Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:31:05.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Paying for convenience: comparing the cost of takeaway meals with their healthier home-cooked counterparts in New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2017

Sally Mackay*
Affiliation:
School of Population Health, University of Auckland, 261 Morrin Road, Auckland, New Zealand
Stefanie Vandevijvere
Affiliation:
School of Population Health, University of Auckland, 261 Morrin Road, Auckland, New Zealand
Pei Xie
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Amanda Lee
Affiliation:
The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, The Sax Institute, Sydney, Australia
Boyd Swinburn
Affiliation:
School of Population Health, University of Auckland, 261 Morrin Road, Auckland, New Zealand World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Convenience and cost impact on people’s meal decisions. Takeaway and pre-prepared foods save preparation time but may contribute to poorer-quality diets. Analysing the impact of time on relative cost differences between meals of varying convenience contributes to understanding the barrier of time to selecting healthy meals.

Design

Six popular New Zealand takeaway meals were identified from two large national surveys and compared with similar, but healthier, home-made and home-assembled meals that met nutrition targets consistent with New Zealand Eating and Activity Guidelines. The cost of each complete meal, cost per kilogram, and confidence intervals of the cost of each meal type were calculated. The time-inclusive cost was calculated by adding waiting or preparation time cost at the minimum wage.

Setting

A large urban area in New Zealand.

Results

For five of six popular meals, the mean cost of the home-made and home-assembled meals was cheaper than the takeaway meals. When the cost of time was added, all home-assembled meal options were the cheapest and half of the home-made meals were at least as expensive as the takeaway meals. The home-prepared meals were designed to provide less saturated fat and Na and more vegetables than their takeaway counterparts; however, the home-assembled meals provided more Na than the home-made meals.

Conclusions

Healthier home-made and home-assembled meals were, except one, cheaper options than takeaways. When the cost of time was added, either the home-made or the takeaway meal was the most expensive. This research questions whether takeaways are better value than home-prepared meals.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2017 

Cost and convenience influence meal choice( Reference Glanz, Basil and Maibach 1 , Reference McDermott and Stephens 2 ). Consumption of fast foods and use of pre-prepared items and ready meals are common, and increasing worldwide( Reference Lachat, Nago and Verstraeten 3 Reference Steyn, Mchiza and Hill 6 ). Takeaway meals are meals obtained quickly, without wait service, purchased in self-serve or carry-out venues. These meals tend to be energy dense, nutrient poor and high in saturated fat and Na( Reference Dunford, Webster and Barzi 7 , Reference Nielsen and Popkin 8 ).

It is perceived that healthy food costs more than unhealthy food, that convenience foods are better value for money, and there is a lack of time for food preparation( Reference Lee, Ni Mhurchu and Sacks 9 Reference Lopéz-Azpiazu, Martìnez-González and Kearney 13 ). Time is an often overlooked social determinant of health( Reference Venn and Strazdins 14 ) not usually factored into the cost of food preparation, but is a barrier to preparing meals( Reference Muth, Karns and Zmuda 15 Reference Davis and You 17 ). The evidence on incorporating time in meal costing studies is limited( Reference Davis and You 18 ).

The International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) aims to monitor key aspects of food environments, including food prices and affordability( Reference Lee, Ni Mhurchu and Sacks 9 ). The present study focuses on the meals component of the INFORMAS food price and affordability module by comparing the cost of takeaway v. home-cooked and home-assembled meals. The study aimed to assess differences in cost between popular takeaway meals compared with similar, but healthier home-made and home-assembled meals, with and without the inclusion of time.

Methods

Frequently consumed takeaways were identified and matched to similar, but healthier, home-made and home-assembled meals. The home-made meals used common ingredients and required basic cooking skills and standard kitchen equipment.

The methods are summarised below. The detailed protocol for the study can be found in the online supplementary material, Supplemental Material 1.

