66
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Affordability of the EAT– Lancet reference diet: a global analysis

      research-article
      , PhD a , , MIB b , , PhD d , , Prof, PhD b , c , *
      The Lancet. Global Health
      Elsevier Ltd

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          The EAT– Lancet Commission drew on all available nutritional and environmental evidence to construct the first global benchmark diet capable of sustaining health and protecting the planet, but it did not assess dietary affordability. We used food price and household income data to estimate affordability of EAT– Lancet benchmark diets, as a first step to guiding interventions to improve diets around the world.

          Methods

          We obtained retail prices from 2011 for 744 foods in 159 countries, collected under the International Comparison Program. We used these data to identify the most affordable foods to meet EAT– Lancet targets. We compared total diet cost per day to each country's mean per capita household income, calculated the proportion of people for whom the most affordable EAT– Lancet diet exceeds total income, and also measured affordability relative to a least-cost diet that meets essential nutrient requirements.

          Findings

          The most affordable EAT– Lancet diets cost a global median of US$2·84 per day (IQR 2·41–3·16) in 2011, of which the largest share was the cost of fruits and vegetables (31·2%), followed by legumes and nuts (18·7%), meat, eggs, and fish (15·2%), and dairy (13·2%). This diet costs a small fraction of average incomes in high-income countries but is not affordable for the world's poor. We estimated that the cost of an EAT– Lancet diet exceeded household per capita income for at least 1·58 billion people. The EAT– Lancet diet is also more expensive than the minimum cost of nutrient adequacy, on average, by a mean factor of 1·60 (IQR 1·41–1·78).

          Interpretation

          Current diets differ greatly from EAT– Lancet targets. Improving diets is affordable in many countries but for many people would require some combination of higher income, nutritional assistance, and lower prices. Data and analysis for the cost of healthier foods are needed to inform both local interventions and systemic changes.

          Funding

          Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Relative Caloric Prices of Healthy and Unhealthy Foods Differ Systematically across Income Levels and Continents

          ABSTRACT Background Relative prices of healthy/unhealthy foods have been implicated in the obesity epidemic, but never extensively quantified across countries or empirically linked to undernutrition. Objectives This study compared relative caloric prices (RCPs) for different food categories across 176 countries and ascertained their associations with dietary indicators and nutrition outcomes. Methods We converted prices for 657 standardized food products from the 2011 International Comparison Program into caloric prices using USDA Food Composition tables. We classified products into 21 specific food groups. We constructed RCPs as the ratio of the 3 cheapest products in each food group, relative to the weighted cost of a basket of starchy staples. We analyzed RCP differences across World Bank income levels and regions and used cross-country regressions to explore associations with Demographic Health Survey dietary indicators for women 15–49 y old and children 12–23 mo old and with WHO indicators of the under-5 stunting prevalence and adult overweight prevalence. Results Most noncereal foods were relatively cheap in high-income countries, including sugar- and fat-rich foods. In lower-income countries, healthy foods were generally expensive, especially most animal-sourced foods and fortified infant cereals (FICs). Higher RCPs for a food predict lower consumption among children for 7 of 9 food groups. Higher milk and FIC prices were positively associated with international child stunting patterns: a 1-SD increase in milk prices was associated with a 2.8 percentage point increase in the stunting prevalence. Similarly, a 1-SD increase in soft drink prices was associated with a reduction in the overweight prevalence of ∼3.6 percentage points. Conclusions Relative food prices vary systematically across countries and partially explain international differences in the prevalences of undernutrition and overweight adults. Future research should focus on how to alter relative prices to achieve better dietary and nutrition outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring Poverty in a Growing World (or Measuring Growth in a Poor World)

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              New Evidence on the Urbanization of Global Poverty

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Glob Health
                Lancet Glob Health
                The Lancet. Global Health
                Elsevier Ltd
                2214-109X
                07 November 2019
                January 2020
                07 November 2019
                : 8
                : 1
                : e59-e66
                Affiliations
                [a ]Development Strategy and Governance Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Bole Sub-City, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
                [b ]Friedman School of Nutrition, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
                [c ]Department of Economics, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
                [d ]Poverty Health and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof William A Masters, Tufts University, Friedman School of Nutrition and Department of Economics, Boston, MA 02111, USA william.masters@ 123456tufts.edu
                Article
                S2214-109X(19)30447-4
                10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30447-4
                7024996
                31708415
                23cf53f5-ca9b-4eba-bd1a-08e6d83a38e1
                © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article