United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Ephraim Leibtag and Aylin Kumcu

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable 

Cash Voucher

Does Regional Price Variation Affect 

Buying Power? Economic

Information 

Bulletin 

Number 75

May 2011
www.ers.usda.gov

For additional information, see: 

 www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FruitVegetableCosts/ 

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

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Leibtag, Ephraim, and Aylin Kumcu. The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash 

Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? EIB-75. 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. May 2011.

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.

Photo credit: Shutterstock.
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 

provides supplemental foods to low-income women, infants, and children at nutritional risk. Since October 2009, WIC packages have included a fi xed-value voucher for 

purchasing fruits and vegetables. Although this should help increase fruit and vegetable 

consumption for all WIC participants, regional price variation could lead to different 

buying power—and nutritional benefi ts—across the country. Using 2004-06 Nielsen 

Homescan data, the authors examine the prices of fruits and vegetables (fresh, frozen, 

and canned) in 26 metropolitan market areas to determine how price variations affect the 

voucher’s purchasing power. The authors fi nd that the 20 most commonly purchased fruits 

and vegetables cost 30-70 percent more in the highest priced market areas than in the 

lowest, implying that WIC participants in more expensive areas might be able to purchase 

fewer fruits and vegetables than those living where these items are cheaper. The lowest 

priced market for fruits and vegetables was the Nashville, Birmingham, Memphis, and 

Louisville area, while the highest was San Francisco.

Keywords: WIC, fruit and vegetable voucher, fruit and vegetable prices, Nielsen 

Homescan, geographic price variation

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Helen Jensen, Professor of Economics, Iowa State 

University, Tatiana Andreyeva, Director of Economic Initiatives at the Rudd Center for 

Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University, and Elizabeth Frazao, Economic Research 

Service, USDA, whose recommended changes greatly improved the report. The authors 

would also like to thank Abebayehu Tegene, Elise Golan, and Laurian Unnevehr of 

USDA’s Economic Research Service for their comments on various drafts of the paper, 

Courtney Knauth for editorial assistance, and Curtia Taylor for design services.

Ephraim Leibtag, eleibtag@ers.usda.gov

Aylin Kumcu, akumcu@ers.usda.gov

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable 

Cash Voucher

Does Regional Price Variation Affect 

Buying Power?

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 75

May 2011
ii

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

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

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

 Previous Studies on Fruit and Vegetable Price Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 Data and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
iii

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

What Is the Issue? 

A large portion of the eligible U.S. population takes part in the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), 

which provides supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women and to 

infants and children at nutritional risk. Despite this dietary boost, most WIC 

participants remain at nutritional risk, predisposing them to adverse health 

conditions now and later in life. To reduce this risk, the Federal Government 

enhanced the nutritional value of WIC food packages in October 2009. The 

most signifi cant addition was a fi xed-value voucher to purchase fruits and 

vegetables, which previously had not been included in WIC packages. But 

because food prices vary across the country, there is concern that the fi xedvalue provision of the vouchers may undercut their effectiveness for WIC 

participants in higher priced market areas. To assess the possible impact of 

price variation on the purchasing power of WIC fruit and vegetable vouchers, 

we examined the prices of individual fruits and vegetables at the metropolitan 

(metro) level across the United States. 

What Did the Study fi nd? 

The purchasing power of fruit and vegetable vouchers differed substantially 

across market areas due to signifi cant price variation, implying that WIC 

participants in some areas will be unable to buy as many fruits and vegetables 

as those living in other areas. Results of the study show that: 

• Most fruits and vegetables were 30-70 percent more expensive in their 

highest priced market than their lowest. However, the overall price 

range was wider: 26 percent for pears—the smallest price spread across 

markets—to 140 percent for grapefruit—the largest spread across 

markets. 

• The Metro South 2 market (Nashville, Birmingham, Memphis, and 

Louisville) tended to have the lowest average prices, while San Francisco 

tended to have the highest. Average prices were more than 20 percent 

higher in San Francisco than in the Metro South 2 area. 

• The relative prices of the various fruits and vegetables held constant 

across U.S. markets. The most expensive vegetables were peppers and 

tomatoes, and the most expensive fruits were strawberries and grapes. 

The lowest cost vegetables were cabbage and corn, while bananas and 

oranges were the lowest cost fruits. 

• A WIC participant with a $10 voucher could purchase 17 percent more 

tomatoes per month or 13 percent more apples per month in the lowest 

priced market compared with the national average, while in the most 

expensive market she would be able to buy 15 percent fewer tomatoes and 

11 percent fewer apples compared with the national average. 
iv

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

How Was the Study Conducted? 

We used the 2004-06 Nielsen Homescan panel data for households, in which 

respondents recorded all of their purchases at a wide variety of food retailers, 

including traditional grocery stores and nontraditional stores, such as warehouse clubs and supercenters. We calculated the mean market-level prices of 

20 fresh and processed fruits and vegetables in 26 aggregate market areas. 

By comparing prices of the most commonly purchased fruits and vegetables 

based on national U.S. averages, we were able to quantify how many more 

or fewer fruits and vegetables WIC participants in the various market areas 

would be able to purchase. Finally, we constructed a price index to rank 

markets from least to most expensive.
1

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC) is a non-entitlement Federal food assistance program. It 

provides supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education 

to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and nonbreastfeeding postpartum 

women and to infants and children who are found to be at nutritional risk. 

The goal of the program is to improve birth outcomes and support infant and 

child growth and development. 

