The cost of healthy food in rural Victoria

Claire Palermo,Jessica Mcdonald,Karen Walker,Peta Hill

doi:10.22605/rrh1074

Claire Palermo, Jessica Mcdonald + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.22605/rrh1074

Copy DOI

Abstract

The cost of healthy food has been associated previously with the degree of remoteness and socioeconomic status. This study aimed to investigate the factors that influence the cost of food in rural Victoria, Australia. It also aimed to compare the cost of nutritious foods with less healthy foods, and to identify the population sub-groups most vulnerable to economic food insecurity. A cross-sectional survey of the cost of food was undertaken in 2007 in a convenience sample of 34 supermarkets in rural areas across Victoria using the Victorian Healthy Food Basket (VHFB). The VHFB was designed to meet the nutritional needs of four different family types for a fortnight. The cost of the VHFB for a 'typical family' (2 adults, 2 children) was (mean [interquartile range]) AU $402.81 ($26.36). No association was evident between food cost and remoteness as indicated by the Accessibility/Remoteness Index for Australia (ARIA) score, socioeconomic status as indicated by the Socio-Economic Indices for Areas (SEIFA), population size or density, or distance of the town from the state capital, Melbourne. It was more expensive to purchase the VHFB at an independent store (median cost $406.66 [$29.39]) than at a supermarket chain (median cost $394.93 [$26.64]), p<0.05. Vegetables and legumes were the most expensive component of the VHFB to purchase and this food group showed significantly greater variation in food price than cereals (p<0.05), non-core foods (p<0.05) and unhealthy foods (p<0.001). The median cost of the VHFB was most expensive for a typical family and 'single parent family' (40% and 37% of welfare income) and least expensive for a single man (29% of income) and elderly pensioner (19% income). The VHFB is an effective tool for assessing economic food security for different population groups. The cost of food in rural Victoria varies in a manner that appears unrelated to remoteness, population, socioeconomic status or distance from the metropolitan centre. Purchase of healthy food requires a considerable proportion of welfare income and may thus be unaffordable for some groups. Food cost must be monitored at a national level to provide a knowledge base to inform development of food and nutrition policies for improved population health.

Highlights

The cost of healthy food has been associated previously with the degree of remoteness and socioeconomic status
The only published data on food cost and availability in rural and regional Victoria did not show a difference in cost when compared with Melbourne but identified that a complete healthy basket of foods was less likely to be available in the rural areas[3]
The results of this study provide additional insight into food costs across rural and regional Victoria, and illustrate that healthy food may be unaffordable for some sub-groups in the Victorian population

Summary

Introduction

The cost of healthy food has been associated previously with the degree of remoteness and socioeconomic status. It aimed to compare the cost of nutritious foods with less healthy foods, and to identify the population sub-groups most vulnerable to economic food insecurity. No association was evident between food cost and remoteness as indicated by the Accessibility/Remoteness Index for Australia (ARIA) score, socioeconomic status as indicated by the Socio-Economic Indices for Areas (SEIFA), population size or density, or distance of the town from the state capital, Melbourne. Recent work has shown that in urban Adelaide, South Australia, with a population size of just over one million[8], healthy foods are readily available and food costs are lower in urban areas of low socio-economic status[9]. The only published data on food cost and availability in rural and regional Victoria did not show a difference in cost when compared with Melbourne but identified that a complete healthy basket of foods was less likely to be available in the rural areas[3]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion