Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:49:08.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the availability and affordability of a market basket in two communities in the Chicago area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Daniel Block  and
Joanne Kouba
Daniel Block*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, Sociology, Economics, and Anthropology, Chicago State University, 9501 South King Drive, Chicago, IL 60628, USA
Joanne Kouba
Affiliation:
School of Nursing at Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
*
*corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective

The purpose of the present study was to characterise the food landscape of an inner city African American neighbourhood and its mixed-race suburban neighbour. Detailed analysis focuses on the relationship between community store mix and price, availability and produce quality.

Design

A market basket study was completed by members of the Chicago Food Systems Collaborative. The US Department of Agriculture's standard market basket survey and methodology were used. Additional items and analyses were added in consultation with community members.

Setting

Austin is a lower-middle-class African American community of 117 500 on the western edge of Chicago. Oak Park, which borders Austin, is an upper-middle-income suburb of 52 500 with a mixed racial profile.

Subjects

A market basket survey of every retail food store in Austin and Oak Park was completed. A total of 134 were included.

Results

Results indicate that Austin has many grocery stores and few supermarkets. Many Austin groceries stores carry produce that is usually competitively priced, but often of unacceptable quality. Supermarkets had the best selection. Prices were lowest at discount supermarkets. Prices of packaged items were higher at independent stores than at chain supermarkets, but fresh items were cheaper.

Conclusions

Food access is related more to store type than number. In this study, item availability and produce quality varied greatly between store types. Price differences were complicated and varied by store type and food category. This has consequences in terms of food purchasing decisions and dietary quality that public health professionals should acknowledge.

Keywords

Food accessFood securityGrocery storesSupermarketsMarket basket
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 9 , Issue 7 , October 2006 , pp. 837 - 845
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2006

References

1Morland, K, Wing, S, Diez Roux, A. The contextual effect of the local food environment on residents' diets: The Arteriosclerosis Risk in Communities study. American Journal of Public Health 2002; 92: 1761–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Hamilton, W, Cook, J, Thompson, W. Household Food Security in the United States: 1995–1998. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 1997.Google Scholar
3 Economic Research Service. Briefing Room: Food Security in the United States [online]. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity. Accessed 16 August 2004.Google Scholar
4Carlson, SJ, Andrews, MS, Bickel, GW. Measuring food insecurity and hunger in the United States: development of a national benchmark measure and prevalence estimates. Journal of Nutrition 1999; 129: 510S–6S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Drewnowski, A, Specter, SE. Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2004; 79: 6–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Mokdad, AH, Marks, JS, Stroup, DF, Gerberding, JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association 2004; 291: 1238–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Vastag, B. Obesity is now on everyone's plate. Journal of the American Medical Association 2004; 291: 1186–9.Google ScholarPubMed
8Dietz, WH. Does hunger cause obesity? Pediatrics 2004; 95: 766–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Basiotis, PP, Lino, M. Food insufficiency and prevalence of overweight among adult women. Nutrition Insights 1992; 26: 1–2.Google Scholar
10Alaimo, K, Olson, CM, Frongillo, EA. Low family income and food insufficiency in relation to overweight in US children: is there a paradox?. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2001; 155: 1161–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Olson, CM. Nutrition and health outcomes associated with food insecurity and hunger. Journal of Nutrition 1999; 129: 521S–4S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Townsend, MS, Peerson, J, Love, B, Achterberg, C, Murphy, SP. Food insecurity is positively related to overweight in women. Journal of Nutrition 2001; 131: 1738–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Casey, PH, Szeto, K, Lensing, S, Bogle, M, Weber, J. Children in food-insufficient, low-income families: prevalence, health and nutrition status. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2001; 155: 508–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Alaimo, K, Olson, CM, Frongillo, EA, Briefel, RR. Food insufficiency, family income, and health in US preschool and school-aged children. American Journal of Public Health 2001; 91: 781–6.Google ScholarPubMed
15Alaimo, K, Olson, CM, Frongillo, EA. Food insufficiency and American school-aged children's cognitive, academic and psychosocial development. Pediatrics 2001; 108: 44–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Kempson, K, Keenan, DK, Sadani, PS, Adler, A. Maintaining food insufficiency: coping strategies identified by limited-resource individuals versus nutrition educators. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 2003; 35: 179–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Rolls, BJ, Castellanos, VH, Halford, JC. Volume of foods consumed affects satiety in men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1998; 67: 1170–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Wrigley, N. ‘Food deserts’ in British cities: policy context and research priorities. Urban Studies 2002; 39: 2029–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Cummins, SCJ. The local food environment and health: some reflections from the United Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health 2003; 93: 51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Kaufman, PR, MacDonald, JM, Lutz, SM, Smallwood, DM. Do the Poor Pay More for Food? Item Selection and Price Differences Affect Low-income Household Food Costs. Agricultural Economic Report No. 759. Washington, DC: Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, 1997.Google Scholar
21Chung, C, Myers, SL. Do the poor pay more for food? An analysis of grocery stores availability and food price disparities. Journal of Consumer Affairs 1996; 33: 276–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Sloane, DC, Diamant, AL, Lewis, LB, Yancey, AK, Flynn, G, Mascimento, LM et al. Improving the nutritional resource environment for healthy living through community-based participatory research. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2003; 18: 568–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Crockett, EG, Clancy, KL, Bowering, J. Comparing the cost of a Thrifty Food Plan market basket in three areas of New York state. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 1992; 24: 72S–9S.Google Scholar
24 Chicago Department of Health. Chicago Community Health Profile: Austin [online], 1 July 2004. Available at http://www.cityofchicago.org/Health/profiles. Accessed 10 September 2004.Google Scholar
25 US Census Bureau, Population Division, Decennial Programs Coordination Research Branch. 2000 Census of Population and Housing: Summary File 3 [online], 25 August 2002. Available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/SF3-housing.html. Accessed 17 August 2005.Google Scholar
26Cohen, B. Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit. E-FAN No. (02–013) [online], July 2002. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/efan02013/. Accessed October 2002.Google Scholar
27 Food Marketing Institute. Supermarket Facts: Industry Overview 2004 [online], 2004. Available at http://www.fmi.org/facts_figs/superfact.htm. Accessed 11 01 2005.Google Scholar