WIC is one of the fastest growing food assistance programs, with $6.5 

billion dollars spent in fi scal year (FY) 2009 and 9.1 million people participating each month. Nearly 50 percent of all infants in the United States, 25 

percent of children aged 1-4, and 25 percent of pregnant, breastfeeding, and 

postpartum women participated in WIC in fi scal year 2009. The average 

monthly cost per person has been growing since the program began in 1972, 

reaching $42.40 in FY 2009 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 2010b). WIC offers seven food packages,1 each specifying 

a maximum monthly quantity of food that participants can purchase from 

WIC-authorized retailers, and including a voucher for fruits and vegetables, 

with the costs paid by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Oliveira, 

2009; Oliveira and Frazao, 2009). 

While WIC is entirely federally funded and the food package contents are 

determined at the national level, the program is administered by State agencies, who have limited autonomy to create rules for the food packages. 

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) designs the food packages and sets 

the participation requirements, such as the maximum monthly food allowance and the income eligibility cutoff, but State agencies may restrict the 

brand, container size, or form of food that can be purchased. States may also 

adjust the income eligibility cutoff2 in order to reduce administrative burdens 

and costs, as long as the adjustments remain within the Federal guidelines 

(Oliveira, 2009; Oliveira and Frazao, 2009).3

At the end of 2007, a WIC food package revision was announced, with a 

goal of better meeting WIC participants’ nutritional needs and more fully 

aligning the food packages with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

and the infant feeding guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

One of the most signifi cant WIC revisions was the addition of a fi xed-value 

voucher for fruits and vegetables.4 Studies have shown that the fruits and 

vegetables Americans eat fall well below the recommended amounts and 

that, as a result, our diets lack important nutrients. This lack is especially 

true for the WIC-eligible population, which is “at increased risk of morbidity 

and mortality from virtually every disorder listed among the leading causes 

of death in the United States (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and 

digestive diseases)” (Committee on Dietary Risk Assessment in the WIC 

Program, 2002). The increased risk is in part due to low consumption of 

fruits and vegetables and high consumption of saturated fats. The 2005

Dietary Guidelines for Americans highlight a number of “Food Groups 

to Encourage,” including an adequate amount and variety of fruits and 

vegetables. The Guidelines further recommend specifi c amounts of some 

vegetable categories, including those that are dark green, orange, and starchy 

1The quantity and type of food 

included in each package depend on the 

dietary needs of the four groups that are 

served by WIC: infants, children ages 

1-4, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers.

2All State agencies currently set 

the income eligibility cutoff at the 

maximum, 185 percent of the Federal 

poverty limit.

3For example, the Federal requirements for all food packages allow 

participants to purchase 1 dozen 

eggs. In California, however, brown 

eggs, powdered or liquid eggs, and 

specialty eggs, such as organic, cagefree or enriched, are excluded (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 2010; 

California Department of Public 

Health, 2010).

4The monthly voucher amount 

depends on participant characteristics; 

children receive $6 per month and all 

women receive $10 per month. (These 

were the fi gures as of April 2011. 

WIC hopes to increase the voucher for 

children to $8, as recommended by the 

IOM Committee to Review the WIC 

Food Packages (2006).)
2

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

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

Agriculture, 2005). 

Two studies conducted by the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion show that American consumption of whole fruits and of vegetables 

is substantially below recommended amounts and that dark green and orange 

vegetables are among the important food categories in which Americans 

are most defi cient (Guenther et al., 2008a, 2008b). Low-income individuals, 

in particular, consume signifi cantly fewer vegetables, including dark green 

and orange varieties, than high-income individuals (Guenther et al., 2008b). 

Furthermore, a study by the Committee to Review the WIC Food Packages 

(2006) of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) found that priority targets were 

increased consumption of iron, vitamin E, potassium, and fi ber and that fruit 

and vegetables should be included in the food packages to this end.5

Following the IOM Committee recommendations, the WIC food packages were revised in 2007, and State agencies were required to implement 

the new fruit and vegetable vouchers by October 2009 (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2007). The vouchers may be redeemed for any fruits or vegetables except white potatoes and canned or frozen fruits and vegetables with 

added sugar, sodium, or other ingredients with little nutritional value other 

than additives necessary for preservation. The vouchers are accepted at any 

WIC-authorized retailers, including some farmers’ markets. The primary 

goal of the voucher is to increase fruit and vegetable intake among participants in order to reduce the risk of disease, help decrease the prevalence of 

obesity, improve nutrition through increased vitamin and mineral consumption, and encourage healthy long-term eating habits among children. 

Another goal of the voucher is to encourage participants to purchase an 

array of fruits and vegetables in various forms (fresh, canned, and frozen) 

(Committee to Review the WIC Food Packages, 2006). The reviewing 

committee recommended a fi xed-value voucher rather than the quantity 

voucher supplied in other Federal food packages in order to help contain 

USDA costs. WIC State agencies have some freedom in administering the 

fruit and vegetable vouchers, but all participants within a given category 

receive the same dollar value in their vouchers. However, this fi xed value 

may lead to large variations in quantities consumed and nutritional benefi ts 

gained. One potential driver of these differences is variation in retail food 

prices across the country. 

The Committee to Review the WIC Food Packages estimated that the $8 and 

$10 vouchers they recommended would provide approximately 9.76 pounds 

of fresh fruits and 12.2 pounds of vegetables. The committee report specifi es 

that the intention is to provide this quantity of fruits and vegetables and that 

the value of the voucher “may need to be adjusted upward to account for local 

prices in some State agencies” (2006) to ensure that participants can purchase 

the target amount. 

