Affordability of Heathy, Equitable and More Sustainable Diets in Low-Income Households in Brisbane before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased food insecurity worldwide, yet there has been limited assessment of shifts in the cost and affordability of healthy, equitable and sustainable diets. This study explores the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and income supplements provided by the Australian government on diet cost and affordability for low-income households in an Australian urban area. The Healthy Diets ASAP method protocol was applied to assess the cost and cost differential of current and recommended diets before (in 2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (late 2020) for households with a minimum-wage and welfare-only disposable household income, by area of socioeconomic disadvantage, in Greater Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Data were collected between August and October, 2020, from 78 food outlets and compared with data collected in the same locations between May and October, 2019, in an earlier study. The price of most healthy food groups increased significantly during the pandemic-with the exception of vegetables and legumes, which decreased. Conversely, the price of discretionary foods and drinks did not increase during the pandemic. The cost of the current and recommended diets significantly increased throughout this period, but the latter continued to be less expensive than the former. Due to income supplements provided between May and September 2020, the affordability of the recommended diet improved greatly, by 27% and 42%, for households with minimum-wage and welfare-only disposable household income, respectively. This improvement in the affordability of the recommended diet highlights the need to permanently increase welfare support for low-income families to ensure food security.

Altering product placement to create a healthier layout in supermarkets: Outcomes on store sales, customer purchasing, and diet in a prospective matched controlled cluster study.

BACKGROUND: Previous product placement trials in supermarkets are limited in scope and outcome data collected. This study assessed the effects on store-level sales, household-level purchasing, and dietary behaviours of a healthier supermarket layout. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is a prospective matched controlled cluster trial with 2 intervention components: (i) new fresh fruit and vegetable sections near store entrances (replacing smaller displays at the back) and frozen vegetables repositioned to the entrance aisle, plus (ii) the removal of confectionery from checkouts and aisle ends opposite. In this pilot study, the intervention was implemented for 6 months in 3 discount supermarkets in England. Three control stores were matched on store sales and customer profiles and neighbourhood deprivation. Women customers aged 18 to 45 years, with loyalty cards, were assigned to the intervention (n = 62) or control group (n = 88) of their primary store. The trial registration number is NCT03518151. Interrupted time series analysis showed that increases in store-level sales of fruits and vegetables were greater in intervention stores than predicted at 3 (1.71 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI 0.45, 2.96), P = 0.01) and 6 months follow-up (2.42 SDs (0.22, 4.62), P = 0.03), equivalent to approximately 6,170 and approximately 9,820 extra portions per store, per week, respectively. The proportion of purchasing fruits and vegetables per week rose among intervention participants at 3 and 6 months compared to control participants (0.2% versus -3.0%, P = 0.22; 1.7% versus -3.5%, P = 0.05, respectively). Store sales of confectionery were lower in intervention stores than predicted at 3 (-1.05 SDs (-1.98, -0.12), P = 0.03) and 6 months (-1.37 SDs (-2.95, 0.22), P = 0.09), equivalent to approximately 1,359 and approximately 1,575 fewer portions per store, per week, respectively; no differences were observed for confectionery purchasing. Changes in dietary variables were predominantly in the expected direction for health benefit. Intervention implementation was not within control of the research team, and stores could not be randomised. It is a pilot study, and, therefore, not powered to detect an effect. CONCLUSIONS: Healthier supermarket layouts can improve the nutrition profile of store sales and likely improve household purchasing and dietary quality. Placing fruits and vegetables near store entrances should be considered alongside policies to limit prominent placement of unhealthy foods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03518151 (pre-results).

Regulation and Consumer Interest in an Antioxidant-Enriched Ham Associated with Reduced Colorectal Cancer Risks.

An economic experiment was conducted in France in 2020 to evaluate consumer attitudes toward two ham products associated with different colorectal cancer risks. We focused specifically on comparing a conventional ham and a new hypothetical antioxidant-enriched ham with a reduced risk of provoking colorectal cancer. Study participants were given descriptions of the two hams before carrying out successive rounds of willingness-to-pay (WTP) assessments. The results show that WTP was higher for the antioxidant-enriched ham than for the conventional ham. WTP estimates were also impacted by providing additional information about the reduction in colorectal cancer risk associated with the antioxidant-enriched ham. Based on the participants' WTP, we came up with ex ante estimates for the social impacts of introducing the antioxidant-enriched ham onto the market, and we suggest that it would be socially optimal to promote the product. Competition arising from pre-existing product labelling and marketing assertions could greatly limit the market potential of antioxidant-enriched ham, which suggests that alternative approaches may be necessary, such as regulations mandating antioxidant enrichment. These results also concern all countries with high levels of meat consumption.

