Skip to main content Accessibility help

Are the lowest-cost healthful food plans culturally and socially acceptable?

  • Matthieu Maillot (a1) (a2) (a3), Nicole Darmon (a1) (a2) (a3) and Adam Drewnowski (a4)



Nutritious yet inexpensive foods do exist. However, many such foods are rejected by the low-income consumer. Is it because their use violates unspoken social norms? The present study was designed to assess the variety and cost of the lowest-cost market basket of foods that simultaneously met required dietary standards and progressively stricter consumption constraints.


A mathematical optimisation model was used to develop the lowest-cost food plans to meet three levels of nutritional requirements and seven levels of consumption constraints.


The nationally representative INCA (National Individual Survey of Food Consumption) dietary survey study of 1332 adults provided population estimates of food consumption patterns in France. Food plan costs were based on retail food prices.


The lowest-cost food plans that provided 9204 kJ/d (2200 kcal/d) for men and 7531 kJ/d (1800 kcal/d) for women and met specified dietary standards could be obtained for <1·50 €/d. The progressive imposition of consumption constraints designed to create more mainstream French diets sharply increased food plan costs, without improving nutritional value.


Minimising diet costs, while meeting nutrition standards only, led to food plans that provided little variety and deviated substantially from social norms. Aligning the food plan with mainstream consumption led to higher costs. Food plans designed for low-income groups need to be socially acceptable as well as affordable and nutritious.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Are the lowest-cost healthful food plans culturally and socially acceptable?
      Available formats

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Are the lowest-cost healthful food plans culturally and socially acceptable?
      Available formats

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Are the lowest-cost healthful food plans culturally and socially acceptable?
      Available formats


Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email


Hide All
1.Smith, A (1776) An Inquiry Into The Nature and Causes Of The Wealth of Nations, book V, Chapter II. London: printed for W Strahan and T Cadell in The Strand.
2.Darmon, N & Drewnowski, A (2008) Does social class predict diet quality? Am J Clin Nutr 87, 11071117.
3.Mackenbach, JP, Stirbu, I, Roskam, AJ et al. (2008) Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med 358, 24682481.
4.Drewnowski, A & Specter, SE (2004) Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs. Am J Clin Nutr 79, 616.
5.Maillot, M, Darmon, N, Darmon, M et al. (2007) Nutrient-dense food groups have high energy costs: an econometric approach to nutrient profiling. J Nutr 137, 18151820.
6.Reicks, M, Randall, JL & Haynes, BJ (1994) Factors affecting consumption of fruits and vegetables by low-income families. J Am Diet Assoc 94, 13091311.
7.Cox, DN, Anderson, AS, McKellar, S et al. (1996) Vegetables and fruits: barriers and opportunities for greater consumption. Nutr Food Sci 5, 4447.
8.Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (2008) American food: Still the best deal in the world.
9.Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (2000) Recipes and tips for healthy thrifty meals.
10.Parker-Pope, T (2007) A high price for healthy food (Weblog with reader comments). The New York Times (5 December).
11.Darmon, N, Darmon, M, Maillot, M et al. (2005) A nutrient density standard for vegetables and fruits: nutrients per calorie and nutrients per unit cost. J Am Diet Assoc 105, 18811887.
12.Maillot, M, Ferguson, EL, Drewnowski, A et al. (2008) Nutrient profiling can help identify foods of good nutritional quality for their price: a validation study with linear programming. J Nutr 138, 11071113.
13.Stigler, GJ (1945) The cost of subsistence. J Farm Econ 27, 303314.
14.Smith, VE (1959) Linear programming models for the determination of palatable human diets. J Farm Econ 31, 272283.
15. Staff at the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Lino, M (2001) The Thrifty Food Plan, 1999: revisions of the market baskets. Fam Econ Nutr Rev 13, 5063.
16.Carlson, A, Lino, M & Fungwe, T (2007) The Low-Cost, Moderate-Cost, and Liberal Food Plans (CNPP-20). Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
17.Volatier, J-L (editor) (2000) Enquête INCA (Individuelle et Nationale sur les Consommations Alimentaires). AFSSA, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments. Paris: Lavoisier (in French).
18.Le Moullec, N, Deheeger, M, Preziosi, P et al. (1996) Validation du manuel photographique utilisé pour l’enquête alimentaire de l’étude SU.VI.MAX. Cah Nutr Diét 31, 158164.
19.Black, AE (2000) Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake:basal metabolic rate. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 24, 11191130.
20.Favier, J, Ireland-Ripert, J, Toque, C et al. (1995) CIQUAL. Répertoire Général des Aliments. Table de Composition. Paris: Lavoisier, Tec&Doc.
21.Ouvrage collectif (2006) Table de composition des aliments SU.VI.MAX. Paris: INSERM/Economica Editions.
22.Lamand, M, Tressol, J, Ireland-Ripert, J et al. (1996) CIQUAL. Répertoire Général des Aliments. Tome 4. Table de Composition Minérale. Paris: Lavoisier, Tec&Doc.
23.Souci, SW, Fachmann, W & Kraut, H (2000) Food Composition and Nutrition Tables, 6th revised ed. Stuttgart: CRC Press/Medpharm Scientific Publishers.
24.Food Standards Agency (2002) McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods, sixth summary ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.
25.US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (2006) USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference.
26.Briend, A, Darmon, N, Ferguson, E et al. (2003) Linear programming: a mathematical tool for analyzing and optimizing children’s diets during the complementary feeding period. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 36, 1222.
27.Martin, A (editor) (2001) Apports Nutritionnels Conseillés Pour la Population Française. Paris: Lavoisier.
28.Foytik, J (1981) Very low-cost nutritious diet plans designed by linear programming. J Nutr Educ 13, 6366.
29.Darmon, N, Ferguson, EL & Briend, A (2006) Impact of a cost constraint on nutritionally adequate food choices for French women: an analysis by linear programming. J Nutr Educ Behav 38, 8290.
30.Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (2007) Official USDA food plans: cost of food at home at four levels, US average, June 2007.
31.Bowman, SA (1997) A methodology to price food consumed: development of a food price database. Fam Econ Nutr Rev 10, apendix 1–10.
32.Maillot, M, Vieux, F, Amiot, MJ et al. (2009) Individual diet modeling translates nutrient recommendations into realistic and individual-specific food choices. Am J Clin Nutr (Epublication ahead of print version).
33.Chilton, M & Rose, D (2009) A rights-based approach to food insecurity in the United States. Am J Public Health 99, 12031211.
34.Dibsdall, LA, Lambert, N, Bobbin, RF et al. (2003) Low-income consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards access, availability and motivation to eat fruit and vegetables. Public Health Nutr 6, 159168.
35.Henry, H, Reimer, K, Smith, C et al. (2006) Associations of decisional balance, processes of change, and self-efficacy with stages of change for increased fruit and vegetable intake among low-income, African-American mothers. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 841849.
36.Variyam, JN, Blaylock, J & Smallwood, DM (1996) Modelling nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and diet–disease awareness: the case of dietary fibre. Stat Med 15, 2335.
37.Raynor, HA, Kilanowski, CK, Esterlis, I et al. (2002) A cost-analysis of adopting a healthful diet in a family-based obesity treatment program. J Am Diet Assoc 102, 645656.
38.Burney, J & Haughton, B (2002) EFNEP: a nutrition education program that demonstrates cost-benefit. J Am Diet Assoc 102, 3945.
39.Mitchell, DC, Shannon, BM, McKenzie, J et al. (2000) Lower fat diets for children did not increase food costs. J Nutr Educ 32, 100103.
40.Ottelin, AM, Lindstrom, J, Peltonen, M et al. (2007) Costs of a self-selected, health-promoting diet among the participants of the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. Diabetes Care 30, 12751277.
41.Cade, J, Upmeier, H, Calvert, C et al. (1999) Costs of a healthy diet: analysis from the UK Women’s Cohort Study. Public Health Nutr 2, 505512.
42.Darmon, N, Briend, A & Drewnowski, A (2004) Energy-dense diets are associated with lower diet costs: a community study of French adults. Publ Health Nutr 7, 2127.
43.Andrieu, E, Darmon, N & Drewnowski, A (2006) Low-cost diets: more energy, fewer nutrients. Eur J Clin Nutr 60, 434436.
44.Maillot, M, Darmon, N, Vieux, F et al. (2007) Low energy density and high nutritional quality are each associated with higher diet costs in French adults. Am J Clin Nutr 86, 690696.
45.Schroder, H, Marrugat, J & Covas, MI (2006) High monetary costs of dietary patterns associated with lower body mass index: a population-based study. Int J Obes (Lond) 30, 15741579.
46.Lopez, CN, Martinez-Gonzalez, MA, Alonso, A et al. (2009) Cost of compliance with daily recommended values of micronutrients among a cohort of Spanish university graduates: the SUN [Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra] Study. Public Health Nutr 12, 20922096.
47.Monsivais, P & Drewnowski, A (2009) Lower-energy-density diets are associated with higher monetary costs per kilocalorie and are consumed by women of higher socioeconomic status. J Am Diet Assoc 109, 814822.
48.Townsend, MS, Aaron, GJ, Monsivais, P et al. (2009) Less-energy-dense diets of low-income women in California are associated with higher energy-adjusted diet costs. Am J Clin Nutr 89, 12201226.
49.Vozoris, N, Davis, B & Tarasuk, V (2002) The affordability of a nutritious diet for households on welfare in Toronto. Can J Public Health 93, 3640.
50.Morris, JN, Donkin, AJ, Wonderling, D et al. (2000) A minimum income for healthy living. J Epidemiol Commun Health 54, 885889.
51.Nelson, M, Dick, K & Holmes, B (2002) Food budget standards and dietary adequacy in low-income families. Proc Nutr Soc 61, 569577.
52.McLaughlin, C, Tarasuk, V & Kreiger, N (2003) An examination of at-home food preparation activity among low-income, food-insecure women. J Am Diet Assoc 103, 15061512.
53.Crotty, PA, Rutishauser, IH & Cahill, M (1992) Food in low-income families. Aust J Public Health 16, 168174.
54.Hersey, J, Anliker, J, Miller, C et al. (2001) Food shopping practices are associated with dietary quality in low-income households. J Nutr Educ Behav 33, S016S025.
55.Grant, DK & Maxwell, S (1999) Food coping strategies: a century on from Rowntree. Nutr Health 13, 4560.
56.Stewart, H & Blisard, N (2006) The thrifty food plan and low-income households in the United States: what food groups are being neglegted? Food Policy 31, 469482.



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed