United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 78

June 2011

Geographic Differences in the

Relative Price of Healthy Foods

Jessica E. Todd

Ephraim Leibtag

Corttney Penberthy
www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Cover photo credit: Shutterstock.

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures

Find additional information about Food Prices: 

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or 

constitute endorsement by USDA.

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Todd, Jessica E., Ephraim Leibtag, and Corttney Penberthy. Geographic 

Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods, EIB-78, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, June 2011.
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Although healthy foods can be affordable, if less healthy foods are cheaper, individuals 

may have an economic incentive to consume a less healthful diet. Using the Quarterly 

Food-at-Home Price Database, we explore whether a select set of healthy foods (whole 

grains, dark green vegetables, orange vegetables, whole fruit, skim and 1% milk, fruit 

juice, and bottled water) are more expensive than less healthy alternatives. We find that 

not all healthy foods are more expensive than less healthy alternatives; skim and 1% milk 

are less expensive than whole and 2% milk and bottled water is generally less expensive 

than carbonated nonalcoholic drinks. We also find considerable geographic variation 

in the relative price of healthy foods. This price variation may contribute to geographic 

variation in diet and health outcomes.

Keywords: Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database (QFAHPD), healthy food, price, 

geographic variation

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Christian Gregory from USDA Economic Research Service, 

David Just from Cornell University, Pablo Monsivais from the University of Washington, 

and Angela Liese from the University of South Carolina for providing helpful feedback 

as reviewers of this report.

About the Authors

Jessica E. Todd and Ephraim Leibtag work in the Food Economics Division, Economic 

Research Service (ERS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. Todd is an agricultural economist in the Diet, Safety, and Health Branch; and Leibtag is Deputy Director for Research 

and Product Coordinator. Corttney Penberthy works at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

U.S. Department of Commerce.

Jessica E. Todd

Ephraim Leibtag 

Corttney Penberthy

Geographic Differences in the 

Economic Relative Price of Healthy Foods Information

Bulletin

Number 78 

June 2011
ii

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Data and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Geographic Differences in the Relative Cost of Healthy Foods . . . . . . . 6

Grains: Whole versus Refined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Fruits and Vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Beverages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
iii

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

A balanced and healthful diet consists of a variety of foods. The Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans indicate that within broad food groups, such as 

dairy, meat, or grains, there are more healthful options (those that maximize nutrients and minimize added fats or sugars) and less healthful ones. 

Although healthy foods can be affordable, if less healthy foods are cheaper, 

individuals may have an economic incentive to consume a less healthful 

diet. Using a unique price database, we explore whether healthy foods generally cost more than less healthy options and whether the price differences 

between healthy and less healthy foods vary across the country. 

What Did the Study Find?

The study looked at seven healthy food groups (whole grains, dark green 

vegetables, orange vegetables, whole fruit, low-fat milk (skim and 1%), fruit 

juice, and bottled water) and compared their prices per 100 grams with the 

prices of less healthy alternatives. 

•	 Some healthy foods were more expensive than less healthy foods, but in 

other cases, healthier options were less expensive.

- Whole grains were more expensive than refined grains across the 

United States, with prices ranging from 23 percent higher (San Francisco) to more than 60 percent higher (nonmetro Pennsylvania and 

New York) than for refined grains. 

- Fresh and frozen dark green vegetables were more expensive than 

starchy vegetables in all markets (prices ranging from 20 to 80 

percent higher than starchy vegetables), but orange vegetables (e.g., 

carrots, sweet potatoes, and winter squash) were less expensive than 

starchy vegetables in some markets, including metro New York, San 

Francisco, and Florida.

- Low-fat milk (skim and 1%) was between 10 and 20 percent less 

expensive than whole and 2% milk in most markets. 

- Low-fat milk was more expensive than nonalcoholic carbonated beverages in some markets, but less expensive in others. 

- Bottled water is the same price or less expensive than soda in all but 

one market (urban New York), with a price ranging from 6 percent 

(Boston) to over 33 percent (San Francisco) lower than the price for 

soda. 

•	 Prices of healthy foods vary widely across the United States. 

- Whole grains (compared with refined grains), dark green and orange 

vegetables (compared with starchy vegetables), low-fat milk (compared with soda), and fruit juice (compared with fruit drinks) demonstrate the largest geographic price variation. 

- The geographic variation in the price of whole fruit when compared 

with sweet or savory commercially prepared snacks is generally 
iv

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

smaller than that of other comparisons. On a per-gram basis, whole 

fruit is 60-70 percent less expensive in all markets.

•	 Some price differences narrowed between 1998 and 2006.

- Whole grains became relatively less expensive over time; the relative 

price decreased 5 percentage points, on average. 

- The price of low-fat milk, as compared with the price of carbonated 

soda, decreased nearly 12 percentage points, on average.

How Was the Study Conducted? 

Using prices from the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database, we compared 

prices per 100 grams of packaged whole-grain products with their refinedgrain counterparts; dark green vegetables with starchy vegetables, orange 

vegetables with starchy vegetables, whole fruit with commercially prepared 

sweet snacks, low-fat milk with whole and 2% milk, low-fat milk with 

carbonated nonalcoholic beverages, bottled water with carbonated nonalcoholic beverages, and fruit juice with noncarbonated nonalcoholic caloric 

beverages (fruit drinks). We calculated market-level relative prices of the 

healthy food groups and their less healthy counterparts for 2006, as well as 

the quarterly and annual average relative prices within nine census divisions 

between 1998 and 2006.
1

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

A balanced and healthful diet consists of a variety of foods. The Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans point out that within broad food groups, such as 

dairy, meat, or grains, there are more healthful (maximizes nutrients and 

minimizes added fats or sugars) and less healthful options (HHS and USDA, 

2005). Thus, when selecting foods to meet recommendations within a food 

group, such as grains or dairy, consumers can make healthy and less healthy 

choices. Although healthy foods can be affordable, if less healthy foods are 

cheaper, individuals may have an economic incentive to consume a less 

healthful diet. There is little consensus, however, about whether healthy 

foods are more expensive than less healthy alternatives because findings 

depend on whether one considers the cost per nutrient, the cost per unit 

weight, or the cost per calorie (Burns, 2010; Drewnowski, 2010; Lipsky, 

2009). 

We compare prices of select food (healthy and unhealthy) groups, based on 

a priori notions of close substitutes and complements: 

•	Food groups for which intake is below recommended amounts, such as

whole grains and dark green vegetables; 

•	Food groups containing nutrients for which intake is above the Dietary 

Guidelines recommendations, such as fats and added sugars; and

•	Food groups that are currently the focus of policy debate, such as soda

and other caloric sweetened beverages and commercially prepared 

snacks. 

