Consumer shopping behavior: how much do consumers save?

This paper documents the potential and actual savings that consumers realize from four particular types of purchasing behavior: purchasing on sale; buying in bulk (at a lower per unit price); buying generic brands; and choosing outlets. How much can and do households save through each of these behaviors? How do these patterns vary with consumer demographics? We use data collected by a marketing firm on all food purchases brought into the home for a large, nationally representative sample of U.K. households in 2006. We are interested in how consumer choice affects the measurement of price changes. In particular, a standard price index based on a fixed basket of goods will overstate the rise in the true cost of living because it does not properly consider sales and bulk purchasing. According to our measures, the extent of this bias might be of the same or even greater magnitude than the better-known substitution and outlet biases

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods

Although healthy foods can be affordable, if less healthy foods are cheaper, individuals may have an economic incentive to consume a less healthful diet. Using the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database, we explore whether a select set of healthy foods (whole grains, dark green vegetables, orange vegetables, whole fruit, skim and 1% milk, fruit juice, and bottled water) are more expensive than less healthy alternatives. We find that not all healthy foods are more expensive than less healthy alternatives; skim and 1% milk are less expensive than whole and 2% milk and bottled water is generally less expensive than carbonated nonalcoholic drinks. We also find considerable geographic variation in the relative price of healthy foods. This price variation may contribute to geographic variation in diet and health outcomes.Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database (QFAHPD), healthy food, price, geographic variation, Agricultural and Food Policy, Consumer/Household Economics, Demand and Price Analysis, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, Health Economics and Policy, Public Economics,

A Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database for the U.S.

This report provides a detailed description of the methodology used to construct ERS’s Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database (Q-FAHPD). As the name suggest, these data provide quarterly observations on the mean price of 52 food categories for specific U.S. markets. We provide a description of the Nielsen Homescan data that was used to create this database, the methodology used to classify foods into food groups, how we determined the appropriate the level of aggregation (sub-regional markets) and our calculation of average prices for each food group. This report also contains an overview and summary of the resulting data.Nielsen Homescan, food prices, diet quality, market prices, Demand and Price Analysis, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, Health Economics and Policy,

Validation of food store environment secondary data source and the role of neighborhood deprivation in Appalachia, Kentucky

Background Based on the need for better measurement of the retail food environment in rural settings and to examine how deprivation may be unique in rural settings, the aims of this study were: 1) to validate one commercially available data source with direct field observations of food retailers; and 2) to examine the association between modified neighborhood deprivation and the modified retail food environment score (mRFEI). Methods Secondary data were obtained from a commercial database, InfoUSA in 2011, on all retail food outlets for each census tract. In 2011, direct observation identifying all listed food retailers was conducted in 14 counties in Kentucky. Sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPV) were compared. Neighborhood deprivation index was derived from American Community Survey data. Multinomial regression was used to examine associations between neighborhood deprivation and the mRFEI score (indicator of retailers selling healthy foods such as low-fat foods and fruits and vegetables relative to retailers selling more energy dense foods). Results The sensitivity of the commercial database was high for traditional food retailers (grocery stores, supermarkets, convenience stores), with a range of 0.96-1.00, but lower for non-traditional food retailers; dollar stores (0.20) and Farmer’s Markets (0.50). For traditional food outlets, the PPV for smaller non-chain grocery stores was 38%, and large chain supermarkets was 87%. Compared to those with no stores in their neighborhoods, those with a supercenter [OR 0.50 (95% CI 0.27. 0.97)] or convenience store [OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.51, 0.89)] in their neighborhood have lower odds of living in a low deprivation neighborhood relative to a high deprivation neighborhood. Conclusion The secondary commercial database used in this study was insufficient to characterize the rural retail food environment. Our findings suggest that neighborhoods with high neighborhood deprivation are associated with having certain store types that may promote less healthy food options

Focusing on fast food restaurants alone underestimates the relationship between neighborhood deprivation and exposure to fast food in a large rural area