To evaluate the need for adjustment, the study authors analyze the potential impact of the new WIC cash vouchers for fruits and vegetables, using 

2004-06 household-level data that include all purchases of fruits and vegetables, in order to estimate how much can be purchased with the current 

voucher and how much this quantity varies across the United States.6 We 

5The committee was given the task of 

evaluating the WIC food packages and 

suggesting changes. While the focus 

was on improving health outcomes 

among WIC participants, the committee 

was also asked to ensure that their 

suggestions were culturally appropriate, 

cost-neutral, and effi cient for nationwide distribution and vendor checkout 

and would minimize administrative 

burdens. Therefore, the study’s recommended changes allow individuals 

the freedom to purchase fruits and 

vegetables according to their own preferences through cash vouchers, while 

maintaining a system that is simple for 

vendors and is effi cient for nationwide 

distribution.

6Nielsen Homescan data after 2006 

no longer included detailed information on produce that does not have a 

universal product code, so more recent 

years would not provide the needed 

level of detail to conduct this analysis. 

Although we lack current data, the 

trends in relative prices across markets 

has remained relatively stable over the 

past 20 years, and we are confi dent that 

the results from 2004-06 data would be 

consistent with the cross-market trends 

for more recent years.
3

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

compare the most commonly purchased fruits and vegetables across metro 

areas in order to refl ect consumers’ actual purchasing behavior and the 

choices that are available to them. We fi nd that average prices vary greatly for 

these common fruits and vegetables, allowing WIC participants to purchase 

different amounts depending on where they live. We also fi nd that this metrolevel variation in the buying power of the vouchers is greater than State- or 

regional-level variation.

Previous Studies on Fruit and Vegetable Price Variation

A number of studies have examined fruit and vegetable prices and expenditures by low-income households and regional food price variation. Blisard, 

Stewart, and Jolliffe (2004) fi nd that lower income households spend less 

on fruits and vegetables than do higher income households ($3.59 versus 

$5.02 per month in 2000), and that unlike high-income households, lowincome households do not increase fruit and vegetable purchases when they 

receive small increases in income. Leibtag and Kaufman (2003) found that, 

compared with high-income households, low-income households spend 11.5 

percent less per pound on vegetables and 9.6 percent less per pound on fruits 

because of economizing practices. These households stretch their food dollars 

by purchasing promotional items, a greater portion of private-label or fi xedweight items, and lower priced vegetables and fruits, such as bananas.

Leibtag (2007) showed that food prices vary substantially across the country. 

The prices of a representative basket of food items in the West and East 

census regions are above the national average by 11 and 8 percent, respectively, while the prices of this basket in the South and Midwest census regions 

are below the national average by 7 and 5 percent. In a study on the cost of 

State WIC packages, Davis and Leibtag (2005) found that nearly 80 percent 

of the variation in cost was due to variation in food prices (as opposed to 

differences in how each State administers the program). Some of the difference in food prices was mitigated by differences in caseload composition7

and cost-containment practices, so the actual difference in package costs was 

sometimes less than the difference implied from prices alone. This means 

that, in many cases, States with above-average food prices had more to gain 

from cost-containment practices than States with lower food prices.

These past studies examined price variation in large geographic areas such as 

State or census regions. However, such a high level of aggregation obscures 

the variation at the metro level. To address this gap in the literature, Todd 

et al. (2010) constructed a database of quarterly prices for 52 food-at-home 

categories in 26 markets, using Nielsen Homescan data. They found that food 

prices varied greatly across metropolitan areas of the United States and that 

the variation between the lowest and highest priced markets could be as much 

as three to four times greater than annual food price infl ation. For example, 

the difference between the lowest and highest priced markets was 25 percent 

for canned soups and sauces and more than 100 percent for low-fat cheese. 

Todd et al. also found that some healthier foods are more expensive than their 

unhealthy alternatives, but that this varies across markets. 

Our study builds on previous work by examining metropolitan-level price 

variation for individual fruits and vegetables at the market level. We quantify 

the extent to which specifi c fruits and vegetable prices vary across markets; 

7Caseload composition is defi ned 

as the distribution of WIC participants 

by type in a given area (number of 

pregnant women, post-partum women, 

infants, children, etc.).
4

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

for example, how much more expensive are tomatoes in San Francisco than in 

Nashville?

Data and Methodology

We use the 2004-06 Nielsen Homescan panel data of households to conduct 

our analysis. (See appendix table A.1 for a comparison between Nielsen 

Homescan data and Bureau of Labor Statistics average prices.) These data are 

the most recent available for this type of analysis, because in 2007 Nielsen 

discontinued the collection of detailed data on non-universal product coded 

fruits and vegetables priced by the pound (“random weight”). The Nielsen 

population universe is all non-grouped households (i.e., excluding institutions or dorms) in the 48 continental States, in 52 metro areas that roughly 

correspond to the Census Bureau’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), 

and in 9 remaining non-metro areas. Due to limited sample size, we combine 

the 52 metro markets into 26 aggregate market groups (see table 1 for the list 

of Nielsen markets in the aggregate groups).8 Households record all of their 

purchases at a wide variety of stores, including traditional food retailers such 

as grocery stores, nontraditional food retailers such as warehouse club stores 

and supercenters, and farmers’ markets. 