Takeaway meals

Popular takeaway meals (Tables 1 and 2) were identified from the 2013 New Zealand (NZ) Household Expenditure Survey( 19 ), the 2008/09 Adult NZ Nutrition Survey( 20 ) and a survey of a convenience sample of 144 takeaway outlets. Popular fast-food outlets in NZ were identified using Euromonitor data( Reference Euromonitor 21 ). The nutrient compositions of the Domino’s, McDonald’s and KFC meals were sourced from the respective websites( 22 24 ) and for the remaining meals from the NZ Food Composition Database( 25 ).

Table 1 Selecting meals and recipes prepared at home: decisions and rationale

Table 2 Description and key nutritional analysis of meals in the comparison of takeaway meals with their healthier home-cooked counterparts in New Zealand, November 2015–March 2016

The meals from chain restaurants (Domino’s, McDonald’s and KFC) were value meals for four with set prices and sizes across stores; weights and prices were collected from one outlet of each chain. The remaining takeaway meals were from independent outlets, so varied in size, price and components; these outlets were randomly sampled and selected. Seven census area units with a reasonable number of takeaway outlets in Auckland city were selected; two areas with lower, three with medium and two with higher deprivation scores as per the NZ Deprivation Index 2013( Reference Atkinson, Salmond and Crampton 26 ). All takeaway outlets in these census area units serving the identified popular takeaway meals were enumerated and two outlets of each type were selected for each popular takeaway meal (fourteen prices for each meal).

Meals were purchased from takeaway outlets between November 2015 and March 2016. The meal and the main components (rice/noodles/potatoes, meat and vegetables) were weighed.

Home-prepared meals

For the purpose of the study, a meal included vegetables, a protein source and a carbohydrate component. The nutrition targets to select the home-made and home-assembled meals were guided by criteria for healthy recipes and ready meals identified in the literature( 27 32 ) and the NZ Eating and Activity Guidelines( 33 ).

Meal nutrition targets for two adults and two children were:

  • minimum 600 g non-starchy vegetables;

  • maximum raw weight 500 g red meat, 600 g skinless poultry, 600 g seafood;

  • ≥20 g protein;

  • ≤24 g saturated fat; and

  • ≤3600 mg Na.

The rationale for decisions for the home-prepared meals is outlined in Table 1. Recipes from popular NZ recipe books, magazines and websites were used to identify key ingredients and flavours of each home-made meal so the characteristics were similar to their takeaway counterpart. The ingredients of each home recipe were entered into the nutrient analysis software FoodWorks 7 Professional (Xyris Software (Australia) Pty Ltd, 2012) with the NZ Food Composition Database and the mean nutrient content for each meal option was calculated.

For the home-assembled meals, the main ingredients of the home-made meals were replaced by pre-prepared items wherever possible. For example, fresh vegetables were replaced with frozen vegetables. Some preparation and assembling was required. Combinations of the meal components were checked against the nutrition targets.

The process is shown in online supplementary material, Supplemental Material 2.

Cost of meals

The cheapest available item, including generic brands, for each ingredient was selected and priced at six supermarkets from major chains in similar areas to the takeaway outlets.

The time to prepare the meal was tested in a home kitchen, or estimated from a tested meal with a similar method. The time to order and to wait for each takeaway meal was recorded. The cost of time was selected using the standard market substitute approach, which values food preparation time at the amount the labour could be purchased on the market( Reference Davis and You 18 ). The minimum wage of $NZ 15·25( 34 ) was selected to cost time, as this is similar to the hourly wage of a food preparer.

The price, mean cost, se, 95 % CI (±1·96 se) and range were calculated for each meal and costs compared between the different types of meal (takeaway, home-made, home-assembled). The analysis was conducted with and without including the cost of time. As the weights of meals varied, the price per kilogram was calculated.

Results

Seven to ten distinct recipes were selected for each home-made meal. The combinations for the home-assembled meals ranged from three combinations for pizza to thirty combinations for beef chow mein.

Healthiness of meals

The home-prepared meals were designed to be healthy so provided more vegetables (at least 600 g non-starchy vegetables except pizza) and less saturated fat and Na than their takeaway counterparts (Table 2).

The home-prepared meals did not exceed the saturated fat target, except for the burgers and home-assembled chicken meal (Table 2). All of the takeaway meals exceeded the saturated fat target, except pizza.

None of the home-made meal recipes exceeded the Na target (Table 2). Three of the home-assembled meals (chicken meal, beef chow mein, burger) exceeded the Na target due to the high Na content of specific components. All but one takeaway meal (fish and chips) exceeded the Na target.

Cost of meals

Time exclusive

The cost of the home-made meals was significantly cheaper than the takeaway counterparts for all but one meal option (fish and chips; Table 3). The cost of the home-assembled meals was significantly cheaper than the takeaway counterparts. Three home-made meals (chicken meal, beef chow mein, pizza) were the cheapest options. Both home-prepared butter chicken meals were the cheapest options.

Table 3 The average cost of meals, with and without including time cost, in the comparison of takeaway meals with their healthier home-cooked counterparts in New Zealand, November 2015–March 2016

* Number of recipes, meal combinations or takeaway outlets with a price.

Time in minutes; preparation time for home-made and home-assembled meals and waiting time for takeaway meals.

When the meal was a fixed price in different outlets, there are no confidence intervals.

§ Cost per kilogram does not include the cost of time.

Time inclusive

When the cost of time was added (Table 3) all home-assembled meals were significantly cheaper than other options, except pizza. The takeaway meal was the most expensive option for the chicken meal, burger and pizza (32, 27 and 19 % more than the home-made meal, respectively). The home-made meal was the most expensive option for the fish and chip meal (14 % more than the takeaway meal). Including the cost of time reduced the relative difference between the cost of takeaway and home-made meals; the takeaway meals cost from 14 % less to 32 % more than the home-made meals (11–100 % more without time). There was little change in the relative difference in cost between takeaways and home-assembled meals.

Discussion

In general, healthier home-cooked and home-assembled meals were cheaper than their takeaway counterparts, when either the cost of the complete meal, or the cost standardised for weight, was calculated. As the home-made meals required at least 45 % more preparation time than the other meals, adding the cost of relevant preparation (home meals) and waiting time (takeaway meals) made the home-assembled meals the cheapest option and either the home-made or takeaway meals the most expensive.

Home-assembled meals are potentially a better option than takeaway meals, as they are 15–48 % cheaper, have similar preparation/waiting time, and can provide a healthy meal if pre-prepared ingredients lower in saturated fat and Na are chosen.

Although the difference between the cost of home-made, home-assembled and takeaway meals was checked for statistical significance, what is important is the meaningful difference in cost between the meals that would influence the consumer’s decision to choose one meal type over another. This is challenging to quantify, as meal preparation is a trade-off between the cost of purchasing food and time available( Reference Becker 35 ) with influences such as taste and culture( Reference Yang, Davis and Muth 36 ). Households differ on the value placed on nutrition, providing a home-made meal, the priority of food in the budget, available time, and whether meal preparation is experienced as a pleasure or a chore( Reference Caraher, Dixon and Lang 37 Reference Guthrie, Lin and Frazao 42 ). Some are motivated to purchase takeaway meals, paying for the cost of service to save time, but may trade off healthiness, quality and taste( Reference Costa, Dekker and Beumer 43 Reference Ryan 46 ). A study using two US survey data sets estimated the price elasticity of demand for different types of food purchased away from home and concluded that an increase in the price of fast food may shift consumption to meals prepared at home( Reference Richards and Mancino 47 ).

Time

Similar to the methodology in another study( Reference Yang, Davis and Muth 36 ), hands-on preparation time was used rather than the full cooking time as the meal preparer could conduct other activities during cooking time. The time to shop for ingredients and transport time to food stores or takeaway outlets were not calculated; this time will vary between households, and it was assumed purchase of ingredients would be part of regular household shopping. Cooking fuel was not included; the cost of electricity to cook meals was estimated at $NZ 0·26 per meal( 48 ).