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Individuals and families are relying more on food prepared outside the home as a source for at-home and away-from-home consumption. Restricting the estimation of fast-food access to fast-food restaurants alone may underestimate potential spatial access to fast food.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study used data from the 2006 Brazos Valley Food Environment Project (BVFEP) and the 2000 U.S. Census Summary File 3 for six rural counties in the Texas Brazos Valley region. BVFEP ground-truthed data included identification and geocoding of all fast-food restaurants, convenience stores, supermarkets, and grocery stores in study area and on-site assessment of the availability and variety of fast-food lunch/dinner entrées and side dishes. Network distance was calculated from the population-weighted centroid of each census block group to all retail locations that marketed fast food (<it>n </it>= 205 fast-food opportunities).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Spatial access to fast-food opportunities (FFO) was significantly better than to traditional fast-food restaurants (FFR). The median distance to the nearest FFO was 2.7 miles, compared with 4.5 miles to the nearest FFR. Residents of high deprivation neighborhoods had better spatial access to a variety of healthier fast-food entrée and side dish options than residents of low deprivation neighborhoods.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our analyses revealed that identifying fast-food restaurants as the sole source of fast-food entrées and side dishes underestimated neighborhood exposure to fast food, in terms of both neighborhood proximity and coverage. Potential interventions must consider all retail opportunities for fast food, and not just traditional FFR.</p

Association between neighborhood need and spatial access to food stores and fast food restaurants in neighborhoods of Colonias

Objective To determine the extent to which neighborhood needs (socioeconomic deprivation and vehicle availability) are associated with two criteria of food environment access: 1) distance to the nearest food store and fast food restaurant and 2) coverage (number) of food stores and fast food restaurants within a specified network distance of neighborhood areas of colonias, using ground-truthed methods. Methods Data included locational points for 315 food stores and 204 fast food restaurants, and neighborhood characteristics from the 2000 U.S. Census for the 197 census block group (CBG) study area. Neighborhood deprivation and vehicle availability were calculated for each CBG. Minimum distance was determined by calculating network distance from the population-weighted center of each CBG to the nearest supercenter, supermarket, grocery, convenience store, dollar store, mass merchandiser, and fast food restaurant. Coverage was determined by calculating the number of each type of food store and fast food restaurant within a network distance of 1, 3, and 5 miles of each population-weighted CBG center. Neighborhood need and access were examined using Spearman ranked correlations, spatial autocorrelation, and multivariate regression models that adjusted for population density. Results Overall, neighborhoods had best access to convenience stores, fast food restaurants, and dollar stores. After adjusting for population density, residents in neighborhoods with increased deprivation had to travel a significantly greater distance to the nearest supercenter or supermarket, grocery store, mass merchandiser, dollar store, and pharmacy for food items. The results were quite different for association of need with the number of stores within 1 mile. Deprivation was only associated with fast food restaurants; greater deprivation was associated with fewer fast food restaurants within 1 mile. CBG with greater lack of vehicle availability had slightly better access to more supercenters or supermarkets, grocery stores, or fast food restaurants. Increasing deprivation was associated with decreasing numbers of grocery stores, mass merchandisers, dollar stores, and fast food restaurants within 3 miles. Conclusion It is important to understand not only the distance that people must travel to the nearest store to make a purchase, but also how many shopping opportunities they have in order to compare price, quality, and selection. Future research should examine how spatial access to the food environment influences the utilization of food stores and fast food restaurants, and the strategies used by low-income families to obtain food for the household

INTERSTATE VARIATION IN WIC FOOD PACKAGE COSTS: THE ROLE OF FOOD PRICES, CASELOAD COMPOSITION, AND COST-CONTAINMENT PRACTICES

Food prices within States affect average monthly costs of State food benefits packages provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) more than variations in WIC caseload composition do. In addition, cost-containment practices by State WIC agencies provide different levels of cost savings in different areas, which also contributes to interstate variation in benefits package costs. This study is one of the few to examine the degree to which food prices, caseloads, and cost containment practices influence costs of State WIC food benefits packages. Because few data exist on the actual food items that WIC participants purchase, the study used a scanner dataset of supermarket transactions and other sources to estimate the average monthly cost of WIC food benefits in several areas

INTERSTATE VARIATION IN WIC FOOD PACKAGE COSTS: THE ROLE OF FOOD PRICES, CASELOAD COMPOSITION, AND COST-CONTAINMENT PRACTICES

Food prices within States affect average monthly costs of State food benefits packages provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) more than variations in WIC caseload composition do. In addition, cost-containment practices by State WIC agencies provide different levels of cost savings in different areas, which also contributes to interstate variation in benefits package costs. This study is one of the few to examine the degree to which food prices, caseloads, and cost containment practices influence costs of State WIC food benefits packages. Because few data exist on the actual food items that WIC participants purchase, the study used a scanner dataset of supermarket transactions and other sources to estimate the average monthly cost of WIC food benefits in several areas.WIC program, cost-containment, food package costs, food prices, WIC foods, WIC caseloads, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, Children, Food Security and Poverty,

Determinants of Geographic Variation in U.S. Food Prices

We investigate how differences in demand (population characteristics, purchase patterns) and supply-side factors (retail food outlets, farm production) explain geographic differences in food prices