Pearson Amber L, Winter Pieta R, McBreen Ben, Stewart Georgia, Roets Rianda, Nutsford Daniel, Bowie Christopher, Donnellan Niamh, Wilson Nick
Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand; Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 20;9(3):e89775. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089775. eCollection 2014.
Inadequate fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption is an important dietary risk factor for disease internationally. High F&V prices can be a barrier to dietary intake and so to improve understanding of this topic we surveyed prices and potential competition between F&V outlet types.
Over a three week early autumn period in 2013, prices were collected bi-weekly for 18 commonly purchased F&Vs from farmers' markets (FM) selling local produce (n = 3), other F&V markets (OFVM) (n = 5), supermarkets that neighbored markets (n = 8), and more distant supermarkets (n = 8), (in urban Wellington and Christchurch areas of New Zealand). Prices from an online supermarket were also collected.
A total of 3120 prices were collected. Most F&Vs (13/18) were significantly cheaper at OFVMs than supermarkets. Over half of the F&Vs (10/18) were significantly cheaper at nearby compared to distant supermarkets, providing evidence of a moderate 'halo effect' in price reductions in supermarkets that neighbored markets. Weekend (vs midweek) prices were also significantly cheaper at nearby (vs distant) supermarkets, supporting evidence for a 'halo effect'. Ideal weekly 'food basket' prices for a two adult, two child family were: OFVMs (NZ$76), online supermarket ($113), nearby supermarkets ($124), distant supermarkets ($127), and FMs ($138). This represents a savings of $49 per week (US$26) by using OFVMs relative to (non-online) supermarkets. Similarly, a shift from non-online supermarkets to the online supermarket would generate a $13 saving.
In these locations general markets appear to be providing some substantially lower prices for fruit and vegetables than supermarkets. They also appear to be depressing prices in neighboring supermarkets. These results, when supplemented by other needed research, may help inform the case for interventions to improve access to fruit and vegetables, particularly for low-income populations.
水果和蔬菜(F&V)摄入不足是全球范围内疾病的一个重要饮食风险因素。F&V价格较高可能会成为饮食摄入的障碍,因此,为了更好地理解这一问题,我们调查了F&V销售点类型之间的价格及潜在竞争情况。
在2013年早秋的三周时间里,每两周收集一次18种常见F&V的价格,这些F&V来自销售本地农产品的农贸市场(FM)(n = 3)、其他F&V市场(OFVM)(n = 5)、与市场相邻的超市(n = 8)以及距离较远的超市(n = 8)(位于新西兰惠灵顿和克赖斯特彻奇的市区)。还收集了一家在线超市的价格。
共收集到3120个价格数据。大多数F&V(13/18)在OFVM的价格明显低于超市。超过一半的F&V(10/18)在相邻超市的价格明显低于距离较远的超市,这为与市场相邻的超市存在适度的“光环效应”(价格降低)提供了证据。相邻超市周末(与工作日中间时段相比)的价格也明显更低,这也支持了“光环效应”的证据。一个由两名成年人和两个孩子组成的家庭每周理想的“食物篮”价格分别为:OFVM(76新西兰元)、在线超市(113新西兰元)、相邻超市(124新西兰元)、距离较远的超市(127新西兰元)和农贸市场(138新西兰元)。相对于(非在线)超市,通过选择OFVM,每周可节省49新西兰元(26美元)。同样,从非在线超市转向在线超市可节省13新西兰元。
在这些地点,一般市场上水果和蔬菜价格似乎比超市低很多。它们似乎还压低了相邻超市的价格。这些结果,再加上其他必要的研究,可能有助于为改善水果和蔬菜获取情况的干预措施提供依据,特别是针对低收入人群。