INTRODUCTION: As in many other countries, Australian consumers have recently had to accommodate increases in costs of basic food, and during the financial year 2007-2008 overall food prices rose by nearly 4%. Food costs are mediating factors in food choice, especially for low-income groups, where food security is often tenuous. There are reports that rural populations may have higher levels of food insecurity, although the evidence is often contradictory. METHODS: To assess cost and affordability of food in rural areas this study used the Healthy Food Basket (HFB) methodology, which has been applied in a number of settings. The HFBs were costed at supermarkets and stores in different locations with different degrees of rurality. RESULTS: Compared with metropolitan areas, healthy food is more expensive in rural areas; costs are even higher in more remote areas. The overall affordability of HFB in rural areas was not significantly different from metro areas. The main difference concerned low socio-economic status (SES) groups, where the proportion of household income spent on the HFB was three times that of higher SES groups. CONCLUSIONS: The unaffordability of healthy food, or 'food stress' in low SES groups is a concern, especially when this group carries the greatest burden of diet-related disease. Findings suggest that there is a need to consider both rurality and SES when developing policy responses to decrease the cost and increase the affordability of healthy foods in rural and remote areas.
INTRODUCTION: As in many other countries, Australian consumers have recently had to accommodate increases in costs of basic food, and during the financial year 2007-2008 overall food prices rose by nearly 4%. Food costs are mediating factors in food choice, especially for low-income groups, where food security is often tenuous. There are reports that rural populations may have higher levels of food insecurity, although the evidence is often contradictory. METHODS: To assess cost and affordability of food in rural areas this study used the Healthy Food Basket (HFB) methodology, which has been applied in a number of settings. The HFBs were costed at supermarkets and stores in different locations with different degrees of rurality. RESULTS: Compared with metropolitan areas, healthy food is more expensive in rural areas; costs are even higher in more remote areas. The overall affordability of HFB in rural areas was not significantly different from metro areas. The main difference concerned low socio-economic status (SES) groups, where the proportion of household income spent on the HFB was three times that of higher SES groups. CONCLUSIONS: The unaffordability of healthy food, or 'food stress' in low SES groups is a concern, especially when this group carries the greatest burden of diet-related disease. Findings suggest that there is a need to consider both rurality and SES when developing policy responses to decrease the cost and increase the affordability of healthy foods in rural and remote areas.
Authors: Penelope Love; Jillian Whelan; Colin Bell; Felicity Grainger; Cherie Russell; Meron Lewis; Amanda Lee Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sandra C Thompson; Lee Nedkoff; Judith Katzenellenbogen; Mohammad Akhtar Hussain; Frank Sanfilippo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Christina Mary Pollard; Timothy John Landrigan; Jennie Margaret Gray; Lockie McDonald; Helen Creed; Sue Booth Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Timothy J Landrigan; Deborah A Kerr; Satvinder S Dhaliwal; Christina M Pollard Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-12-29 Impact factor: 3.390