Nielsen Homescan data contain information on food purchases and household characteristics. Demographic information collected from each participating household includes income range, household size and composition, 

and information about household heads. Each household confi rms or updates 

this information in response to an annual survey. Householders who agree to 

record all their food-related purchases are given a handheld scanner, which 

they use to enter information about each purchase as they are unloading 

their groceries at home. For items with a UPC code, data are automatically 

recorded on such attributes as brand name, size and type of container, and 

specifi c fl avor, form, and type of the item. These data are not collected for 

non-UPC items, such as fresh fruits and vegetables priced by the pound 

(“random weight” items). For scanned UPC items purchased from stores 

in Nielsen’s Scantrack database, the price is electronically imputed on a 

weekly basis as a weighted average of prices paid by all consumers, including 

discounts from loyalty cards. Prices for items not in Scantrack are recorded 

by the household and are quality checked by comparing them with prices 

of similar items purchased elsewhere.9 In addition to price, information 

supplied by the household includes the type of store from which the item was 

purchased (grocery store, warehouse club, convenience store, etc.) and the 

purchase date. The household also records whether the item was on sale and 

whether coupons were used, which affect the fi nal price of the item. 

The Nielsen Homescan data consist of two samples: the total sample of 

approximately 40,000 households that record purchases of UPC items, and 

the smaller Fresh Foods Panel of approximately 8,000 households that record 

purchases of both UPC items and random weight items. Nielsen provides a 

separate household weight for each sample based on 12 geographic areas and 

9 demographic variables in order to raise household data to the aggregate 

U.S. level (Muth et al., 2007). To compute one price for all forms of a fruit or 

vegetable (canned, frozen, fresh UPC, and fresh random weight), we combine 

the two samples by calculating an expenditure-share-weighted average price 

of each form.

8For more information on the aggregation of markets to market groups, see 

Todd et al., 2010.

9For more details on the impact of 

this two-tiered price reporting system, 

see Einav et al., 2008.
5

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

We calculate the aggregate mean price per pound10 in each market for 

an individual fruit or vegetable, averaged across the form of processing 

(canned, frozen, fresh UPC, and fresh random weight), season, and year.11

We compare individual items across regions rather than comparing a basket 

of preselected fruits and vegetables, because WIC participants are able to 

choose among different fruits and vegetables and evidence suggests that 

they will purchase a wide variety with their vouchers (Committee to Review 

the WIC Food Packages, 2006). Comparing individual items frees us from 

having to make specifi c assumptions about consumer behavior in different 

10Note that focusing on purchase 

prices as opposed to costs of consumption (accounting for inedible waste such 

as peelings and calculating a price per 

serving) would only affect our results if 

these adjustments were to vary within 

a fruit type across markets. Since we 

do not believe this to be the case, we 

proceed with a presentation of purchase 

prices that refl ect differences in effective purchasing power of the voucher. 

11Some items, such as heads of 

iceberg lettuce, are measured by 

count, not ounces or pounds. These 

items are converted to pounds using 

the average weight of a medium-sized 

item, based on the USDA Standard 

National Nutrient Database for 

Standard Reference (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 2009).

Table 1

Aggregated market group and Nielsen markets

Aggregate market group Nielsen markets included in the aggregate market group

Hartford-New Haven Hartford-New Haven, CT

Boston Boston

Urban New York City Urban New York City

Western NY/PA Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Albany, Syracuse

Philadelphia Philadelphia

Other New York Suburban New York City, Exurban New York

Metro Midwest 1 Indianapolis, Detroit, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids

Chicago Chicago

Metro Ohio Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus

Metro Midwest 2 Kansas City, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Des Moines, Omaha

North Florida Jacksonville, Orlando

Metro South 1 Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, Richmond

Baltimore Baltimore

South Florida Miami, Tampa

Atlanta Atlanta

Washington, DC Washington, DC

Metro South 2 Nashville, Birmingham, Memphis, Louisville

Metro South 3 Little Rock, Oklahoma City-Tulsa

San Antonio San Antonio

Metro South 4 Houston, Dallas, New Orleans

Metro Mountain Denver, Phoenix

Salt Lake City Salt Lake City

Metro California San Diego, Sacramento

Los Angeles Los Angeles

Metro Northwest Seattle, Portland

San Francisco San Francisco

Source: Information reprinted from table 4 of Todd et al., 2010, p. 12.
6

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

markets or about nutritional content of specifi c fruits and vegetables or 

different forms (canned, frozen, or fresh). 

For our comparison, we selected the 10 fruits and 10 vegetables for which 

the highest quantities were purchased by Nielsen households between 2004 

and 2006. We investigated the following vegetables (in order of highest to 

lowest aggregate quantity purchased by all Nielsen households): tomatoes, 

onions, lettuce, green beans, corn, carrots, broccoli, cucumbers, peppers, 

and cabbage. We also investigated the following fruits (in order of highest 

to lowest amount purchased): bananas, apples, watermelons, oranges, 

grapes, strawberries, peaches, pineapples, pears, and grapefruit. These 20 

items represent approximately 77 percent of all fruit and vegetable quantities purchased. This list would be similar if we selected the 10 fruits and 

10 vegetables with the highest expenditures rather than the most purchases, 

except that the vegetable expenditure list would include mushrooms instead 

of cabbage, and the fruit expenditure list would include cherries instead of 

grapefruit.