Specifically, we compare the price of packaged whole-grain products with 

their refined-grain counterparts; dark green vegetables with starchy vegetables; orange vegetables with starchy vegetables; whole fruit with commercially prepared sweet snacks; low-fat (skim and 1%) milk with whole and 

2% milk; low-fat milk with carbonated nonalcoholic beverages; bottled water 

with carbonated nonalcoholic beverages; and fruit juice with noncarbonated 

nonalcoholic caloric beverages (fruit drinks). 
2

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Data and Methods

We use food prices from the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database 

(QFAHPD). The 1998-2006 QFAHPD was constructed using Nielsen 

Homescan panel data1 and provides market-level quarterly food-at-home 

prices for 52 food categories (Todd et al. 2010). To construct the QFAHPD, 

individual food purchases were first aggregated into household-level average 

prices, which were then aggregated to estimate market-level prices (price per 

100 grams). A total of 30 geographic market groups between 1998 and 2001 

and 35 market groups between 2002 and 2006 covering the 48 contiguous 

United States are included in the QFAHPD (fig. 1). 

1Homescan households report all of 

their food-at-home purchases from all 

store outlets, including grocery stores, 

discount stores, mass merchandisers, 

club stores, and convenience stores over 

the course of a year. The Homescan 

sample included approximately 8,000 

households between 1998 and 2003 and 

increased to 40,000 or more households 

beginning in 2004. Thus, QFAHPD 

prices are more precisely estimated 

for 2004-06, particularly for foods less 

frequently purchased. See Todd et al. 

(2010) for a detailed description of the 

construction of the QFAHPD. 

Figure 1

Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database market groups, 2002-06

1 Hartford 

2 Urban NY

3 Western NY/PA 

4 Philadelphia

5 Metro Midwest1

6 Metro Midwest2

7 North Florida 

8 Metro South 1

9 Baltimore

10 Metro South 2

11 Metro South 3

12 Metro Mountain 

13 Salt Lake City

14 Metro California

15 Los Angeles

16 Chicago

17 South Florida 

18 San Antonio

19 Boston

20 Other NY 

21 Metro Ohio

22 North Pacific

23 San Francisco

24 Atlanta

25 Metro South 4

26 Washington, DC

91 Nonmetro New England

92 Nonmetro Middle Atlantic 

93 Nonmetro East North Central 

94 Nonmetro West North Central 

95 Nonmetro South Atlantic 

96 Nonmetro East South Central 

97 Nonmetro West South Central 

98 Nonmetro Mountain

99 Nonmetro Pacific

Notes: For 1999-2001, market 81 is composed of market 91; market 82 is composed of markets 93 and 94; market 83 is composed of markets 

95, 96, and 97; and market 84 is composed of markets 98 and 99.

Source: Todd et al. (2010).
3

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

The QFAHPD offers several advantages over other price data, such as those 

published by the Council for Community and Economic Research (C2ER, 

formerly ACCRA) or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). QFAHPD 

prices are based on purchases from all store types, such as grocery stores, 

convenience stores, and club or supercenters, in contrast to only grocery 

store purchases found in C2ER or BLS data. QFAHPD prices are comparable not only across geographic areas (as in the other data), but also across 

time (unlike the C2ER data). Another main difference between QFAHPD 

and other data is the aggregation of food items. Both C2ER and BLS data 

provide prices for specific items, such as a loaf of white bread or a 1-gallon 

jug of milk. In contrast, the QFHAPD provides average prices for groups of 

similar food items, such as dark green vegetables, salty snacks, and carbonated beverages. Within broad food groups (fruits, grains, dairy, etc.), the 

QFAHPD also includes specific subcategories relevant to estimating healthy 

versus less healthy options, such as low-fat milk (skim and 1%); dark green 

vegetables; and whole grain products (see Todd et al. (2010) for more information about how the QFAHPD compares with other price databases).

The QFAHPD food groups were constructed to minimize cross-market price 

variations due to quality differences in food items within a food group. For 

example, canned fruits and vegetables are separated from higher cost fresh 

and frozen forms. While the types of foods included in each food group 

are fixed, the contribution of each food to the market group price varies 

according to market conditions and household purchases in the market (table 

1 lists some foods included in the vegetable group, whole and refined grain 

groups, and commercially prepared groups). For example, collard and other 

greens are likely more available and more preferred in the South, while 

spinach and broccoli are more readily available in the West given the proximity to production. The market group prices are weighted averages of the 

household level prices (weighted by purchase frequency, not total expenditures). Thus, some variation in market group prices could be due to variation 

in the types of items purchased within the food groups as a result of seasonality and other supply and demand factors. 

Table 1

Example of food items included in select food groups

Food group Food items 

Dark green vegetables Bok choy, broccoli, collard greens, dark green leafy lettuce, kale, mesclun, 

mustard greens, romaine lettuce, spinach, turnip greens, and watercress

Orange vegetables Acorn squash, butternut squash, carrots, Hubbard squash, pumpkin, 

and sweet potatoes

Starchy vegetables Corn, green peas, lima beans (green), and potatoes

Grain items (whole or refined) Oriental noodles, rice (packaged and bulk), rice (instant), pasta, ready-toeat cereal (including granola), rice cakes, fresh baked bread, buns, bagels, 

rolls, biscuits, wheat germ, hominy grits, and barley

Commercially prepared sweet packaged snacks Candy, cookies, ice cream cones, chocolate, marshmallows, and 

refrigerated pudding

Commercially packaged snacks (not sweet) Pork rinds, puffed cheese, potato chips, corn chips, popcorn, pretzels, 

crackers, trail mix, granola bars, and breakfast bars

Source: Todd et al. (2010).
4

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

We compare prices per 100 grams, not per serving. When comparing very 

similar food groups, such as milk and soda, in which serving sizes are equivalent, the ratio of the two prices is the same. For less similar food groups 

(whole fruit and sweet snacks), however, the ratio of prices per 100 grams 

may be different than a price per edible serving or calorie. We calculate 

price ratios for three time and geographic aggregations: annual market level, 

annual division level, and quarterly division level. We estimate the annual 

market-level prices (pm annual, where m denotes market) as the simple mean 

of the four quarterly market prices (pm

q1, pmq2, pmq3, pmq4) in each year:

(pm annual, = (pm

q1 + pmq2 + pmq3 + pmq4) /4 (1)

We estimate division-level prices (pd, annual and quarterly) as the weighted 

average of the prices in each metro market in each division using the marketlevel weights (wm) in the QFAHPD,2 where the annual market price is 

constructed as above. 

(2)

The relative price of the healthy food is the price of the healthy food divided 

by the price of the less healthy alternative.

In addition to the average price for each food group, the QFAHPD provides 

the total expenditures on each food group per quarter. On average, over a 

third of food-at-home expenditures were spent on commercially prepared 

foods in 2006—17 percent on entrées and sides, 11 percent on sweets, 

and 6 percent on savory snacks (fig. 2). Meats (including fish, eggs, and 

nuts) accounted for another 21 percent of expenditures, followed by dairy 

(10 percent), beverages (9 percent), fruits (8 percent), grains (8 percent), 

vegetables (7 percent), fats and oils (2 percent), and sugars and sweeteners 

(1 percent). Between 1998 and 2006, allocations remained fairly constant, 

although commercially prepared food slowly captured a larger share of 

expenditures (fig. 3). These food expenditure estimates are consistent with 

those from BLS’s Consumer Expenditure (CE) Survey, as all directly comparable categories fall within 2 percentage points of the BLS estimated shares.3

2When we aggregated to the census 

division, we excluded the nonmetro 

market groups, because their definition 

changed over time in the QFAHPD.

