To determine the reliability of streamlined data-gathering techniques for examining the price and affordability of a healthy (recommended) and unhealthy (current) diet. We additionally estimated the price and affordability of diets across socio-economic areas and quantified the influence of different pricing scenarios.

Following the Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing (ASAP) protocol, we compared a cross-sectional sample of food and beverage pricing data collected using online data and phone calls (lower-resource streamlined techniques) with data collected in-store from the same retailers.

Food and beverage prices were collected from major supermarkets, fast food and alcohol retailers in eight conveniently sampled areas in Victoria, Australia (n 72 stores), stratified by area-level deprivation and remoteness.

This study did not involve human participants.

The biweekly price of a healthy diet was on average 21 % cheaper ($596) than an unhealthy diet ($721) for a four-person family using the streamlined techniques, which was comparable with estimates using in-store data (healthy: $594, unhealthy: $731). The diet price differential did not vary considerably across geographical areas (range: 18–23 %). Both diets were estimated to be unaffordable for families living on indicative low disposable household incomes and below the poverty line. The inclusion of generic brands notably reduced the prices of healthy and unhealthy diets (≥20 %), rendering both affordable against indicative low disposable household incomes. Inclusion of discounted prices marginally reduced diet prices (3 %).

Streamlined data-gathering techniques are a reliable method for regular, flexible and widespread monitoring of the price and affordability of population diets in areas where supermarkets have an online presence.

The present study aimed to examine the availability and price of healthier compared with less healthy foods by geography, store category and store type for convenience stores, and by store size for grocery stores in Nova Scotia.

A cross-sectional study that examined differences in the overall availability and price of healthier compared to less healthy foods in grocery and convenience stores in Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia Consumer Food Environment project was part of a larger initiative of the Nova Scotia government (Department of Health and Wellness) to assess the food and beverage environment in Nova Scotia in 2015/16.

Four geographic zones (Nova Scotia Health Authority Management Zones) in Nova Scotia, Canada.

A sample of forty-seven grocery stores and fifty-nine convenience stores were selected from a list of 210 grocery stores and 758 convenience stores in Nova Scotia to ensure geographic and store type representation in our sample.

Findings indicate that rurality had a significant effect on food availability as measured by the Nutrition Environment Measures Surveys (NEMS) score (P < 0·01); there was a higher availability of healthy foods in rural compared to urban areas for convenience stores but not grocery stores. Healthier foods were also more available in chain stores compared to independent stores (P < 0·01) and in large stores compared to small and medium stores (P < 0·001 and P < 0·01, respectively).

The availability of and accessibility to less healthy foods in Nova Scotia food environment suggests that there is a need for government policy action to support a food environment that contributes to healthier diets.

To undertake a systematic review to determine similarities and differences in metrics and results between recently and/or currently used tools, protocols and methods for monitoring Australian healthy food prices and affordability.

Electronic databases of peer-reviewed literature and online grey literature were systematically searched using the PRISMA approach for articles and reports relating to healthy food and diet price assessment tools, protocols, methods and results that utilised retail pricing.

National, state, regional and local areas of Australia from 1995 to 2015.

Assessment tools, protocols and methods to measure the price of ‘healthy’ foods and diets.

The search identified fifty-nine discrete surveys of ‘healthy’ food pricing incorporating six major food pricing tools (those used in multiple areas and time periods) and five minor food pricing tools (those used in a single survey area or time period). Analysis demonstrated methodological differences regarding: included foods; reference households; use of availability and/or quality measures; household income sources; store sampling methods; data collection protocols; analysis methods; and results.

‘Healthy’ food price assessment methods used in Australia lack comparability across all metrics and most do not fully align with a ‘healthy’ diet as recommended by the current Australian Dietary Guidelines. None have been applied nationally. Assessment of the price, price differential and affordability of healthy (recommended) and current (unhealthy) diets would provide more robust and meaningful data to inform health and fiscal policy in Australia. The INFORMAS ‘optimal’ approach provides a potential framework for development of these methods.