Beyond the sticker price: including and excluding time in comparing food prices

Convenience as a dimension of food environments: A systematic scoping review of its definition and measurement

Convenience is a major driver of food choice throughout the world, yet it is often inconsistently conceptualised, defined and measured. This limits the scope for food systems policy and interventions to leverage convenience to improve diet and nutrition outcomes. We conducted a systematic literature review to determine how convenience is both defined and measured in food environment and nutrition research. Six databases were systematically searched and studies were screened by two independent reviewers based on pre-defined eligibility criteria, yielding 243 studies for inclusion in the final review. 77% of studies did not explicitly define convenience. Among those that did, the dimensions and components within definitions varied. 83% of studies used perceived measures of convenience rather than objective measures. Convenience was most commonly measured in high income countries (64%) and in relation to the home food environment (53%), followed by formal retail (40%). Very few studies measured convenience in relation to the informal retail or cultivated food environments, and no studies considered convenience in relation to wild food environments. The vast majority of studies did not consider the validity or reliability of the measures of convenience. Based on our findings we propose a definition of convenience as a characteristic that results in reduced requirement for resources including time, physical effort, mental effort and skills by the consumer in relation to the planning, acquisition, preparation, storage, transport, consumption or clean-up of food. This definition can be used to help guide the development of measurement tools that can be used to assess convenience across different dimensions and contexts in a more comprehensive way. We also propose a framework for considering convenience as an entry point in food systems to improve diets and nutrition outcomes.

Adoption of healthy and sustainable diets in Mexico does not imply higher expenditure on food

The relative cost of healthy and sustainable diets is key for their adoption in different countries. Using a newly developed modelling tool that generates different diet baskets, we compared the costs of diets following the EAT-Lancet healthy reference diet, the Mexican dietary guidelines and locals' current food intake. On average, the cost of the EAT-Lancet healthy reference diet baskets was 21% lower than that of the Mexican dietary guidelines baskets, and 40% lower than that of the current intake baskets (29% lower if the comparison was isocaloric). Findings were similar over time (2011-2018) and by geographic region. The higher cost associated with the larger amount of fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts in healthy and sustainable diets was surpassed by the savings associated with their lower amount of animal protein sources, sugar-sweetened beverages and discretionary foods. We conclude that transitioning to better diets in Mexico is possible without a higher expenditure on food.

Factors associated with diet changes during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Brazilian adults: Time, skills, habits, feelings and beliefs

This study aimed to identify individual, household and sociodemographic factors associated with changes in food consumption that lead to changes in the diet quality, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic concerning Brazilian adults. Improvements or worsening in diet quality (IDQ or WDQ) were verified using an exploratory online survey which investigated whether participants (n = 4780) increased or decreased their consumption of food subgroups that mark positive or negative food patterns. Respondents also agreed or disagreed with their beliefs about food safety, cooking skills, family support, home characterization, feelings and behaviors. All factors of influence on the IDQ or WDQ groups were always compared against the general participants (who did not change their diet sufficiently to be classified into these groups). Individuals from the IDQ group spent more time on food (81.4% versus 62.0%), started to cook more often (91.4%), were more confident with their cooking skills (p < 0.01) and positive feelings were at least 2.5 times more prevalent. Adjusted analysis showed the chance to improve diet was 1.39 higher among those who did not feel overworked and increased 1.07 in each additional cooking chore shared between household members. For each additional positive feeling, the odds were 1.41 to IDQ and 0.67 to WDQ. Moreover, for each additional negative feeling the chances for WDQ were 1.21 and 0.90 for IDQ. Those in the WDQ group were more unaware of issues related to contagion during meals, they were not afraid of eating food prepared outside their home and agreed that industrialized food is safer (OR = 1.85). These results highlight the associated factors in improving or worsening diet patterns as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, supporting messages presented in Dietary Guidelines.

A Model Depicting the Retail Food Environment and Customer Interactions: Components, Outcomes, and Future Directions

The retail food environment (RFE) has important implications for dietary intake and health, and dramatic changes in RFEs have been observed over the past few decades and years. Prior conceptual models of the RFE and its relationships with health and behavior have played an important role in guiding research; yet, the convergence of RFE changes and scientific advances in the field suggest the time is ripe to revisit this conceptualization. In this paper, we propose the Retail Food Environment and Customer Interaction Model to convey the evolving variety of factors and relationships that convene to influence food choice at the point of purchase. The model details specific components of the RFE, including business approaches, actors, sources, and the customer retail experience; describes individual, interpersonal, and household characteristics that affect customer purchasing; highlights the macro-level contexts (e.g., communities and nations) in which the RFE and customers behave; and addresses the wide-ranging outcomes produced by RFEs and customers, including: population health, food security, food justice, environmental sustainability, and business sustainability. We believe the proposed conceptualization helps to (1) provide broad implications for future research and (2) further highlight the need for transdisciplinary collaborations to ultimately improve a range of critical population outcomes.

Industrially processed v. home-prepared dishes: what economic benefit for the consumer?

OBJECTIVE

To cope with the pressure of modern life, consumer demand for convenience foods has increased in the last decades. The current study set out to compare the costs of buying industrially processed dishes and of preparing them at home.