3For a more general discussion of 

how expenditure share estimates using 

Nielsen Homescan compare with CE 

data, see Zhen et al. (2009)

p

w p

w

d

annual

m m

m

annual

m m

=

∑

∑
5

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 2

National expenditure share on food groups, 2006

Notes: Expenditure shares calculated from total expenditures on the 52 food groups in the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database. These 

groups cover the vast majority of food-at-home expenditures. Fruits include fresh, frozen, and canned fruit; vegetables include all fresh, frozen, 

and canned vegetables and legumes; grains include all packaged bread, rolls, pita, rice, pasta, cereal, flours, and frozen ready-to-cook rolls 

and breads; dairy includes milk, cheese, and yogurt; meats include all fresh, frozen, and canned meats, poultry, fish, nuts and seeds, and 

eggs; beverages include all nonalcoholic beverages except milk.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Fruit, 8%

Vegetables, 7%

Grains, 8% 

Dairy,10%

Meats, 21%

Sugars and sweeteners, 1% Fats and oils, 2%

Beverages, 9%

Commercially prepared

packaged nonsweets, 6%

Entrees and sides, 17%

Commercially prepared 

packaged sweets,11% 

Figure 3

National expenditure share on food groups, 1998-2006

Notes: Expenditure shares calculated from total expenditures on the 52 food groups in the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database. The 52 

food groups cover the vast majority of food-at-home expenditures. Fruits include fresh, frozen, and canned fruit; vegetables include all fresh, 

frozen, and canned vegetables and legumes; grains include all packaged bread, rolls, pita, rice, pasta, cereal, flours, and frozen ready-to-cook 

rolls and breads; dairy includes milk, cheese, and yogurt; meats include all fresh, frozen, and canned meats, poultry, fish, nuts, seeds, and 

eggs; beverages include all nonalcoholic beverages except milk.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent of food-at-home expenditures

Grains

Commercially preprepared foods

Fruits and vegetables

Meats

Dairy

Fats and oils

Sugars and sweeteners

Beverages

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40
6

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price 

of Healthy Foods

Grains: Whole Versus Refined

The Dietary Guidelines state that at least half of a person’s daily grain intake 

should come from whole grains, but only 10 percent of actual grain intake, 

on average, comes from whole grains (Mancino and Buzby, 2005). Mancino 

et al. (2008) found that beginning in 2003 food manufacturers expanded their 

offerings of whole grain products, both by introducing new products and 

reformulating others prior to the release of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. In 

addition to taste, texture, availability, variety, identifiableness, knowledge, 

and preparation, people often cite price as a barrier to purchasing whole-grain 

foods (Cleveland et al., 2000; Kantor et al., 2001). 

We compare the cost of whole grains relative to refined grains across 35 

market groups in 2006 (fig. 4). The left side of the chart shows which 

markets are included in each census division and census region. Whole 

grains were more expensive than refined grains, with prices ranging from 

approximately 23 percent to 60 percent higher than those for refined grains. 

As illustrated, the relative price of whole grains was, on average, lowest in 

the Pacific, which includes Metro California, Los Angeles, San Francisco, as 

well as the North Pacific and nonmetro Pacific areas. In general, the relative 

cost of whole grains has declined over time. Division-level average relative 

prices ranged from 34 to 50 percent higher than those for refined grains in 

1998 to 26 to 46 percent higher in 2006 (fig. 5). On average, the relative price 

of whole grains declined 5.2 percentage points (p<0.05).4 At the same time, 

the share of grain expenditures on whole grains increased, growing from 15 

percent in 1998 to 23 percent in 2006. Consistent with previous findings, 

the increase in expenditures on whole grains occurred prior to the release 

of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines, which outlined specific whole-grain intake 

recommendations (Mancino et al., 2008). The largest increases in wholegrain purchases, however, transpired after the release of the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines, climbing from 18 percent to 23 percent of national expenditures 

between 2005 and 2006. We see greater volatility in relative prices before 

2004, probably due to the smaller sample size from which the prices were 

estimated (see footnote 1), particularly for whole grains, which are purchased 

less frequently, especially before the release of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. 

We do not observe any seasonal patterns in relative prices or expenditure 

shares (fig. 6).

Fruits and Vegetables

Studies suggest that people who consume generous amounts of fruits and 

vegetables as part of a healthful diet see a reduced risk of chronic diseases, 

including stroke and other cardiovascular diseases, and certain cancers 

compared with those who consume less fruits and vegetables (CDC, 2010). 

Americans eat less than the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables as 

outlined in the Dietary Guidelines; in 2008, average consumption was only 

68 percent of the recommend 2.5 cups per day (Wells and Buzby, 2008). 

4To test for changes in relative prices 

over time, we regressed division-level 

ratios in 1998 and 2006 on division 

dummies and an indicator for 2006.
7

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 4

Price of packaged whole grains relative to packaged refined grains, by market group, 2006

Notes: NE= New England, MA= Middle Atlantic, ENC= East North Central, WNC=West North Central, ESC=East South Central, SA=South 

Atlantic, WSC=West South Central, M=Mountain, and P=Pacific.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Division and region

Nonmetro Pacific

San Francisco

North Pacific

Los Angeles

Metro California

Nonmetro Mountain

Salt Lake City

Metro Mountain

Nonmetro West South Central

Metro South 4 

San Antonio

Metro South 3 

Nonmetro South Atlantic

Washington, DC

Atlanta

South Florida

Baltimore

Metro South 1 

North Florida

Nonmetro East South Central

Metro South 2 

Nonmetro West North Central

Metro Midwest 2 

Nonmetro East North Central

Metro Ohio

Chicago

Metro Midwest 1 

Nonmetro Middle Atlantic

Other NY

Philadelphia

Western NY/PA

Urban NY

Nonmetro New England

Boston

Hartford

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

NE

MA

East

ENC

WNC

Central

ESC

SA

WSC

South

M

P

West

Percent above price of packaged refined grains

Market group
8

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 5

Annual average price of packaged whole grains relative to packaged refined grains, by division 

(metro areas only)

Notes: Red line denotes release of 2005 Dietary Guidelines. Expenditure share of packaged whole grains calculated as the national 

expenditure on packaged whole grains divided by the total national expenditure on packaged whole and refined grains.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above price 

of packaged refined grains

Percent of total expenditures

on packaged refined grains

Release of 2005 Dietary Guidelines

H H H H H H

H H

H

15 14 14 15 15 15

17 18

23

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

5

10

15

20

25

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on whole grains

Figure 6

Quarterly price of packaged whole grains relative to packaged refined grains, by division 

(metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above price 

of refined grains

Percent of total

grain expenditures

H H H H H H H H H H H

H

H H H

H H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H

H H

H H

H H

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

5

10

15

20

25

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on whole grains
9

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Nutrient-Dense Dark Green and Orange Vegetables 

versus Starchy Vegetables

In addition to eating too few vegetables, the proportion in which Americans 

eat vegetables is not in alignment with dietary recommendations. Starchy 

vegetables, particularly potatoes, account for a third of total vegetable 

consumption, which is double the share recommended (Guthrie et al., 2005). 