The mean market price for each item is calculated in two stages. The fi rst 

stage determines the seasonal price, which is an expenditure-share-weighted 

average price of the form of processing, according to equation 1. The second 

stage is the average across seasons and years:

 ∑ ∑

∑

∑

∑

( ) (1)

The subscripts index the following:

• c = purchase

• h = household

• i = individual fruit or vegetable 

• f = form

• m = market

• s = season

• y = year.

Ρ

_

misy is the mean price in each market (m) for each item (i, fruit or vegetable) 

by season (s) by year (y); Eisyfhc is the household (h) expenditure for a given 

purchase (c) of a form of an item (f) in a given season and year; Lisyfhc is the 

total number of pounds for this household purchase of a form of an item in a 

given season and year; and Wh is the household aggregation weight (projection factor) developed by Nielsen. 

The fi rst fraction in equation 1 is the market-level mean price per pound for 

each form of processing of each fruit and vegetable by season and year. The 

price each household paid for each form of processing of each fruit and vegetable is calculated by dividing the sum of all expenditures on each purchase 

by the sum of all pounds in each purchase in each season of each year. To 
7

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

aggregate to the market level, a weighted mean price per pound is calculated 

using the household aggregation weights developed by Nielsen. 

The second fraction in equation 1 is the average market expenditure share on 

the different forms of fruits and vegetables by households in the Fresh Foods 

Panel. This share is calculated as the weighted sum of each household’s 

expenditures on all forms of processing divided by the total weighted sum 

of each household’s expenditures on that fruit or vegetable. The total mean 

market price of each fruit and vegetable by season by year is the sum of the 

market prices of the four forms of each fruit and vegetable multiplied by their 

expenditure shares. We report the comparison of mean market prices as a 

simple average of these prices across years and seasons. 

To determine which markets are more or less expensive, we create a quantityweighted price index to rank each item, with the national average as the base. 

The quantity weight is the national share of aggregate pounds of each item, i, 

purchased out of all 20 items,

 (2)

where Lihc is the total number of pounds of an item that a household 

purchased (in this case it refers to all purchases of that item, including all 

forms, all seasons, and all 3 years from 2004 to 2006), and Wh is the household aggregation weight (projection factor) developed by Nielsen. The index 

ranking Rm is calculated according to equation 3,

 ∑

∑ ∑

20

 (3)

where m refers to the market; Qi

 is the national share of aggregate pounds of 

each item, i, purchased out of all 20 items according to equation 2; and Pim is 

the average price of each item in each market from equation 1.

To create the index, we calculate one national quantity share for each of the 

20 items (equation 2) in order to compare the same combination of items 

across markets, and then we multiply the national quantity share for each item 

by the price of that item in each market. We sum these products across items 

to obtain a quantity-weighted average price for each market (the numerator 

in equation 3). The base is the quantity-weighted average price, calculated 

using national average prices for each item (the denominator in equation 3). 

Thus, the index for each market is the quantity-weighted average market price 

divided by the national quantity-weighted average price, times 100. 

Results

Regional Price Variation

We found a large amount of variation in the average price paid (per pound) 

in many markets across the United States (table 2). Most fruit and vegetable 

prices were 30 to 70 percent higher in the most expensive market than in the 

lowest priced market. The price spread across market areas for vegetables 
8

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

ranged from 30 percent to 120 percent for lettuce and green beans, respectively, while fruit price variation ranged from 26 to 140 percent between 

th lowest and highest priced markets for pears and watermelon. In overall 

comparison with the national average, we found that on average fruits and 

vegetables were 20 percent lower in the least expensive market and 25 percent 

higher in the most expensive market. For example, green bean prices were 38 

percent less than the national average in the lowest priced market, and watermelons were 43 percent less than the national average price in their lowest 

market. Pepper prices, on the other hand, were 37 percent higher than the 

national average price in their most expensive market, and orange prices were 

47 percent higher than the national average in their most expensive market.

Some general patterns emerged with respect to which items and markets were 

cheaper or more expensive across the country. Peppers and tomatoes were 

Table 2

Market prices for the 20 most popular fruits and vegetables, with the deviation of their minimum and 

maximum prices from national average, 2004-2006

Vegetables 

and fruits

National average 

of market prices 

per lb

Minimum 

market price 

per lb

Maximum 

market price 

per lb

Difference from 

minimum to 

maximum

Difference from 

national average 

to minimum

Difference from 

national average 

to maximum

Dollars Percent

Tomatoes 1.66 1.42 1.98 39 -15 19

Onions 1.33 0.95 1.68 77 -29 26

Lettuce 1.01 0.89 1.17 30 -11 16

Green beans 0.96 0.59 1.31 12 -38 36

Corn 0.89 0.74 1.11 50 -17 25

Carrots 1.18 0.99 1.38 39 -16 17

Broccoli 1.34 1.10 1.61 46 -18 20

Cucumbers 1.02 0.81 1.33 64 -21 30

Peppers 1.72 1.18 2.35 100 -32 37

Cabbage 0.52 0.42 0.70 68 -20 34

Bananas 0.49 0.40 0.62 55 -19 26

Apples 1.10 0.98 1.24 27 -12 12

Watermelon 0.87 0.49 1.19 140 -43 37

Oranges 0.85 0.72 1.25 73 -15 47

Grapes 1.51 1.31 1.70 30 -14 12

Strawberries 2.41 2.15 2.86 33 -11 19

Peaches 1.13 0.95 1.40 47 -15 25

Pineapples 1.29 0.99 1.63 65 -23 26

Pears 1.06 0.94 1.18 26 -11 12

Grapefruit 0.98 0.78 1.24 60 -21 27

Note: All minimum and maximum prices are signifi cantly different from the national average at the 5-percent level. Prices are in current dollars.

