Grocery food taxes and U.S. county obesity and diabetes rates.

BACKGROUND: Grocery food taxes represent a stable tax revenue stream for state and municipal government during times of adverse economic shocks such as that observed under the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Previous research, however, suggests a possible mechanism through which grocery taxes may adversely affect health. Our objectives are to document the spatial and temporal variation in grocery taxes and to empirically examine the statistical relationship between county-level grocery taxes and obesity and diabetes. METHODS: We collect and assemble a novel national dataset of annual county and state-level grocery taxes from 2009 through 2016. We link this data to three-year, county-level estimates based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on rates of obesity and diabetes and provide a nation-wide spatial characterization of grocery taxes and these two health outcomes. Using a county-level fixed effects estimator, we estimate the effect of grocery taxes on obesity and diabetes rates, also controlling for a subset of potential confounders that vary over time. RESULTS: We find a 1 percentage point increase in grocery taxes is associated with 0.588 and 0.215 percentage point increases in the county-level obesity and diabetes rates. CONCLUSION: Counties with grocery taxes have increased prevalence of obesity and diabetes. We estimate the economic burden of increased obesity and diabetes rates resulting from grocery taxes to be $5.9 billion. Based on this estimate, the benefit-cost ratio of removing grocery taxes across the United States only considering the effects on obesity and diabetes rates is 1.90.

The more that households prioritise healthy eating, the better they can afford to consume a sufficient quantity and variety of fruits and vegetables.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the variety of fruits and vegetables lower income households in the USA can buy while meeting Federal dietary recommendations at different levels of expenditure. DESIGN: Simulation techniques were used to create 3000 market baskets of fruits and vegetables. All baskets contained enough food for a four-person household to meet dietary recommendations for fruits and vegetables over 1 week. Each basket's retail value was estimated along with the ability of a representative household to afford each basket with different levels of expenditure. SETTING: We used data from the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Fruit and Vegetable Prices data product which reports a US household's costs to buy each of 157 different fruit and vegetable products per edible cup equivalent. PARTICIPANTS: We consider the situation facing a lower income household that receives maximum benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These benefits are enough for the household to obtain a nutritious and palatable diet without spending any of its own money on food if it approximately follows USDA's Thrifty Food Plan. RESULTS: Households receiving maximum SNAP benefits can buy a sufficient variety and quantity of fruits and vegetables if they allocate about 40 % of those benefits to these two food groups. However, if households spend less than that amount, the variety of products they can buy while still satisfying recommendations drops off quickly. CONCLUSION: Households that move fruits and vegetables to the centre of their budgets can better afford to meet Federal dietary guidelines.

WIC Households' Bread and Cold Cereal Purchases: When They Use Benefits Versus Paying Out of Pocket.

PURPOSE: The US Department of Agriculture's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) seeks to improve the health of participating women and children by providing nutrition education and a monthly package of supplemental foods including whole grain bread and cereal. While some studies confirm that participants consume more whole grains, others find no effect. In this study, we hypothesize that the positive association between WIC and whole grains is being reduced in size and consistency by several factors. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: American households were surveyed about their food purchases. Overall response rate was 45.6%. A total of 4826 households completed the survey including 471 WIC households. MEASURES: The survey recorded households' purchases of refined and whole grains in bread and cereal over 1 week. ANALYSIS: T tests were used to compare the bread and cereal purchases of WIC and eligible, non-WIC households. Probit models were also estimated to assess a WIC household's likelihood to choose whole grain foods when using benefits versus other payment methods. RESULTS: On average, WIC households acquired more whole grains in bread than eligible, non-WIC households (1.33 vs 0.72 ounce equivalents per household member aged 1 year or older; P < .05). No difference is found for cereal ( P > .10). Moreover, when using payment methods other than WIC benefits, WIC participants are 19% less likely than other households to choose whole grain bread ( P < .05) and 20% less likely to choose a whole grain cold cereal ( P < .05), which suggests that WIC-provided foods may replace some whole grains participants would otherwise buy for themselves. CONCLUSION: WIC is positively associated with whole grains. However, the association is stronger for bread than cereal. Moreover, foods provided through the program may partially replace whole grains that WIC households would otherwise buy for themselves.