Relative price differences may explain some of the deviation from the 

Dietary Guidelines in the proportion of vegetables consumed. 

We compare the prices of nutrient-dense dark green vegetables with their 

starchy vegetable counterparts (fig. 7) and find that fresh/frozen dark green 

vegetables are more costly than fresh/frozen starchy vegetables, with relative 

prices ranging from about 23 percent higher than those for starchy vegetables 

in Hartford, CT, to over 85 percent higher in nonmetro New England. The 

relative price of fresh and frozen dark green vegetables has been lowest in 

the Pacific division, but there was no significant trend between 1999 and 

2006 (fig. 8).5 However, the share of expenditures has increased. Between 

1998 and 2006, national expenditures on fresh/frozen dark green vegetables 

compared with fresh/frozen starchy vegetables grew from 20 percent to 25 

percent. Similar to the previous comparison, we see greater volatility in relative prices before 2004, most likely due to the smaller sample sizes through 

2003 and the lower frequency of purchases of dark green vegetables. The 

relative price of dark green vegetables also varies seasonally, but the timing 

of the relative price changes varies across the country (fig. 9). 

In contrast to the results for dark green vegetables, we find that fresh and 

frozen orange vegetables were the same price or less expensive than starchy 

vegetables in over half of the market groups (18 out of 35, fig. 10). In 2006, the 

relative cost of orange vegetables ranged from 22 percent more than starchy 

vegetables (in Salt Lake City) to 20 percent less than starchy vegetables (in 

Nashville, Birmingham, Memphis, and Louisville). Our time series comparison 

shows a downward trend in the relative price of fresh and frozen orange vegetables between 1998 and 2006 and that the Mid-Atlantic and Pacific divisions 

generally had the lowest relative prices (fig. 11). On average, the relative price 

of orange vegetables fell 16 percentage points (p<0.01). While differences 

between orange and starchy vegetables tapered across time, national expenditure shares were fairly constant, with an average expenditure share of 23 

percent. As with dark green vegetables relative to starchy vegetables, a smaller 

sample size through 2003 and lower frequency of purchases led to greater 

volatility in the relative prices prior to 2004. We also observed some seasonal 

variation in expenditures on orange vegetables (fig. 12).

5Results show that 1998 appears to 

be an outlier year. Regression indicates 

that the relative price of fresh and 

frozen dark green vegetables declined 

21 percentage points (p<0.05) between 

1998 and 2006, but no significant 

change occurred between 1999 and 

2006.
10

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 7

Price of fresh/frozen dark green vegetables relative to fresh/frozen starchy vegetables, 

by market group, 2006

Notes: NE= New England, MA= Middle Atlantic, ENC= East North Central, WNC=West North Central, ESC=East South Central, SA=South 

Atlantic, WSC=West South Central, M=Mountain, and P=Pacific.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

NE

MA

East

ENC

WNC

Central

ESC

SA

WSC

South

M

P

West

Percent above price of fresh/frozen startchy vegetables

Nonmetro Pacific

San Francisco

North Pacific

Los Angeles

Metro California

Nonmetro Mountain

Salt Lake City

Metro Mountain

Nonmetro West South Central

Metro South 4 

San Antonio

Metro South 3 

Nonmetro South Atlantic

Washington, DC

Atlanta

South Florida

Baltimore

Metro South 1 

North Florida

Nonmetro East South Central

Metro South 2 

Nonmetro West North Central

Metro Midwest 2 

Nonmetro East North Central

Metro Ohio

Chicago

Metro Midwest 1 

Nonmetro Middle Atlantic

Other NY

Philadelphia

Western NY/PA

Urban NY

Nonmetro New England

Boston

Hartford

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Division and region Market group
11

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 8

Annual average price of fresh/frozen dark green vegetables relative to fresh/frozen starchy vegetables, 

by division (metro areas only)

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above price of fresh/

frozen starchy vegetables

Percent of total expenditures on

dark green and starchy vegetables

H H

H H H

H

H H H

20 19

21 21 22

24

26 26 25

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on dark green vegetables

Figure 9

Quarterly price of fresh/frozen dark green vegetables relative to fresh/frozen starchy vegetables, 

by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above price of fresh/

frozen starchy vegetables

Percent of total expenditures on fresh and

frozen starchy and dark green vegetables

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on dark green vegetables

H

H H

H H

H

H

H

H H

H

H H H H H

H

H H

H H H H

H

H

H H

H H H

H H

H

H H H

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0

5

10

15

20

25

30
12

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 10

Price of fresh/frozen orange vegetables relative to fresh/frozen starchy vegetables, by market group, 2006

Notes: NE= New England, MA= Middle Atlantic, ENC= East North Central, WNC=West North Central, ESC=East South Central, SA=South 

Atlantic, WSC=West South Central, M=Mountain, and P=Pacific.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above price of fresh/frozen startchy vegetables

NE

MA

East

ENC

WNC

Central

ESC

SA

WSC

South

M

P

West

Nonmetro Pacific

San Francisco

North Pacific

Los Angeles

Metro California

Nonmetro Mountain

Salt Lake City

Metro Mountain

Nonmetro West South Central

Metro South 4 

San Antonio

Metro South 3 

Nonmetro South Atlantic

Washington, DC

Atlanta

South Florida

Baltimore

Metro South 1 

North Florida

Nonmetro East South Central

Metro South 2 

Nonmetro West North Central

Metro Midwest 2 

Nonmetro East North Central

Metro Ohio

Chicago

Metro Midwest 1 

Nonmetro Middle Atlantic

Other NY

Philadelphia

Western NY/PA

Urban NY

Nonmetro New England

Boston

Hartford

Division and region Market group

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
13

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 11

Annual price ratios of fresh/frozen orange vegetables relative to fresh/frozen starchy vegetables 

(metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above price of fresh/

frozen starchy vegetables

Percent of total expenditures on

orange and starchy vegetables

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H H H

H H H H H

H

23 23 24

22 22 23 24 23

21

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-20

0

20

40

60

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

H Expenditures on orange vegetables

Figure 12

Quarterly price of fresh/frozen orange vegetables relative to fresh/frozen starchy vegetables, by division 

(metro areas only)

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above price of fresh/

frozen starchy vegetables

Percent of total expenditures on fresh and

frozen starchy and orange vegetables

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on starchy vegetables

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H

H

H

H

H H

H

H

H H

H H

H H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-20

0

20

40

60

80

0

5

10

15

20

25

30
14

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Whole Fruit versus Sweet and Salty Commercially Prepared Snacks

Whole fruits are often promoted as alternatives to commercially prepared 

snack foods. According to USDA’s Economic Research Service lossadjusted food availability data, Americans consumed only 0.84 cups of 

fruit per day in 2008, a figure far lower than the recommended amount of 2 

cups for a 2,000-calorie-per-day diet (Wells and Buzby, 2008). On the other 

hand, the consumption of added fats, oils, sugars, and sweeteners, which are 

commonly derived from processed foods, surpassed recommended amounts 

in 2008. Expansions in the consumption, portion size, and even preference 

of snacks have contributed to increases in daily caloric intake from snacks, 

reaching 579 calories per day in 2003-06 for adults in the United States, or 

29 percent of the daily energy intake of a person following a 2,000 calorieper-day diet (Piernas and Popkin, 2010).

