Literature DB >> 24893111

The inverse relationship between food price and energy density: is it spurious?

George C Davis1, Andrea Carlson2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: An important debate in the literature is whether or not higher energy-dense foods are cheaper than less energy-dense foods. The present communication develops and applies an easy statistical test to determine if the relationship between food price and energy density is an artifact of how the data units are constructed (i.e. is it 'spurious' or 'real'?).
DESIGN: After matching data on 4430 different foods from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey with corresponding prices from the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion's Food Prices Database, we use a simple regression model to test if the relationship between food price and energy density is 'real' or 'spurious'.
SETTING: USA.
SUBJECTS: Total sample size is 4430 observations of consumed foods from 4578 participants from the non-institutionalized US adult population (aged 19 years and over).
RESULTS: Over all 4430 foods, the null hypothesis of a spurious inverse relationship between food price per energy density and energy density is not rejected. When the analysis is broken down by twenty-five food groups, there are only two cases where the inverse relationship is not spurious. In fact, the majority of non-spurious relationships between food price and energy density are positive, not negative.
CONCLUSIONS: One of the main arguments put forth regarding the poor diet quality of low-income households is that high energy-dense food is cheaper than lower energy-dense food. We find almost no statistical support for higher energy-dense food being cheaper than low energy-dense food. While economics certainly plays a role in explaining low nutritional quality, more sophisticated economic arguments are required and discussed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Spurious

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24893111     DOI: 10.1017/S1368980014001098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Nutr        ISSN: 1368-9800            Impact factor:   4.022


  7 in total

Review 1.  The carbohydrate-fat problem: can we construct a healthy diet based on dietary guidelines?

Authors:  Adam Drewnowski
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 8.701

2.  Energy intake and energy contributions of macronutrients and major food sources among Chinese adults: CHNS 2015 and CNTCS 2015.

Authors:  Hongru Jiang; Ji Zhang; Wenwen Du; Chang Su; Bing Zhang; Huijun Wang
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  Simulated Models Suggest That Price per Calorie Is the Dominant Price Metric That Low-Income Individuals Use for Food Decision Making.

Authors:  Rahmatollah Beheshti; Takeru Igusa; Jessica Jones-Smith
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 4.798

4.  Can Families Eat Better Without Spending More? Improving Diet Quality Does Not Increase Diet Cost in a Randomized Clinical Trial among Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Their Parents.

Authors:  Tonja R Nansel; Leah M Lipsky; Miriam H Eisenberg; Aiyi Liu; Sanjeev N Mehta; Lori M B Laffel
Journal:  J Acad Nutr Diet       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 4.910

5.  Soda, salad, and socioeconomic status: Findings from the Seattle Obesity Study (SOS).

Authors:  Adam Drewnowski; James Buszkiewicz; Anju Aggarwal
Journal:  SSM Popul Health       Date:  2018-12-12

Review 6.  A systematic scoping review of the habitual dietary costs in low socioeconomic groups compared to high socioeconomic groups in Australia.

Authors:  Meron Lewis; Sarah A McNaughton; Lucie Rychetnik; Amanda J Lee
Journal:  Nutr J       Date:  2020-12-10       Impact factor: 3.271

7.  A Healthy Diet Is Not More Expensive than Less Healthy Options: Cost-Analysis of Different Dietary Patterns in Mexican Children and Adolescents.

Authors:  Patricia Clark; Carlos F Mendoza-Gutiérrez; Diana Montiel-Ojeda; Edgar Denova-Gutiérrez; Desirée López-González; Laura Moreno-Altamirano; Alfonso Reyes
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 5.717

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.