Source: Authors’ calculations using Nielsen Homescan data.
9

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

usually the most expensive per pound of the 10 most popular vegetables in 

each of the 26 markets. Onions and broccoli were next, followed by carrots 

and then by cucumbers, lettuce, green beans, and corn, while cabbage was by 

far the cheapest vegetable in all 26 markets. Among the 10 fruits analyzed, 

strawberries were by far the most expensive. Grapes were next, followed by 

pineapples, peaches, apples, pears, grapefruit, watermelon, and oranges, in 

roughly that order. Bananas were the cheapest fruit in all 26 markets.12 (See 

appendix table A.2 for comparison of mean prices of different forms of all 

vegetables and all fruits.)

The lowest priced market was the Metro South 2 market group (Nashville, 

Birmingham, Memphis, and Louisville), followed by Metro Ohio (Cincinnati, 

Cleveland, and Columbus) and Salt Lake City. San Francisco had the highest 

prices, followed by Hartford-New Haven and Washington, DC. Prices in 

the Metro South 2 were 9.2 percent lower than the national average, while 

prices in the highest priced market, San Francisco, were 13.9 percent higher 

than the national average, a spread of 23.1 percentage points between the 

least and most expensive markets. (See table 3 for a full list of rankings.) 

Other markets that fall in the bottom quintile of prices include the Metro 

South 3 market group (Little Rock, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa) and the Metro 

Mountain market group (Denver and Phoenix). Additional markets in the top 

quintile with San Francisco include Baltimore and the South Florida market 

group (Miami and Tampa). This index ranking, which is based on what 

consumers actually purchased, indicates that although participants may be 

able to substitute among certain fruits and vegetables, substantial price variation remains across markets. 

Price Variation and WIC

The substantial price differences between markets imply that the same-value 

voucher allows WIC participants to purchase substantially different amounts 

of fruits and vegetables depending on where they live. Using data from 1999, 

the Committee to Review the WIC Food Packages (2006) estimated that with 

the monthly $8 and $10 vouchers, participants would be able to purchase 10 

and 12 pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables per month, respectively, corresponding to roughly 1 or 2 servings a day.13 When we examine the national 

average prices of the 20 most commonly purchased fruits and vegetables 

between 2004-06, however, we fi nd that participants would be unable to 

stretch their vouchers this far unless they purchased only the cheapest fruits 

and vegetables.14 Participants in markets with prices higher than the national 

average will have an even more diffi cult time purchasing 10-12 pounds of 

fruits and vegetables per month, while those buying in markets with lower 

than average prices may be able to purchase more fruits and vegetables than 

the amount recommended (table 4, discussed in detail below).

Green beans display one of the most dramatic differences between the 

highest and lowest priced markets. They are 36 percent cheaper in the lowest 

priced market (Metro South 3—Little Rock, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa) than 

the national average and 38 percent more expensive in the highest priced 

market (San Francisco). This difference translates to 37 cents per pound less 

in Little Rock, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa and 35 cents per pound more in San 

Francisco. While these differences may seem relatively small, the national 

average for 1 pound of green beans is 96 cents. With a fi xed-value voucher 

12In this study, we calculate prices 

based on total pounds purchased. That 

is, we do not address the number of 

servings or the portion of the fruits and 

vegetables that can be consumed. For 

an analysis of this issue, see Stewart et 

al. (2011).

13As mentioned above, the committee’s report also suggests that the 

voucher be adjusted upward in States 

where local prices prevent participants 

from purchasing this amount with the 

$8 and $10 vouchers the committee 

recommends.

14Our results are based on the 

average prices for all forms of fruits 

and vegetables (fresh, canned, and 

frozen) since the national guidelines for 

the voucher allow all forms. For most 

of the items we examined, the canned 

version is the cheapest, followed by 

fresh random weight, then frozen, and 

fi nally UPC fresh items (see appendix. 

table 2).

 Therefore, the mean market price of 

only fresh items is the same or higher 

for all items (except onions) when 

canned and frozen prices are excluded.
10

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

of $10, a WIC mother could hypothetically purchase 10.4 pounds of green 

beans each month at national average prices. However, she would be able to 

purchase 16.8 pounds of green beans if she were living in Little Rock, but 

only 7.6 pounds if she were living in San Francisco. 

Tomato prices, on the other hand, display the least variation across markets.15

The national average price for 1 pound of tomatoes is $1.66. They are 

15Only lettuce has a smaller price 

spread of 30 percent.

Table 3

Index ranking of markets from lowest to highest priced for the 20 

fruits and vegetables most frequently purchased by U.S. households, 

2004-06 

Aggregate market group Index ranking

Metro South 2 90.8

Metro Ohio 91.9

Salt Lake City 92.2

Metro Mountain 92.8

Metro South 3 93.8

San Antonio 93.8

Metro Midwest 1 95.0

Chicago 95.3

Metro South 4 95.4

Urban New York City 96.3

Metro Midwest 2 96.4

Los Angeles 97.4

Western NY/PA 98.1

Metro Northwest 99.9

National average 100.0

Atlanta 101.1

Metro California 101.7

Mid-Atlantic 102.2

Other New York City 103.4

Boston 103.8

Philadelphia 103.9

North Florida 104.4

South Florida 104.7

Baltimore 108.8

Washington, DC 110.9

Hartford-New Haven 111.9

San Francisco 113.9

Source: Authors’ calculations using Nielsen Homescan data.
11

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

cheapest in the Metro South 2 market (Nashville, Birmingham, Memphis, 

and Louisville) at $1.42, and they are the most expensive in San Francisco 

at $1.98. A WIC mother could purchase 6 pounds of tomatoes each month, 

based on national average prices. She would be able to purchase 7 pounds 

of tomatoes if she were living in Nashville, but only 5.1 pounds in San 

Francisco.