We find that in 2006 whole fruit was actually less expensive per 100 grams 

than commercially prepared packaged sweets, which include items like 

candy, cookies, ice cream cones, marshmallows, chocolate, and refrigerated pudding (fig. 13). We did not adjust the price of whole fruit for inedible shares. Adjusting for inedible shares would not affect across markets 

or time comparisons. Even assuming 50 percent loss of whole fruit, which 

would double the price of whole fruit, we would still find that whole fruit is 

cheaper. In contrast to some of the other comparisons, there is less variation 

in the relative price across market groups, with prices ranging from 60 to 

70 percent of the price for sweets. The relative price of fruit increased over 

time (fig. 14), on average, by about 4 percentage points (p<0.01) between 

1999 and 2006. Kuchler and Stewart (2008) found that once the increased 

availability of seasonal fruits was accounted for, the changes in prices for 

fruits and snack foods were similar between 1980 and 2006. Thus, the differences in the findings can be attributed to the nature of the prices compared. 

The QFAHPD fruit prices reflect the average price of fruits available and 

purchased, rather than prices for a fixed basket. 

We also compare the price of whole fruit with commercially prepared savory 

packaged snacks (e.g., pork rinds, potato chips, pretzels, crackers, trail mix, 

and granola bars). The results are very similar, with the price of fruit ranging 

from about 55 to 68 percent below the price of the savory snacks (fig. 15). 

We also see an increase in the price of fruit relative to savory snacks (fig. 

16), on average, of about 5.6 percentage points between 1999 and 2006 

(p<0.01). 

Interestingly, our analysis of the quarterly data shows that the relative price 

and national expenditure shares on whole fruit (compared with both sweet 

and savory snacks) follow a seasonal pattern (figs. 17 and 18). 
15

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Nonmetro Pacific

San Francisco

North Pacific

Los Angeles

Metro California

Nonmetro Mountain

Salt Lake City

Metro Mountain

Nonmetro West South Central

Metro South 4 

San Antonio

Metro South 3 

Nonmetro South Atlantic

Washington, DC

Atlanta

South Florida

Baltimore

Metro South 1 

North Florida

Nonmetro East South Central

Metro South 2 

Nonmetro West North Central

Metro Midwest 2 

Nonmetro East North Central

Metro Ohio

Chicago

Metro Midwest 1 

Nonmetro Middle Atlantic

Other NY

Philadelphia

Western NY/PA

Urban NY

Nonmetro New England

Boston

Hartford

Figure 13

Price of whole fruit relative to commercially prepared packaged sweets, by market group, 2006 

Notes: NE= New England, MA= Middle Atlantic, ENC= East North Central, WNC=West North Central, ESC=East South Central, SA=South 

Atlantic, WSC=West South Central, M=Mountain, and P=Pacific.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent below price of commercially prepared sweets

NE

MA

East

ENC

WNC

Central

ESC

SA

WSC

South

M

P

West

Division and region Market group

-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
16

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 14

Annual average price of fresh/frozen whole fruit relative to commercially prepared packaged sweets, 

by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent below price of 

commercially prepared sweets

Percent of total expenditures

on whole fruit and sweets

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on whole fruit

H H H H H H H H

42 42 42 44 45 46 47 48

1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-80

-75

-70

-65

-60

-55

-50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60
17

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Nonmetro Pacific

San Francisco

North Pacific

Los Angeles

Metro California

Nonmetro Mountain

Salt Lake City

Metro Mountain

Nonmetro West South Central

Metro South 4 

San Antonio

Metro South 3 

Nonmetro South Atlantic

Washington, DC

Atlanta

South Florida

Baltimore

Metro South 1 

North Florida

Nonmetro East South Central

Metro South 2 

Nonmetro West North Central

Metro Midwest 2 

Nonmetro East North Central

Metro Ohio

Chicago

Metro Midwest 1 

Nonmetro Middle Atlantic

Other NY

Philadelphia

Western NY/PA

Urban NY

Nonmetro New England

Boston

Hartford

Figure 15

Price of whole fruit relative to commercially prepared packaged savory snacks, by market group, 2006 

Notes: NE= New England, MA= Middle Atlantic, ENC= East North Central, WNC=West North Central, ESC=East South Central, SA=South 

Atlantic, WSC=West South Central, M=Mountain, and P=Pacific.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent below price of commercially prepared savory snacks

NE

MA

East

ENC

WNC

Central

ESC

SA

WSC

South

M

P

West

Division and region Market group

-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20
18

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 16

Annual average price of fresh/frozen whole fruit relative to commercially prepared packaged savory 

snacks, by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent below price of commercially 

prepared savory snacks

Percent of expenditures on

whole fruit and savory snacks

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on whole fruit

H H H H H H H H 43 42 41 42 42 42 42 43

1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-80

-75

-70

-65

-60

-55

-50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 17

Quarterly price of fresh/frozen whole fruit relative to commercially prepared packaged sweets, by division 

(metro areas only)

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above price of commercially 

prepared sweet snacks

Percent of total expenditures

on fruit and sweet snacks

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on whole fruit

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H

H

H

H H

H

H

H

H

H

1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60
19

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Beverages

Beverages have become a significant part of the American diet, accounting 

for 21 percent of total caloric intake in 2002 compared with 14.2 percent in 

1977 (Duffey and Popkin, 2007). According to the QFAHPD, nonalcoholic 

carbonated beverages (hereafter referred to as soda) constituted the largest 

portion (36 percent) of at-home beverage expenditures in 2006 (fig. 19). 

Whole and 2% milk represented 16 percent of beverage expenditures, while 

fruit juice and fruit drinks each accounted for 14 percent of the at-home 

beverage budget. Low-fat milk (skim and 1%) and water had the lowest 

shares of national beverage expenditures in 2006 (10 percent each). The 

ranking of beverages by expenditure share did not change between 1998 and 

2006 (fig. 20), however, the share spent on bottled water increased—up from 

3 percent in 1998 to 9 percent in 2006—and the share spent on soda declined.

