Cost of a Healthy Diet: A Population-Representative Comparison of 3 Diet Cost Methods in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different food price sources and dietary assessment tools may impact the estimation of diet costs and hamper our understanding of the relationship between diet costs and dietary intakes. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the effect of 3 diet cost derivation methods, with increasing numbers of food prices and geographic specificity, holding consistent the dietary assessment tool, on the estimation of diet costs overall and by food group. METHODS: We matched 24-h dietary recall data from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition (CCHS-N) to food price data from 3 Canadian Consumer Price Index (CPI) food price lists; national short list, national long list, and provincial long list. We compared the daily ($/day) and energy-adjusted ($/2000 kcal) diet costs overall and by food groups for the overall population (4+), children (4-18), and adults (19+). RESULTS: The proportion of dietary intakes (grams) that were covered by CPI prices significantly increased from the national short list to the national long list but did not significantly differ from the national long list to the provincial long list. The national short list resulted in the highest daily and energy-adjusted diet costs overall. No difference in diet costs was noted between the national and provincial long lists. Diet costs for 4 food groups-additions, sweets, fruits, and vegetables, which were poorly covered by the national short list-significantly differed using the national and provincial long lists. All 3 diet cost methods were significantly correlated with energy intakes; however, a strong/very strong correlation was detected for children, and a weak/moderate correlation for adults. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of food price data may introduce bias in the diet cost estimate, as well as limiting our understanding of how individuals allocate their diet costs. Refinement of diet cost estimation methodology and measures can strengthen future studies of how consumers allocate their purchases to their diets.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".