A US study( Reference Yang, Davis and Muth 36 ) reported pre-prepared items (e.g. apple sauce) and meals (e.g. lasagne) cost less than the home recipe when the cost of time was included. The cost to prepare the US Thrifty Food Plan was met by 62 % of low-income households, but when time costs were included only 13 % could afford the required foods( Reference Davis and You 17 ).

Strengths and limitations

To account for possible variations in price, weight and composition of takeaway meals from independent outlets, the takeaway outlets were selected from a range of census area units.

It was challenging to determine the appropriate meal size. There is no consensus on what is considered a meal( Reference Murakami and Livingstone 49 , Reference Leech, Worsley and Timperio 50 ), so the home-prepared meals were matched to their takeaway counterparts for the amount of rice, noodles or potatoes. The meal cost was also standardised for weight (1 kg) and the pattern of results was similar to results for the total meal cost. When the cost per kilogram was calculated without vegetables, the pattern of results was similar to the price per kilogram with vegetables, but the relative differences were smaller.

The preparation time may not be an accurate indication for an average household or those with low cooking skills. It was assumed waiting times would be similar across different outlets of a fast-food chain. Ideally, a sensitivity analysis should have been conducted to account for other time factors such as grocery shopping and transportation time.

Implications

Monitoring whether the cost to the consumer of home-cooked meals increases at a faster rate than the cost of takeaway meals is important, as changing relative costs is one factor that could affect the consumption of takeaways. This research provides a method to compare the cost of meals across the spectrum of preparation from home-made to home-assembled to takeaway meals. The cost differential between each meal option can be compared at one point, monitored over time and compared with cost differentials between types of meals in other countries. These results can be utilised for education purposes to encourage households to prepare home-made meals and to address the barrier of time.

Conclusion

Healthier options of home-prepared meals were generally cheaper than their takeaway counterparts, for the cost of the complete meal and the cost standardised for weight. Adding the cost of preparation and waiting time made the home-assembled meals the cheapest and either the home-made or takeaway meal the most expensive option. Home-made meals can be healthy and cheap but do require time. Home-assembled meals are quicker to prepare and can be cheaper and healthier than takeaways, so is a recommended option if time is limited. This research adds to the sparse research reported in the literature comparing the cost of meals with varying degrees of convenience, accounting for time. Further research on the price elasticity of healthy meals and takeaways is required.

Acknowledgements

Financial support: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Conflict of interest: None. Authorship: S.M. led the study conception and design, data collection, analysis and writing of the manuscript. S.V. contributed to the study conception and design, data analysis and critically revised the manuscript. P.X. contributed to the data acquisition and data analysis and critically revised the manuscript. A.L. contributed to the study conception and critically revised the manuscript. B.S. contributed to the study conception and design and critically revised the manuscript. Ethics of human subject participation: Not applicable.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017000805