We make four comparisons among beverage types: low-fat milk versus 

whole and 2% milk; low-fat milk versus soda; bottled water versus soda; and 

fruit juice versus fruit drinks.

Low-Fat Milk versus Whole and 2% Milk 

Children and adults not only consume less-than-recommended amounts of 

dairy, but their actual intake is typically limited to whole-fat or 2% forms of 

dairy instead of the suggested low-fat or fat-free varieties. Low-fat milk (skim 

and 1%) offers the same amount of micronutrients as whole and 2% milk, but 

has less cholesterol, a lower fat content, and fewer calories per serving. We 

therefore compare the price of low-fat milk with whole and 2% milk.

Figure 18

Quarterly price of fresh/frozen whole fruit relative to commercially prepared savory packaged snacks, 

by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent below price of commercially 

prepared savory snacks

Percent of total expenditures

on fruit and savory snacks

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on whole fruit

H

H

H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H

H

H H

H

H

H H

H

H

H H

H

H

H H

H

H

H H

H

1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-80

-70

-60

-50

0

10

20

30

40

50
20

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 19

National expenditure share on food groups, 2006

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Expenditure shares calculated from 

total beverage expenditures on the six beverage groups in the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price 

Database (QFAHPD). The six beverage groups cover the vast majority of beverage-at-home 

expenditures.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-atHome Price Database.

Whole and reduced-fat

milk, 16%

Low-fat and 

fat-free milk, 10%

Fruit juice, 14%

Nonalcoholic carbonated 

beverages, 36%

Fruit drinks and other 

noncarbonated 

beverages, 14%

Water, 9%

Figure 20

National expenditure share on beverages, 1998-2006

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Expenditure shares calculated from total beverage expenditures on the six beverage 

groups in the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database (QFAHPD). The six beverage groups cover the vast majority of beverage-at-home 

expenditures.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent of total beverage expenditures

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

Fruit juice

Low−fat and fat−free milk

Whole and reduced-fat milk

Nonalcoholic carbonated beverages

Fruit drinks and other noncarbonated beverages

Water
21

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

With one exception (Urban New York), low-fat milk was less expensive 

than whole and 2% milk in every market group in 2006 (fig. 21). Part of 

this difference in milk prices is driven by the fact that whole milk is often 

purchased in smaller containers that are usually sold at a higher per unit 

cost. This average package size effect, however, is less of an issue in large 

metropolitan areas, such as urban New York, in which households purchase 

smaller package sizes of all milk products compared with other parts of the 

United States. The relative price of low-fat milk declined slightly, about 3.5 

percentage points (p<0.01), between 1998 and 2006; the price was generally lowest in the West North Central (includes Kansas City, Minneapolis, 

Nonmetro Pacific

San Francisco

North Pacific

Los Angeles

Metro California

Nonmetro Mountain

Salt Lake City

Metro Mountain

Nonmetro West South Central

Metro South 4 

San Antonio

Metro South 3 

Nonmetro South Atlantic

Washington, DC

Atlanta

South Florida

Baltimore

Metro South 1 

North Florida

Nonmetro East South Central

Metro South 2 

Nonmetro West North Central

Metro Midwest 2 

Nonmetro East North Central

Metro Ohio

Chicago

Metro Midwest 1 

Nonmetro Middle Atlantic

Other NY

Philadelphia

Western NY/PA

Urban NY

Nonmetro New England

Boston

Hartford

Figure 21

Price of low-fat milk relative to the price of whole and 2% milk, by market group, 2006

Notes: NE= New England, MA= Middle Atlantic, ENC= East North Central, WNC=West North Central, ESC=East South Central, SA=South 

Atlantic, WSC=West South Central, M=Mountain, and P=Pacific.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above or below price of whole and 2% milk

NE

MA

East

ENC

WNC

Central

ESC

SA

WSC

South

M

P

West

Division and region Market group

-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
22

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

St. Louis, Des Moines, and Omaha) and Mountain (Denver, Phoenix, and 

Salt Lake City) divisions (fig. 22). The average national share of milk expenditures on low-fat milk fluctuated slightly, ranging from 35 to 39 percent, 

between 1998 and 2006. 

The relative price of low-fat milk also varies seasonally somewhat (fig. 

23). According to Stephenson (2010) the supply of milk was greatest in the 

spring due to calving patterns, with the most production occurring during 

the first two quarters of the year (March to June). Typically during this time, 

consumer demand is steady, leading to low dairy prices. When school begins 

in the fall and the holiday season ensues, the demand for milk is at its highest 

level. This excess consumer demand for dairy products and decreased supply 

leads to an increase in the price of whole milk and, to a much lesser extent, 

low-fat milk throughout the last half of each year. As a result, the relative 

price of low-fat milk is lower in the fourth quarter. 

Low-Fat Milk versus Carbonated Nonalcoholic Beverages

Soda consumption has risen substantially over the past several decades, 

increasing from 5 to 9 ounces per day among children 2-19 years old. Over 

the same period (1977-78 to 2003-06), milk consumption among children 

decreased from 15 to 9 ounces per day (Smith et al., 2010). 

Figure 22

Annual average price of low-fat and fat-free milk relative to whole and 2% milk, by division

(metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above or below price 

of whole and 2% milk

Percent of milk expenditures

on low-fat milk

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on low-fat milk

H H

H H H H

37 H H H 38

35 35 36 36 38 39 39

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0

10

20

30

40

50
23

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Such large increases in soft drink consumption are cause for concern, as 

many scientists suggest that soda is a key contributor to the obesity and overweight epidemic (Malik et al., 2006). Moreover, Guthrie and Morton (2000) 

show that the displacement of milk for soft drinks hinders calcium intake—a 

nutrient important in the maintenance of strong bones and teeth and the proper 

functioning of nerves, muscles, and blood clot defenses. Given the interest in 

reducing childhood obesity and the dramatic changes in beverage consumption, 

we compare the price of low-fat milk with carbonated soft drinks.

Low-fat milk was usually more expensive than carbonated nonalcoholic 

beverages (soda), but was less expensive in 6 out of the 35 market groups 

in 2006 (fig. 24). The relative price of low-fat milk was lowest in Salt Lake 

City, 30 percent less than soda; 10 markets had prices 20 percent or more 

higher than whole and 2% milk. Between 1998 and 2006, the relative price 

of low-fat milk declined 11.7 percentage points (p<0.01), on average, across 

divisions and, similar to when compared with whole and 2% milk, was 

generally lowest in the West North Central Mountain (Denver, Phoenix, and 

Salt Lake City) division (fig. 25). Over the same period, national expenditure 

shares on low-fat milk did not change.

The quarterly data show the same fourth-quarter spike in the relative price 

of low-fat milk as seen when comparing whole and reduced-fat milk with 

low-fat milk (fig. 26). 

