tailored approach is more sensitive than the original protocol in revealing the high degree of food insecurity in these communities, where the current diet costs nearly 50% of disposable household income compared to the international benchmark of 30%. Sixty-two percent of the current food budget appears to be spent on discretionary foods and drinks. Aided by community store pricing policies, healthy (recommended) diets are around 20% more affordable than current diets in these communities, but at 38.7% of disposable household income still unaffordable for most households. Further studies in urban communities, and on other socioeconomic, political and commercial determinants of food security in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities appear warranted. The development of the tailored method provides an example of how national tools can be adapted to better inform policy actions to improve food security and help reduce rates of diet-related chronic disease more equitably in developed countries.

Healthy Diets in Rural Victoria-Cheaper than Unhealthy Alternatives, Yet Unaffordable.

Rural communities experience higher rates of obesity and reduced food security compared with urban communities. The perception that healthy foods are expensive contributes to poor dietary choices. Providing an accessible, available, affordable healthy food supply is an equitable way to improve the nutritional quality of the diet for a community, however, local food supply data are rarely available for small rural towns. This study used the Healthy Diets ASAP tool to assess price, price differential and affordability of recommended (healthy) and current diets in a rural Local Government Area (LGA) (pop ≈ 7000; 10 towns) in Victoria, Australia. All retail food outlets were surveyed (n = 40). The four most populous towns had supermarkets; remaining towns had one general store each. Seven towns had café/take-away outlets, and all towns had at least one hotel/pub. For all towns the current unhealthy diet was more expensive than the recommended healthy diet, with 59.5% of the current food budget spent on discretionary items. Affordability of the healthy diet accounted for 30⁻32% of disposable income. This study confirms that while a healthy diet is less expensive than the current unhealthier diet, affordability is a challenge for rural communities. Food security is reduced further with restricted geographical access, a limited healthy food supply, and higher food prices.