4.1 Article

Adelaide healthy food basket: A survey on food cost, availability and affordability in five local government areas in metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia

Journal

NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Volume 64, Issue 4, Pages 241-247

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-0080.2007.00169.x

Keywords

food cost; food security; socioeconomic status; welfare payment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: There is evidence that some people in Australia do not have access to affordable, healthy foods. Information on food accessibility and affordability is essential in pubic health nutrition to assist in policy making and determining areas of intervention. The aim of the present study assess and compare the cost, availability and affordability of a standardised healthy food basket (HFB) in five local government areas (LGAs) in metropolitan Adelaide. Methods: Five LGAs in metropolitan Adelaide were selected based on ranges of socioeconomic status (SES). A reference family was used as the basis for the costing a HFB. Prices of food items were collected in selected suburbs in May, August and September in 2005. Cost of the Adelaide HFB was compared with welfare payment and average weekly earnings (AWE). Results: Average weekly cost of Adelaide HFB was $245.63 for the 11 suburbs: lowest in Coolabah, in low SES City of Fordlow ($224.17), and highest in Banksia, in high SES City of Sidehigh ($271.87). The proportion of AWE taken up by the average HFB was 35%, while that of the welfare payments was 31%. Conclusion: The study showed that the cost of HFB was lower in low-SES suburbs. Items in the HFB were found in most supermarkets surveyed; therefore, availability of healthy food at this geographical level is not a concern. However, the study highlighted the proportionately high costs of a healthy diet for families on welfare or on a single income based on AWE, which needs to be considered in programs encouraging healthy food choices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available