Figure 23

Quarterly price of low-fat milk relative to whole and 2% milk, by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above or below price 

of whole and 2% milk

Percent of total 

milk expenditures 

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on low-fat milk

H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H H H H

1998 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45
24

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Nonmetro Pacific

San Francisco

North Pacific

Los Angeles

Metro California

Nonmetro Mountain

Salt Lake City

Metro Mountain

Nonmetro West South Central

Metro South 4 

San Antonio

Metro South 3 

Nonmetro South Atlantic

Washington, DC

Atlanta

South Florida

Baltimore

Metro South 1 

North Florida

Nonmetro East South Central

Metro South 2 

Nonmetro West North Central

Metro Midwest 2 

Nonmetro East North Central

Metro Ohio

Chicago

Metro Midwest 1 

Nonmetro Middle Atlantic

Other NY

Philadelphia

Western NY/PA

Urban NY

Nonmetro New England

Boston

Hartford

Figure 24

Price of low-fat milk relative to soda, by market group, 2006

Notes: NE= New England, MA= Middle Atlantic, ENC= East North Central, WNC=West North Central, ESC=East South Central, SA=South 

Atlantic, WSC=West South Central, M=Mountain, and P=Pacific.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above or below price of soda

NE

MA

East

ENC

WNC

Central

ESC

SA

WSC

South

M

P

West

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Division and region Market group
25

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 26

Quarterly price of low-fat and fat-free milk relative to soda, by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above or below 

price of price of soda

Percent of total expenditures 

on low-fat milk and soda 

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on low-fat milk

H

H H

H

H

H

H

H H

H H H

H

H

H H H

H H

H H

H H

H

H H H H

H

H H H H

H

H H

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-20

0

20

40

60

80

0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 25

Annual average price of low-fat milk relative to soda, by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above or 

below price of soda

Percent of total expenditures

on low-fat milk and soda

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on low-fat milk

H H

H H H H

H H 21 H 22

20 20 20 20

23 23 22

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

5

10

15

20

25
26

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Carbonated Nonalcoholic Beverages versus Water

Bottled water is another substitute for nondiet soft drinks that is often 

promoted for reducing caloric intake. Research shows that replacing soda 

with water may lead to lower energy intake and facilitate weight management 

(Stookey et al., 2007). If bottled water is more expensive than nondiet soft 

drinks, budget-conscious consumers may find making the switch difficult.

We find that the price of bottled water was the same or less than soda in all 

but one market group (Urban NY) in 2006, with bottled water ranging from 6 

percent (Boston) to over 33 percent (San Francisco) less expensive than soda 

(fig. 27). 

Between 1998 and 2006, bottled water captured an increasing share of total 

expenditures on water and soda, rising from 7 to 21 percent (fig. 28). Over 

the same period, the relative price of bottled water fell 10 percentage points 

(p<0.1). How consumers allocate their budget between soda and bottled 

water shows some seasonality, with a smaller share of purchases going 

toward bottled water in the fall each year (fig. 29). 
27

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Nonmetro Pacific

San Francisco

North Pacific

Los Angeles

Metro California

Nonmetro Mountain

Salt Lake City

Metro Mountain

Nonmetro West South Central

Metro South 4 

San Antonio

Metro South 3 

Nonmetro South Atlantic

Washington, DC

Atlanta

South Florida

Baltimore

Metro South 1 

North Florida

Nonmetro East South Central

Metro South 2 

Nonmetro West North Central

Metro Midwest 2 

Nonmetro East North Central

Metro Ohio

Chicago

Metro Midwest 1 

Nonmetro Middle Atlantic

Other NY

Philadelphia

Western NY/PA

Urban NY

Nonmetro New England

Boston

Hartford

Figure 27

Price of bottled water relative to soda, by market group, 2006

Notes: NE= New England, MA= Middle Atlantic, ENC= East North Central, WNC=West North Central, ESC=East South Central, SA=South 

Atlantic, WSC=West South Central, M=Mountain, and P=Pacific.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above or below price of nonalcoholic carbonated beverages

NE

MA

East

ENC

WNC

Central

ESC

SA

WSC

South

M

P

West

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20

Division and region Market group
28

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 29

Quarterly price of bottled water relative to soda, by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above or below 

price of price of soda

Percent of total expenditures

on bottled water and soda

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on bottled water

H H

H

H H H

H

H H

H

H

H

H H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 28

Annual average price of bottled water relative to soda, by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above or

below price of soda

Percent of total expenditures

on bottled water and soda

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on bottled water

H H H

H

H

H H

H

H

7 7 8

10

13

15 16

18

21

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

0

5

10

15

20

25
29

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Fruit Juice versus Fruit Drinks 

In addition to nondiet carbonated soft drinks, children also consume 100 

percent fruit juices and nondiet fruit drinks. Smith et al. (2010) found that 

fruit drinks contribute 14.5 percent of added sugars in the diet of U.S. children ages 2-19. While the share of Americans who drink fruit juice is greater 

than those who consume fruit drinks, the difference in consumption of the 

two beverages has declined over time (Duffey and Popkin, 2007). 

In 2006, the relative price of fruit juice ranged from 32 percent higher than fruit 

drinks in suburban and exurban New York to 90 percent higher in nonmetro 

Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama (fig. 30). In general, the relative price was 

lowest in the New England and Mid-Atlantic divisions. Between 1998 and 

2006, fruit juice became relatively more expensive than fruit drinks—by 27 

percentage points (p<0.01)—while the share of expenditures remained flat (fig. 

31). This increase in the relative price of fruit juice may explain the change 

in consumption of these two beverages over time. We see that the allocation 

of expenditures between fruit juice and fruit drinks is rather seasonal, with a 

larger share devoted to fruit drinks in the spring and summer (fig. 32). 
30

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 30

Price of fruit juice relative to fruit drinks, by market group, 2006 

Notes: NE= New England, MA= Middle Atlantic, ENC= East North Central, WNC=West North Central, ESC=East South Central, SA=South 

Atlantic, WSC=West South Central, M=Mountain, and P=Pacific.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Nonmetro Pacific

San Francisco

North Pacific

Los Angeles

Metro California

Nonmetro Mountain

Salt Lake City

Metro Mountain

Nonmetro West South Central

Metro South 4 

San Antonio

Metro South 3 

Nonmetro South Atlantic

Washington, DC

Atlanta

South Florida

Baltimore

Metro South 1 

North Florida

Nonmetro East South Central

Metro South 2 

Nonmetro West North Central

Metro Midwest 2 

Nonmetro East North Central

Metro Ohio

Chicago

Metro Midwest 1 

Nonmetro Middle Atlantic

Other NY

Philadelphia

Western NY/PA

Urban NY

Nonmetro New England

Boston

Hartford

Percent above price of fruit drinks

NE

MA

East

ENC

WNC

Central

ESC

SA

WSC

South

M

P

West

0 20 40 60 80 100

Division and region Market group
31

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 31

Annual average price of fruit juice relative to fruit drinks, by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above price

of fruit drinks

Percent of total expenditures

on fruit juice and fruit drinks

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on fruit juice

H H H H H H H H H

50 52 52 51 50 50 49 49 49

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 32

Quarterly price of fruit juice relative to fruit drinks and other noncarbonated sugary beverages, 

by division (metro areas only) 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database.