Comparing fruit prices in a similar way, we fi nd that watermelons have the 

largest price spread between the least and most expensive markets at 140 

percent. They cost 87 cents per pound on average, but they cost 49 cents 

in the Metro California market (San Diego and Sacramento) and $1.19 in 

Baltimore. Again, a WIC mother could use her $10 voucher to purchase 11.5 

pounds of watermelons at national average prices, but she would be able to 

buy 20.2 pounds in San Diego and only 8.4 pounds in Baltimore. Apples, one 

of the most popular fruits in our sample, have a price spread of 27 percent 

and cost $1.10 per pound on average.16 Apples are cheapest in the Metro Ohio 

16Only pears have a smaller price 

spread at 26 percent.

Table 4

Buying power of vouchers for fruit and vegetables in different markets, by weight

Vegetables and 

fruits

$6 voucher $10 voucher

National 

average

Market with 

minimum price

Market with 

maximum price

National 

average

Market with 

minimum price

Market with 

maximum price

Pounds Pounds

Tomatoes 3.6 4.2 3.0 6.0 7.0 5.1

Onions 4.5 6.3 3.6 7.5 10.5 6.0

Lettuce 6.0 6.7 5.1 9.9 11.2 8.6

Green beans 6.2 10.1 4.6 10.4 16.8 7.6

Corn 6.7 8.1 5.4 11.2 13.4 9.0

Carrots 5.1 6.0 4.4 8.5 10.1 7.3

Broccoli 4.5 5.5 3.7 7.5 9.1 6.2

Cucumbers 5.9 7.4 4.5 9.8 12.4 7.5

Peppers 3.5 5.1 2.6 5.8 8.5 4.3

Cabbage 11.5 14.4 8.5 19.1 24.0 14.2

Bananas 12.3 15.1 9.7 20.4 25.1 16.2

Apples 5.4 6.2 4.8 9.1 10.3 8.1

Watermelon 6.9 12.1 5.1 11.5 20.2 8.4

Oranges 7.1 8.3 4.8 11.8 13.9 8.0

Grapes 4.0 4.6 3.5 6.6 7.7 5.9

Strawberries 2.5 2.8 2.1 4.2 4.6 3.5

Peaches 5.3 6.3 4.3 8.9 10.5 7.1

Pineapples 4.6 6.1 3.7 7.7 10.1 6.1

Pears 5.7 6.4 5.1 9.5 10.6 8.4

Grapefruit 6.1 7.7 4.8 10.2 12.9 8.1

Source: Authors’ calculations using Nielsen Homescan data.
12

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

market (Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus) at 98 cents, and they are most 

expensive in San Francisco and North Florida (Jacksonville and Orlando) 

at $1.24. A WIC mother could buy 9.1 pounds of apples at national average 

prices, but would be able to buy 10.3 pounds in Cincinnati and only 8.1 

pounds in Jacksonville.

These results indicate that participants in higher priced markets can purchase 

substantially smaller amounts of fruits and vegetables, even for items that 

display modest differences between the highest and lowest priced markets. 

Thus, while the voucher allows substitution between cheaper and more expensive fruits and vegetables, price variations mean that the WIC voucher buys 

substantially smaller amounts of many of the 20 fruits and vegetables studied 

in some markets than in others.

Conclusion

Revising the WIC packages to include a fi xed-value voucher for fruits and 

vegetables aims to encourage WIC participants to consume more fruits and 

vegetables, potentially decreasing both short- and long-term health risks 

faced by pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children. By examining aggregate categories of food at the regional level, previous research 

has shown that food prices vary substantially across the country. The present 

study shows that the prices of individual fruits and vegetables vary even more 

at a more localized level. This price variation implies that WIC participants 

in higher cost areas cannot purchase as many fruits and vegetables with their 

fi xed-value voucher as participants in lower priced areas, which could lead 

to differences in the nutritional benefi ts that the voucher is intended to make 

available for WIC participants.
13

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Blisard, Noel, Hayden Stewart, and Dean Jolliffe (2004). Low-Income 

Households’ Expenditures on Fruits and Vegetables. Agricultural 

Economic Report Number 833, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, May. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefi ng/

FoodNutritionAssistance/ResearchFindings/.

California Department of Public Health, California WIC Program 

(2010). “WIC Authorized Food List Shopping Guide.” April 5, 2010. 

Available at www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/wicworks/WIC%20Foods/

WICAuthorizedFoodListShoppinGuide-4-2010.pdf.

Davis, David E., and Ephraim S. Leibtag (2005). Interstate Variation in WIC 

Food Package Costs: The Role of Food Prices, Caseload Composition, 

and Cost-Containment Practices. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research 

Report No. 41, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, January. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefi ng/FoodNutritionAssistan

ce/2005FinalReport.pdf.

