RESUMO
BACKGROUND: While healthy and sustainable diets benefit human and planetary health, their monetary cost has a direct impact on consumer food choices. This study aimed to identify the cost and environmental impact of the current Brazilian diet (CBD) and compare it with healthy and sustainable diets. METHODS: Data from the Brazilian Household Budget Survey 2017/18 and the Footprints of Foods and Culinary Preparations Consumed in Brazil database were used for a modeling study comparing the cost of healthy and sustainable diets (based on the Brazilian Dietary Guidelines (BDG) diet and the EAT-Lancet diet) versus the CBD. The DIETCOST program generated multiple food baskets for each scenario (Montecarlo simulations). Nutritional quality, cost, and environmental impact measures (carbon footprint (CF) and water footprint (WF)) were estimated for all diets and compared by ANOVA. Simple linear regressions used standardized environmental impacts measures to estimate differentials in costs and environmental impacts among diets scenarios. RESULTS: We observed significant differences in costs/1000 kcal. The BDG diet was cheaper (BRL$4.9 (95%IC:4.8;4.9) ≈ USD$1.5) than the CBD (BRL$5.6 (95%IC:5.6;5.7) ≈ USD$1.8) and the EAT-Lancet diet (BRL$6.1 (95%IC:6.0;6.1) ≈ USD$1.9). Ultra-processed foods (UPF) and red meat contributed the most to the CBD cost/1000 kcal, while fruits and vegetables made the lowest contribution to CBD. Red meat, sugary drinks, and UPF were the main contributors to the environmental impacts of the CBD. The environmental impact/1000 kcal of the CBD was nearly double (CF:3.1 kg(95%IC: 3.0;3.1); WF:2,705 L 95%IC:2,671;2,739)) the cost of the BDG diet (CF:1.4 kg (95%IC:1.4;1.4); WF:1,542 L (95%IC:1,524;1,561)) and EAT-Lancet diet (CF:1.1 kg (95%IC:1.0;1.1); WF:1,448 L (95%IC:1,428;1,469)). A one standard deviation increase in standardized CF corresponded to an increase of BRL$0.48 in the cost of the CBD, similar to standardized WF (BRL$0.56). A similar relationship between the environmental impact and the cost of the BDG (CF: BRL$0.20; WF: BRL$0.33) and EAT-Lancet (CF: BRL$0.04; WF: BRL$0.18) was found, but with a less pronounced effect. CONCLUSIONS: The BDG diet was cost-effective, while the EAT-Lancet diet was slightly pricier than the CBD. The CBD presented almost double the CF and WF compared to the BDG and EAT-Lancet diets. The lower cost in each diet was associated with lower environmental impact, particularly for the BDG and EAT-Lancet diets. Multisectoral public policies must be applied to guide individuals and societies towards healthier and more sustainable eating patterns.
Assuntos
Dieta Saudável , Dieta , Meio Ambiente , Brasil , Humanos , Dieta Saudável/economia , Dieta/economia , Pegada de Carbono , Política Nutricional , Valor Nutritivo , Custos e Análise de CustoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Introducing legislation that restricts companies from exposing children to marketing of unhealthy food and beverage products is both politically and technically difficult. To advance the literature on the technical design of food marketing legislation, and to support governments around the world with legislative development, we aimed to describe the legislative approach from three governments. METHODS: A multiple case study methodology was adopted to describe how three governments approached designing comprehensive food marketing legislation (Chile, Canada and the United Kingdom). A conceptual framework outlining best practice design principles guided our methodological approach to examine how each country designed the technical aspects of their regulatory response, including the regulatory form adopted, the substantive content of the laws, and the implementation and governance mechanisms used. Data from documentary evidence and 15 semi-structured key informant interviews were collected and synthesised using a directed content analysis. RESULTS: All three countries varied in their legislative design and were therefore considered of variable strength regarding the legislative elements used to protect children from unhealthy food marketing. When compared against the conceptual framework, some elements of best practice design were present, particularly relating to the governance of legislative design and implementation, but the scope of each law (or proposed laws) had limitations. These included: the exclusion of brand marketing; not protecting children up to age 18; focusing solely on child-directed marketing instead of all marketing that children are likely to be exposed to; and not allocating sufficient resources to effectively monitor and enforce the laws. The United Kingdom's approach to legislation is the most comprehensive and more likely to meet its regulatory objectives. CONCLUSIONS: Our synthesis and analysis of the technical elements of food marketing laws can support governments around the world as they develop their own food marketing restrictions. An analysis of the three approaches illustrates an evolution in the design of food marketing laws over time, as well as the design strengths offered by a legislative approach. Opportunities remain for strengthening legislative responses to protect children from unhealthy food marketing practices.
Assuntos
Alimentos , Marketing , Adolescente , Bebidas , Canadá , Chile , Indústria Alimentícia , Humanos , Marketing/métodosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Food cost and affordability is one of the main barriers to improve the nutritional quality of diets of the population. However, in Argentina, where over 60% of adults and 40% of children and adolescents are overweight or obese, little is known about the difference in cost and affordability of healthier diets compared to ordinary, less healthy ones. METHODS: We implemented the "optimal approach" proposed by the International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS). We modelled the current diet and two types of healthy diets, one equal in energy with the current diet and one 6.3% lower in energy by linear programming. Cost estimations were performed by collecting food product prices and running a Monte Carlo simulation (10,000 iterations) to obtain a range of costs for each model diet. Affordability was measured as the percentage contribution of diet cost vs. average household income in average, poor and extremely poor households and by income deciles. RESULTS: On average, households must spend 32% more money on food to ensure equal energy intake from a healthy diet than from a current model diet. When the energy intake target was reduced by 6.3%, the difference in cost was 22%. There are no reasonably likely situations in which any of these healthy diets could cost less or the same than the current unhealthier one. Over 50% of households would be unable to afford the modelled healthy diets, while 40% could not afford the current diet. CONCLUSIONS: Differential cost and affordability of healthy vs. unhealthy diets are germane to the design of effective public policies to reduce obesity and NCDs in Argentina. It is necessary to implement urgent measures to transform the obesogenic environment, making healthier products more affordable, available and desirable, and discouraging consumption of nutrient-poor, energy-rich foods.