Affordability of current, and healthy, more equitable, sustainable diets by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness in Queensland: insights into food choice.

BACKGROUND: Poor diet is the leading preventable risk factor contributing to the burden of disease globally and in Australia, and is inequitably distributed. As the price of healthy foods is a perceived barrier to improved diets, evidence on the cost and affordability of current (unhealthy) and recommended (healthy, more equitable and sustainable) diets is required to support policy action. METHODS: This study applied the Healthy Diets ASAP (Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing) methods protocol to measure the cost, cost differential and affordability of current and recommended diets for a reference household in Queensland, Australia. Food prices were collected in 18 randomly selected locations stratified by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness. Diet affordability was calculated for three income categories. RESULTS: Surprisingly, recommended diets would cost 20% less than the current diet in Queensland as a whole. Households spent around 60% of their food budget on discretionary choices (that is, those not required for health that are high in saturated fat, added sugar, salt and/or alcohol). Queensland families would need to spend around 23% of their income on recommended diets. However, recommended diets would not be affordable in low socioeconomic or very remote areas, costing 30 and 35% of median household income respectively. The government supplements due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic would improve affordability of recommended diets by 29%. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings highlight that while price is one factor affecting consumer food choice, other drivers such as taste, convenience, advertising and availability are important. Nevertheless, the study found that recommended diets would be unaffordable in very remote areas, and that low-income families are likely experiencing food stress, irrespective of where they live in Queensland. Policy actions, such as increasing to 20% the current 10% tax differential between basic healthy, and unhealthy foods in Australia, and supplementing incomes of vulnerable households, especially in remote areas, are recommended to help improve diet equity and sustainability, and health and wellbeing for all.

Eating behavior and food purchases during the COVID-19 lockdown: A cross-sectional study among adults in the Netherlands.

On March 15, 2020, the Dutch Government implemented COVID-19 lockdown measures. Although self-quarantine and social-distancing measures were implemented, restrictions were less severe compared to several other countries. The aim of this study was to assess changes in eating behavior and food purchases among a representative adult sample in the Netherlands (n = 1030), five weeks into lockdown. The results show that most participants did not change their eating behaviors (83.0%) or food purchases (73.3%). However, socio-demographic differences were observed among those that reported changes during lockdown. For example, participants with overweight (OR = 2.26, 95%CI = 1.24-4.11) and obesity (OR = 4.21, 95%CI = 2.13-8.32) were more likely to indicate to eat unhealthier during lockdown compared to participants with a healthy weight. Those with a high educational level (OR = 2.25, 95%-CI = 1.03-4.93) were also more likely to indicate to eat unhealthier during lockdown compared to those with a low educational level. Older participants were more likely to indicate to experience no differences in their eating behaviors compared to those of younger age, who were more likely to indicate that they ate healthier (OR = 1.03, 95%CI = 1.01-1.04) as well as unhealthier (OR = 1.04, 95%CI = 1.02-1.06) during lockdown. Participants with obesity were more likely to indicate to purchase more chips/snacks (OR = 2.79, 95%CI = 1.43-5.45) and more nonalcoholic beverages (OR = 2.74, 95%CI = 1.36-5.50) during lockdown in comparison with those with a healthy weight. Of those that used meal delivery services before, 174 (29.5%) indicated to use meal delivery services more frequently during lockdown. Although the results confirm the persistence of dietary routines, profound socio-demographic differences were observed for those that did report changes. Especially for individuals with overweight and obesity, the lockdown has taken its toll on healthy dietary choices. Further research should unravel underlying mechanisms for these observations.

A call to action to address COVID-19-induced global food insecurity to prevent hunger, malnutrition, and eating pathology.

The coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to food shortages, increased food prices, and loss of income. As a result, global food insecurity alerts have been issued. The pandemic threatens millions of children and adolescents and their families currently living with or at risk for development of food insecurity. The lack of consistent access to nutritious food sources is associated with chronic physical and mental health problems and death. Studies on food insecurity and eating pathology have heightened our concern about the impact the added effect of the pandemic may have on eating behaviors of children and adolescents. Here, we want to draw attention to the need for making food security and healthy eating attitudes and behaviors a global priority during the COVID-19 pandemic to guarantee the current and future health and well-being of our children and adolescents.