Einav, Liran, Ephraim Leibtag, and Aviv Nevo (2008). On The Accuracy 

of Nielsen Homescan Data. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Report 69, Economic Research Service, November. http://www.

ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR69/ERR69fm.pdf.

Guenther, Patricia M., WenYen Juan, Jill Reedy, Patricia Britten, Mark Lino, 

Andrea Carlson, Hazel H. Hiza, and Susan M. Krebs-Smith (2008a). 

Diet Quality of Americans in 1995-1996 and 2001-2002 as Measured 

by the Healthy Eating Index. Nutrition Insight 37, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, August.

Guenther, Patricia M., WenYen Juan, Mark Lino, Hazel A. Hiza, Thomas 

Fungwe, and Richard Lucas (2008b). Diet Quality of Low-Income and 

Higher Income Americans in 2003-04 as Measured by the Healthy Eating 

Index-2005. Nutrition Insight 42, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center 

for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, December.

Committee on Dietary Risk Assessment in the WIC Program, Food and 

Nutrition Board (2002). Dietary Risk Assessment in the WIC Program. 

Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Committee to Review the WIC Food Packages, Food and Nutrition Board 

(2006). WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Institute of Medicine, 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Leibtag, Ephraim (2007). Stretching the Food Stamp Dollar: Regional Price 

Differences Affect Affordability of Food. Economic Information Bulletin 

No. 29-2, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

September. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib29/eib29-2/eib29-2.

pdf.
14

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

Leibtag, Ephraim, and Phil Kaufman (2003). Exploring Food Purchase 

Behavior of Low-Income Households: How Do They Economize? Current 

Issues in Economics of Food Markets, Agriculture Information Bulletin 

No. 747-07, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

June. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib747/aib74707.pdf.

Oliveira, Victor (2009). The Food Assistance Landscape: FY 2008 Annual 

Report. Economic Information Bulletin No. 6-6, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April. http://www.ers.usda.gov/

Publications/EIB6-6/EIB6-6.pdf.

Oliveira, Victor, and Elizabeth Frazao (2009). The WIC Program: 

Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2009 Edition. Economic 

Research Report No. 73, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, April. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR73/

ERR73Fm.pdf.

Stewart, Hayden, Jeffery Hyman, Elizabeth Frazão, Jean Buzby, and 

Andi Carlson (2011). “Can Low-Income Americans Afford To Satisfy 

MyPyramid Fruit and Vegetable Guidelines?” Journal of Nutrition 

Education and Behavior 43 (2011):173-79.

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

(2010). Methodology Behind the Quarterly Food-at-Home Price 

Database. Technical Bulletin No. 1926, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, April. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/

TB1926/TB1926.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (2009). 

USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 22. 

Nutrient Data Laboratory Home Page. http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/

ndl.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Women, 

Infants, and Children (2010). “WIC Food Packages – Maximum Monthly 

Allowances.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefi tsandservices/foodpkgallowances.HTM.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2007). “Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): 

Revisions in the WIC Food Packages; Interim Rule.” Federal Register 72 

(234), U.S. Department of Agriculture, 7 CFR Part 246. http://www.fns.

usda.gov/wic/regspublished/wicfoodpkginterimrulepdf.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2010). “WIC 

Program Participation and Costs.” August 31, 2010. http://www.fns.usda.

gov/pd/wisummary.htm.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (2005). Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. http://www.

healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines.
15

The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power? / EIB-75

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix

Appendix table 1

Comparison of Nielsen Homescan data; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Average Price Data; and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price 

Index over time

 Vegetables and Fruits 

Nielsen 

2004-06

BLS 

2004-06

BLS 

2010

CPI 

change

Dollars Percent

Tomatoes 1.66 1.65 1.74 6 

Lettuce 1.01 0.84 0.85 10

Broccoli 1.34 1.32 1.55 15*

Cabbage 0.52 0.59 0.62 6

Bananas 0.49 0.50 0.58 16

Apples 1.10 1.02 1.23 16

Oranges 0.85 0.98 1.03 14

Grapes 1.51 2.13 2.10 -1*

Strawberries 2.41 2.13 2.03 -5*

Peaches 1.13 1.55 1.75 12*

Pears 1.06 1.14 1.26 9*

Grapefruit 0.98 1.01 0.92 13**

* BLS does not publish disaggregate CPI for these items. These are percentage changes in 

average price from 2004-06 to 2010.

** BLS does not publish disaggregate CPI for grapefruit. This is the percentage change in CPI 

for citrus fruit.

Source: Authors’ calculations using Nielsen Homescan data; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Average Price Data; and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index.

Appendix table 2

Market prices for four forms of fruits and vegetables and deviation of minimum and maximum prices from 

national average, 2004-06

Item

National 

average of market 

prices per lb

Minimum 

market price 

per lb

Maximum 

market price 

per lb

Percent

price 

difference

Percent 

difference 

in minimum

Percent 

difference in 

maximum

Dollars Dollars Percent Percent

Veggies

Canned 1.87 1.55 2.42 56 -17 30 

Frozen 1.48 1.22 1.80 48 -18 22 

UPC 2.13 1.83 2.50 37 -14 18 

RW 1.13 0.98 1.34 37 -13 19

Fruit

Canned 1.32 1.16 1.64 42 -12 25 

UPC 1.53 1.33 1.78 34 -13 17 

RW 1.35 1.09 1.54 41 -20 14 

UPC = items marked with a universal product code; RW = raw weight.

Source: Authors’ calculations using Nielsen Homescan data.