Cited by 39Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorEconomics of Agriculture and Food Markets

A cost comparison of more and less nutritious food choices in US supermarkets

Open access
Katz, David L, Doughty, Kim, Njike, Valentine, Treu, Judith A, Reynolds, Jesse, Walker, Jennifer, Smith, Erica, Katz, Catherine·2011·Public Health Nutrition

Abstract

Objective: The present study directly compared prices of more and less nutritious foods within given categories in US supermarkets. Design: Foods selected from six supermarkets in Jackson County were categorized using the five criteria of the Nutrition Detectives™ (ND) programme and an item-to-item cost comparison was made using posted prices. The nutritional quality of foods was distinguished using the clues of the ND nutrition education programme for elementary-school children and validated using the Overall Nutritional Quality Index. Setting: Supermarkets in Jackson County, MO, USA. Subjects: Not applicable. Results: The average price of the item for more nutritious foods did not differ significantly from that of less nutritious foods overall ($US 2·89 (sd$US 0·74)v.$US 2·85 (sd$0·68),P= 0·76). More nutritious breads cost more than less nutritious breads ($US 3·36 (sd$ US 0·28)v.$US 2·56 (sd$US 0·80,P= 0·03), whereas more nutritious cereals ($US 2·46 (sd$US 0·69)v.$US 3·50 (sd$US 0·30),P< 0·01) and cookies ($US 2·76 (sd$US 0·50)v.$US 3·40 (sd$US0·28),P< 0·01) cost less. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that it is possible to choose more nutritious foods within many common categories without spending more money and suggest that making small improvements in dietary choices does not invariably cost more.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1368980011000048

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katz, D. L., Doughty, K., Njike, V., Treu, J. A., Reynolds, J., Walker, J., Smith, E., & Katz, C.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Katz, David L
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Published
2011-02-28
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
1693-1699
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
OpenAlex
W2042292292
Cited by
39
References
49
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Health Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economics of Agriculture and Food Markets
Keywords
food prices, nutritional value, bread, cereals, cookies, food purchasing, nutrition education
MeSH terms
Budgets, Choice Behavior, Commerce, Diet, Feeding Behavior, Food, Food Preferences, Food Supply, Humans, Nutritional Status, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Nutrition Assessment, Linear Models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review