DESIGN

Direct purchase costs of industrially processed dishes frequently consumed in France (n 19) and of the ingredients needed for their home-prepared counterparts (n 86) were collected from four major food retailers' websites in Montpellier, France. Mean prices and energy density were calculated for four portions. Costs related to energy used by cooking appliances and time spent preparing dishes were further estimated.

SETTING

Montpellier, France.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

Based on the costs of ingredients and energy used for cooking, dishes prepared at home cost less (-0·60 € per four portions, P < 0.001) than industrially processed dishes, but when the cost of time was taken into account, the industrially processed dishes were much cheaper (-5·34 € per four portions, P < 0.001) than their home-prepared counterparts. There was no difference in energy density between industrially processed and home-prepared dishes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that industrially processed dishes are more profitable to consumers when the cost of time for preparing dishes at home is valued. Given the ever greater demands of everyday life, more account should be taken of the additional cost to consumers of the time they spend preparing meals at home.

Food processing: criteria for dietary guidance and public health?

The NOVA food categorisation recommends ‘avoiding processed foods (PF), especially ultra-processed foods (UPF)’ and selecting minimally PF to address obesity and chronic disease. However, NOVA categories are drawn using non-traditional views of food processing with additional criteria including a number of ingredients, added sugars, and additives. Comparison of NOVA's definition and categorisation of PF with codified and published ones shows limited congruence with respect to either definition or food placement into categories. While NOVA studies associate PF with decreased nutrient density, other classifications find nutrient-dense foods at all levels of processing. Analyses of food intake data using NOVA show UPF provide much added sugars. Since added sugars are one criterion for designation as UPF, such a proof demonstrates a tautology. Avoidance of foods deemed as UPF, such as wholegrain/enriched bread and cereals or flavoured milk, may not address obesity but could decrease intakes of folate, calcium and dietary fibre. Consumer understanding and implementation of NOVA have not been tested. Neither have outcomes been compared with vetted patterns, such as Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, which base food selection on food groups and nutrient contribution. NOVA fails to demonstrate the criteria required for dietary guidance: understandability, affordability, workability and practicality. Consumers’ confusion about definitions and food categorisations, inadequate cooking and meal planning skills and scarcity of resources (time, money), may impede adoption and success of NOVA. Research documenting that NOVA can be implemented by consumers and has nutrition and health outcomes equal to vetted patterns is needed.

Alternative MyPlate Menus: Effects of Ultra-Processed Foods on Saturated Fat, Sugar, and Sodium Content

OBJECTIVE

Compare saturated fat, sugar, and sodium in the US Department of Agriculture sample menu with a version in which menu items were replaced with comparable ultra-processed foods.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The authors modified 7 days of a US Department of Agriculture sample menu providing approximately 2,000 kcal/d by replacing foods with comparable ultra-processed alternatives and then visited 2 chain supermarkets in San Luis Obispo, CA (August, 2016) to locate shopping list items for the 2 menu versions. Product-specific bar codes were entered into an application for recording dietary intake and analyzing nutrient content.

VARIABLES MEASURED/ANALYSIS

Paired t tests (with Bonferroni correction, α = .003) were performed to compare the menus' percent energy from saturated fat and sugar, and energy and sodium content.

RESULTS

Mean energy was lower (1,618 vs 1,892 kcal/d; P = .002) whereas percent energy from sugar (24.9% vs 21.4%; P ≤ .001) and sodium content (2,784 vs 2,101 mg/d; P = .001) were higher in the ultra-processed vs original menu. In secondary analyses, mean cost of the ultra-processed version exceeded that of the original menu by $36.87.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

In a sample menu developed to meet US Dietary Guidelines, substituting items with ultra-processed foods provided fewer calories but more sugar and sodium. Distinguishing ultra-processed from less processed foods may help consumers make healthier choices when using MyPlate tools, particularly in a food environment that presents a wide range of alternatives.

Paying for convenience: comparing the cost of takeaway meals with their healthier home-cooked counterparts in New Zealand

OBJECTIVE

Convenience and cost impact on people's meal decisions. Takeaway and pre-prepared foods save preparation time but may contribute to poorer-quality diets. Analysing the impact of time on relative cost differences between meals of varying convenience contributes to understanding the barrier of time to selecting healthy meals.

DESIGN

Six popular New Zealand takeaway meals were identified from two large national surveys and compared with similar, but healthier, home-made and home-assembled meals that met nutrition targets consistent with New Zealand Eating and Activity Guidelines. The cost of each complete meal, cost per kilogram, and confidence intervals of the cost of each meal type were calculated. The time-inclusive cost was calculated by adding waiting or preparation time cost at the minimum wage.

SETTING

A large urban area in New Zealand.

RESULTS

For five of six popular meals, the mean cost of the home-made and home-assembled meals was cheaper than the takeaway meals. When the cost of time was added, all home-assembled meal options were the cheapest and half of the home-made meals were at least as expensive as the takeaway meals. The home-prepared meals were designed to provide less saturated fat and Na and more vegetables than their takeaway counterparts; however, the home-assembled meals provided more Na than the home-made meals.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthier home-made and home-assembled meals were, except one, cheaper options than takeaways. When the cost of time was added, either the home-made or the takeaway meal was the most expensive. This research questions whether takeaways are better value than home-prepared meals.