The Affordability of MyPlate: An Analysis of SNAP Benefits and the Actual Cost of Eating According to the Dietary Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the funds required to support a MyPlate diet and to estimate the additional costs needed for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients to adhere to the MyPlate diet. DESIGN: Using the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) MyPlate dietary guidelines that specify recommendations for individuals based on age and gender and retail price data from the USDA, the cost of following USDA's MyPlate guidelines for consuming 3 meals daily was estimated for the following individuals: children, adolescents, female adults, male adults, female seniors, male seniors, and a 4-person family. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of consuming a MyPlate diet, including canned, frozen, and fresh produce as part of the diet. ANALYSIS: Descriptive analysis of the cost of consuming a MyPlate diet. RESULTS: Consuming a MyPlate diet consisting of only fresh fruits and vegetables is the most expensive diet. The monthly additional costs on an individual basis is the largest for boys aged 12-17 years ($75/mo) because they have the largest quantity of food consumed compared with all other gender and age groups. The monthly cost for a family of 4 ranged from $1,109 to $1,249/mo. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The monetary amount of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits may be insufficient to support a healthy diet recommended by federal nutrition guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".