ArticlePloS one2014
Obtaining fruit and vegetables for the lowest prices: pricing survey of different outlets and geographical analysis of competition effects.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence Gaps in Assessments of the Healthiness of Online Supermarkets Highlight the Need for New Monitoring Tools: a Systematic Review.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2022Pooled it
- Food Access Matters: Quantifying the Price Differential Across Four Major Food Retailers and a Mobile Market Aiming to Improve Affordable Nutritious Food Access.Journal of nutrition education and behavior · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of Healthiness, Labelling, and Price between Private and Branded Label Packaged Foods in New Zealand (2015-2019).Nutrients · 2021Article
- Are food and drink available in online and physical supermarkets the same? A comparison of product availability, price, price promotions and nutritional information.Public health nutrition · 2021Article
- Food environment, social deprivation and obesity among students from Brazilian public schools.Public health nutrition · 2019Article
- Systemic Barriers and Equitable Interventions to Improve Vegetable and Fruit Intake in Children: Interviews with National Food System Actors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- The role of the local retail food environment in fruit, vegetable and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in Brazil.Public health nutrition · 2016Article
- Urban farmers' markets: accessibility, offerings, and produce variety, quality, and price compared to nearby stores.Appetite · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsInadequate fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption is an important dietary risk factor for disease internationally. High F&V prices can be a barrier to dietary intake and so to improve understanding of this topic we surveyed prices and potential competition between F&V outlet types.
methodsOver a three week early autumn period in 2013, prices were collected bi-weekly for 18 commonly purchased F&Vs from farmers' markets (FM) selling local produce (n = 3), other F&V markets (OFVM) (n = 5), supermarkets that neighbored markets (n = 8), and more distant supermarkets (n = 8), (in urban Wellington and Christchurch areas of New Zealand). Prices from an online supermarket were also collected.
resultsA total of 3120 prices were collected. Most F&Vs (13/18) were significantly cheaper at OFVMs than supermarkets. Over half of the F&Vs (10/18) were significantly cheaper at nearby compared to distant supermarkets, providing evidence of a moderate 'halo effect' in price reductions in supermarkets that neighbored markets. Weekend (vs midweek) prices were also significantly cheaper at nearby (vs distant) supermarkets, supporting evidence for a 'halo effect'. Ideal weekly 'food basket' prices for a two adult, two child family were: OFVMs (NZ$76), online supermarket ($113), nearby supermarkets ($124), distant supermarkets ($127), and FMs ($138). This represents a savings of $49 per week (US$26) by using OFVMs relative to (non-online) supermarkets. Similarly, a shift from non-online supermarkets to the online supermarket would generate a $13 saving.
conclusionsIn these locations general markets appear to be providing some substantially lower prices for fruit and vegetables than supermarkets. They also appear to be depressing prices in neighboring supermarkets. These results, when supplemented by other needed research, may help inform the case for interventions to improve access to fruit and vegetables, particularly for low-income populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.