References

1. Glanz, K, Basil, M, Maibach, E et al. (1998) Why Americans eat what they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. J Am Diet Assoc 98, 11181126.Google Scholar
2. McDermott, AJ & Stephens, MB (2010) Cost of eating: whole foods versus convenience foods in a low-income model. Fam Med 42, 280284.Google Scholar
3. Lachat, C, Nago, E, Verstraeten, R et al. (2012) Eating out of home and its association with dietary intake: a systematic review of the evidence. Obes Rev 13, 329346.Google Scholar
4. Orfanos, P, Naska, A, Trichopoulou, A et al. (2009) Eating out of home: energy, macro- and micronutrient intakes in 10 European countries. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Eur J Clin Nutr 63, Suppl. 4, S239S262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Kanzler, S, Manschein, M, Lammer, G et al. (2015) The nutrient composition of European ready meals: protein, fat, total carbohydrates and energy. Food Chem 172, 190196.Google Scholar
6. Steyn, N, Mchiza, Z, Hill, J et al. (2014) Nutritional contribution of street foods to the diet of people in developing countries: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 17, 13631374.Google Scholar
7. Dunford, E, Webster, J, Barzi, F et al. (2010) Nutrient content of products served by leading Australian fast food chains. Appetite 55, 484489.Google Scholar
8. Nielsen, S & Popkin, B (2003) Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977–1998. JAMA 289, 450453.Google Scholar
9. Lee, A, Ni Mhurchu, C, Sacks, G et al. (2013) Monitoring the price and affordability of foods and diets globally. Obes Rev 14, Suppl. 1, 8295.Google Scholar
10. Andajani-Sutjahjo, S, Ball, K, Warren, N et al. (2004) Perceived personal, social and environmental barriers to weight maintenance among young women: a community survey. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 1, 15.Google Scholar
11. Rao, M, Afshin, A, Singh, G et al. (2013) Do healthier foods and diet patterns cost more than less healthy options? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 3, e004277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Turrell, G, Hewitt, B, Patterson, C et al. (2002) Socioeconomic differences in food purchasing behaviour and suggested implications for diet-related health promotion. J Hum Nutr Diet 15, 355364.Google Scholar
13. Lopéz-Azpiazu, I, Martìnez-González, M, Kearney, J et al. (1999) Perceived barriers of, and benefits to, healthy eating reported by a Spanish national sample. Public Health Nutr 2, 209215.Google Scholar
14. Venn, D & Strazdins, L (2017) Your money or your time? How both types of scarcity matter to physical activity and healthy eating. Soc Sci Med 172, 98106.Google Scholar
15. Muth, MK, Karns, SA, Zmuda, M et al. (2014) Price, nutrition, time, and other trade-offs: a web-based food value analysis application to compare foods at different levels of preparation and processing. Nutr Today 49, 176184.Google Scholar
16. Institute of Medicine (2013) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Examining the Evidence to Define Benefit Adequacy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
17. Davis, GC & You, W (2011) Not enough money or not enough time to satisfy the Thrifty Food Plan? A cost difference approach for estimating a money–time threshold. Food Policy 4, 101107.Google Scholar
18. Davis, GC & You, W (2010) The time cost of food at home: general and food stamp participant profiles. Appl Econ 42, 25372552.Google Scholar
19. Statistics New Zealand (2014) Household Economic Survey Detailed Expenditure Analysis Table. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
20. Statistics New Zealand (2011) Adult National Nutrition Survey 2008/09 Confidentialised Unit Record Files. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
21. Euromonitor, International (2015) Euromonitor global market information database. http://www.euromonitor.com/new-zealand (accessed September 2015).Google Scholar
22. Domino’s Pizza (2016) Nutritional Information Value Range. https://www.dominos.co.nz/media/2110/value-range-sept-2016.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
23. McDonald’s (2015) McDonald’s Restaurants New Zealand Nutrition Information. https://mcdonalds.co.nz/maccas-food/nutrition (accessed March 2016).Google Scholar
24. KFC (2016) Nutritional Information. http://www.kfc.co.nz (accessed January 2016).Google Scholar
25. New Zealand Institute of Plant and Food Research (2014) FOODfiles 2014 version 01. Palmerston North: New Zealand Institute of Plant and Food Research and the New Zealand Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
26. Atkinson, J, Salmond, C & Crampton, P (2014) NZDep2013 Index of Deprivation. Wellington: University of Otago.Google Scholar
28. Heart Foundation of Australia (n.d.) Ready Meals – Other http://heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/heart-foundation-tick (accessed August 2014).Google Scholar
29. Heart and Stroke Foundation (2013) Health CheckTM Nutrient Criteria – Foodservice. http://www.healthcheck.org (accessed August 2014).Google Scholar
30. Rosentreter, S, Eyles, H & Ni Mhurchu, C (2013) Traffic lights and health claims: a comparative analysis of the nutrient profile of packaged foods available for sale in New Zealand supermarkets. Aust N Z J Public Health 37, 278283.Google Scholar
31. UK Food Standards Agency (2014) Guide to creating a front of pack (FOP) nutrition label for pre-packed products sold through retail outlets. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300886/2902158_FoP_Nutrition_2014.pdf (accessed August 2014).Google Scholar
32. Ministry of Health (2007) Food and Beverage Classification System for Years 1–13: User Guide. Wellington: Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
33. Ministry of Health (2015) Eating and Activity Guidelines for New Zealand Adults. Wellington: Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
34. Employment New Zealand (2016) The minimum wage. https://employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-rates/ (accessed May 2016).Google Scholar
35. Becker, G (1965) A theory of allocation of time. Econ J 75, 493508.Google Scholar
36. Yang, Y, Davis, GC & Muth, MK (2015) Beyond the sticker price: including and excluding time in comparing food prices. Am J Clin Nutr 102, 165171.Google Scholar
37. Caraher, M, Dixon, P, Lang, T et al. (1999) The state of cooking in England: the relationship of cooking skills to food choice. Br Food J 1101, 590609.Google Scholar
38. Beck, M (2007) Dinner preparation in the modern United States. Br Food J 109, 531547.Google Scholar
39. Mancino, L & Newman, C (2007) Who Has Time to Cook? How Family Resources Influence Food Preparation. Economic Research Report no. ERR-40. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
40. Worsley, T, Wang, WC, Wijeratne, P et al. (2015) Who cooks from scratch and how do they prepare food? Br Food J 117, 664676.Google Scholar
41. Binkley, JK (2006) The effect of demographic, economic, and nutrition factors on the frequency of food away from home. J Consum Aff 40, 372391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Guthrie, JF, Lin, BH & Frazao, E (2002) Role of food prepared away from home in the American diet, 1977–78 versus 1994–96: changes and consequences. J Nutr Educ Behav 34, 140150.Google Scholar
43. Costa, A, Dekker, M, Beumer, R et al. (2001) A consumer-oriented classification system for home meal replacements. Food Qual Prefer 12, 229242.Google Scholar
44. Bittman, M (2011) Is junk food really cheaper? The New York Times, 24 September; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html Google Scholar
45. Celnik, D, Gillespie, L & Lean, M (2012) Time-scarcity, ready-meals, ill-health and the obesity epidemic. Trends Food Sci Technol 9, 411.Google Scholar
46. Ryan, H (2015) More than 50 per cent of Kiwis think takeaways the cheaper option. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=11516986 (accessed September 2015).Google Scholar
47. Richards, T & Mancino, L (2014) Demand for food-away-from-home: a multiple-discrete–continuous extreme value model. Eur Rev Agric Econ 41, 111133.Google Scholar
48. Consumer New Zealand (2014) Appliance running costs. https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/appliance-running-costs (accessed July 2016).Google Scholar
49. Murakami, K & Livingstone, M (2014) Eating frequency in relation to body mass index and waist circumference in British adults. Int J Obes (Lond) 38, 12001206.Google Scholar
50. Leech, R, Worsley, A, Timperio, A et al. (2015) Understanding meal patterns: definitions, methodology and impact on nutrient intake and diet quality. Nutr Res Rev 28, 121.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Selecting meals and recipes prepared at home: decisions and rationale

Figure 1

Table 2 Description and key nutritional analysis of meals in the comparison of takeaway meals with their healthier home-cooked counterparts in New Zealand, November 2015–March 2016

Figure 2

Table 3 The average cost of meals, with and without including time cost, in the comparison of takeaway meals with their healthier home-cooked counterparts in New Zealand, November 2015–March 2016

Supplementary material: File

Mackay supplementary material

Mackay supplementary material 1

Download Mackay supplementary material(File)
File 24.1 KB