Percent above price

of fruit drinks

Percent of total expenditures

on fruit juice and fruit drinks

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

H Expenditures on fruit juice

H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H

1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

10

20

30

40

50

60
32

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Discussion

Todd and Leibtag (2010) documented that average prices vary across 

geographic areas. Our analysis here shows that, in many cases, relative prices 

between healthy and less healthy foods also vary across the country. These 

differences may explain some of the geographic variation in dietary patterns 

and diet-related morbidities. 

We find that some healthier foods are relatively less expensive across all 

market areas (e.g., low-fat milk compared with whole and 2% milk). In other 

comparisons, we find that the healthier version is universally more expensive 

(e.g., whole grains versus refined grains). However, the geographic variation 

in the relative price of the healthier option is large—ranging from 10 to 50 

percent higher or lower than the price of the less healthy option, depending 

on the market area. These variations may have more of an effect on lowincome households, whose share of income spent on food is higher than 

among households with greater income. 

In recent years, the price of whole grains has declined relative to refined 

grains, which should make it easier for American’s to meet recommended 

intake of whole grains. We were surprised to see a lack of geographic variation in the price of whole fruit relative to sweet commercially prepared 

snacks (cakes, cookies, and candy). This lack of price variation suggests that 

factors other than the relative cost of healthy foods may be more important in 

determining geographic differences in diet and related health outcomes than 

just the choice between fruit and other less healthy snack options. 

Note that we have only examined one measure of price (price per 100 grams) 

and have not compared price per serving (by adjusting for inedible shares 

or differences in serving sizes) or price per calorie. The time required to 

prepare food was not controlled for in this study, which may be particularly 

important for fruits and vegetables. Knowing exactly which prices consumers 

compare when making food choices is difficult. This study offers one piece 

of information relevant to whether prices matter for diet quality and complements other research that compares other notions of price. Our research 

also did not explore the source of variation in relative prices, whether it is 

driven mainly by differences in the price of the healthy option, in the less 

healthy option, or both. Such absolute prices are also likely to be important to 

consumers when considering whether to buy any option at all.

This research documents the extent to which the relative price of healthy 

food varies. However, looking at relative prices between two food groups 

cannot, in itself, be used to draw any firm conclusion about the link between 

healthy food prices and consumption trends. Such causal effects would have 

to be determined in a model that includes other relative food prices and other 

control variables. Future research could test whether variation in relative 

prices helps predict geographic variation in diet quality and weight-related 

health outcomes.
33

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Burns, C., G. Sacks, M. Rayner, G. Bilenkij, and B. Swinburn. “Correctly 

calculating the cost of food,” Nutrition Reviews 68(3): pp. 182-83, 2010.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC). “Fruits & Veggies—More Matters,” 

2010, http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/benefits/index.html.

Cleveland, L.E., A.J. Moshfegh, A.M. Albertson, and J.D. Goldman. 

“Dietary intake of whole grains,” Journal of the American College of 

Nutrition 19 (3), pp. 331S-338S, 2000. 

Drewnowski, A. “Healthier foods cost more,” Nutrition Reviews 68(3): pp. 

184-85, 2010.

Duffey, Kiyah J., and Barry M. Popkin, “Shifts in Patterns and Consumption 

of Beverages Between 1965 and 2002,” Obesity 15(11): pp. 2739-47, 

2007.

Guthrie, J.F., B-H. Lin, J. Reed, and H. Stewart. “Understanding Economic 

and Behavioral Influences on Fruit and Vegetable Choices,” Amber Waves

Vol. 3(2): pp. 36-41, 2005.

Guthrie, Joanne F., and Joan F. Morton. “Food Sources of Added Sweeteners 

in the Diets of Americans,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association

Vol. 100(1): pp. 43-51, 2000.

Kantor, L.S., J.N. Variyam, J.E. Allshouse, J.J. Putnam, and B-H. Lin. 

“Choose a variety of grains daily, especially whole grains: a challenge 

for consumers” supplement to the Journal of Nutrition 131 (2), pp. 473S486S, 2001.

Kuchler, F., and H. Stewart. Price Trends Are Similar for Fruits, Vegetables, 

and Snack Foods, ERR-55, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, 2008.

Lipsky, L. “Are energy-dense foods really cheaper? Reexamining the relation 

between food price and energy density,” American Journal of Clinical 

Nutrition 90: pp. 1397-1401, 2009.

Mancino, Lisa, and Jean Buzby. “Americans’ Whole Grain Consumption 

Below Guidelines,” Amber Waves Vol. 3(2): p. 5, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2005.

Mancino, L., F. Kuchler, and E. Leibtag. “Getting consumers to eat more 

whole-grains: The role of policy, information, and food manufacturers,” 

Food Policy 33 (6): pp. 489-96, 2008.

Malik, Vasanti S., Matthias B. Schulze, and Frank B. Hu, “Intake of sugarsweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review,” American 

Journal of Clinical Nutrition Vol. 84(2): pp. 274-88, 2006.
34

Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods / EIB-78

Economic Research Service/USDA

Piernas, Carmen, and Barry M. Popkin. “Snacking Increased among U.S. 

Adults between 1977 and 2006,” Journal of Nutrition 140(2): pp. 325-32, 

2010.

Smith, Travis A., Biing-Hwan Lin, and Jong-Ying Lee. Taxing Caloric 

Sweetened Beverages: Potential Effects on Beverage Consumption, 

Calorie Intake, and Obesity, ERR-100, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, 2010.

Stookey, Jodi D., Florence Constant, Christopher D. Gardner, and Barry M. 

Popkin. “Replacing Sweetened Caloric Beverages with Drinking Water Is 

Associated with Lower Energy Intake,” Obesity Vol. 15(12): pp. 3013–

22, 2007.

Stephenson, Mark. “Milk Price Volatility Today,” 2010, http://www.extension.org/pages/Milk_Price_Volatility_Today#Author.

Todd, Jessica E., Lisa Mancino, Ephraim Leibtag, and Christina Tripodo. 

Methodology Behind the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database, 

TB-1926, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

2010.

Todd, Jessica E., and Ephraim S. Leibtag. “New Database Shows Substantial 

Geographic Food Price Variation,” Amber Waves Vol. 8, Issue 3, p. 52-3, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 

2010.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 

2005, 6th Edition, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 2005. 

Wells, H.F., and J.C. Buzby. Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in U.S. 

Food Consumption, 1970-2005, EIB-33, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, 2008.

Zhen, C., J. Taylor, M. Muth, and E. Leibtag. “Understanding Differences in 

Self-Reported Expenditures between Household Scanner Data and Diary 

Survey Data: A Comparison of Homescan and Consumer Expenditure 

Survey,” Review of Agricultural Economics 31(3): pp. 470–92, 2009.