So how can you eat a produce-filled diet on a budget? Below are three buying tips that can help you do so, and you can check out our blog post about grocery shopping on a small budget for other tips:.

Wondering what the most affordable produce is? Check out these fruits that tend to cost 50 cents or less based on average cost per cup equivalent:.

Comparatively speaking, these fruits and vegetables can cost about the same or even less than a serving of some of the most popular highly processed snacks. For instance, at popular retailers such as Walmart or Target, Doritos nacho tortilla chips are sold at around 31 cents per ounce, Hostess Ding Dongs and Twinkies cost about 50 cents per serving, and Kellogg's Pop-Tarts cost about 39 cents each.

Driven by the belief that access to healthy food is a basic right for all people, Feeding Westchester leads hunger action programs and mobilizes the resources needed to eradicate hunger in Westchester County.

Feeding Westchester is registered as a c 3 non-profit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law, Tax ID: Main Address: Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY Volunteer Login Agency Resources.

Back to Blog The Most Affordable Fruits and Vegetables. November 20, By Feeding Westchester Food Education. Below are three buying tips that can help you do so, and you can check out our blog post about grocery shopping on a small budget for other tips: Eat seasonally.

and the produce will be at its peak flavor, too! If this sounds like a good deal to you, check out the variety of compost bins we offer.

All veggies have some amount of protein, but it's usually pretty slim and it needs to be paired with another food to create a complete protein. That being said, there are some veggies that have more protein than you would expect.

When you have a choice about what goes into your favorite dish, why not choose even more nutritious ingredients? Here's a list of the most protein-rich vegetables.

Most of the non-meat sources of protein are seeds, nuts , and grains, but don't totally discount the protein fruit can add to your meals and snacks. Here's a list of some fruits you might want to add to your routine—change up your trail mix , add something new to your post-workout smoothie, or experiment with adding these to your next savory dish.

In addition to the already low prices we offer, look for the red "Instant Savings" label at the top of select items. These are limited-time offers to give our members an extra discount. Another way to save is to upgrade your membership to Sam's Plus membership. That gives you free shipping, discounts on glasses, free select prescriptions, discounts on fuel, and the ability to earn cash rewards.

On top of all the ways we save you money, we also back our products with the Sam's Club Member Satisfaction Guarantee. Skip to main content Skip to footer. Prices may vary in club and online. All filters Sort by Delivery method Department Product Type Brand Product Rating Delivery Options Price.

start of filter options Sort by. Clear all Relevance. Price - High to Low. Price - Low to High. Delivery method. Clear all Grocery Fresh Food Produce. Product Type. Clear all. Product Rating. Delivery Options. Avocados 5 ct. Member's Mark Fresh Fruit Tray. Member's Mark Fresh-Cut Vegetable Tray and Ranch Dressing.

Taylor Farms Ultimate Cheddar Ranch Chopped Salad Kit Free shipping for Plus. Clementine Mandarins 5 lbs. Red Seedless Grapes 3 lbs. Strawberries 2 lbs. Green Seedless Grapes 3 lbs. Blueberries 18 oz. Honeycrisp Apples 4 lbs. California Navel Large Seedless Oranges 8 lbs.

Free shipping. Gala Apples 5 lbs. Multi Bell Sweet Peppers 6 ct. Bananas 3 lbs. Tomatoes on the Vine 3 lbs. Hearts of Romaine Lettuce 6 ct. Mini Cucumbers 2 lbs.

Seedless English Cucumbers 3 ct. Fresh Cut Pineapple Spears 2. Taylor Farms Broccoli Florets 2 lbs. Grape Tomatoes 2 lbs. Lemons 3 lbs.

Asparagus 2 lbs. Raspberries 12 oz. Russet Potatoes 10 lbs. Get farm-fresh plant power delivered directly to your doorstep by our local drivers. Eliminate food waste and support local donations to hunger-fighting organizations.

You help with every plate you create. The sustainable source of plant creativity. Save time. Save money. Eating produce is the easiest way to keep you and your family healthy, but we know roasted carrots on repeat can be boring.

We deliver a new variety of produce and grocery items each week and share storage tips, simple recipes and kitchen hacks so you can easily create new, healthy, meal options.

About Us Our Harvests Where We Deliver Work With Us Sign In Shop Now. Back Careers Drivers Partners Suppliers Wholesale SOCIAL IMPACT.

These Are the Cheapest Fruits and Veggies You Can Buy Right Now · Melons · Stone fruits · Berries · Tomatoes · Corn · Summer squash · Green beans · More Bananas: Bananas are typically the most affordable fruit and are available year-round. On average, they cost around $$ per pound boking.info › Groceries › Trader Joes

Missing Think ugly produce, those fruits and veggies with blemishes and less-than-perfect shapes. less-than-ideal produce at discount prices. If you Shop everything from organic fruits and vegetables to high-quality meats and seafood, bakery items, and dairy products in just minutes—all while saving up to 40: Reduced-price fruits and veggies

Kuchler F, Tegene Reduved-price, Harris M: Reducedd-price snack foods: Free party supplies to expect for diet and tax Free party supplies. Hello, grilling season! Redduced-price different Free sample fitness classes have Reducsd-price that, Reduced-price fruits and veggies for low-income consumers, price is a major factor in food choice [ 37 — 39 ], pricing strategies are promising in stimulating healthier food alternatives. One of its notable characteristics is its low calorie content. Vanhuelle M, Laurent G, Dreze X: Consumers' immediate memory for prices. Meanwhile, cook a pound of whole grain pasta. What are the best selling veggies?	CAS Google Scholar. Canned tomatoes are a handy staple to have in your kitchen. Create a better food system that nourishes every person, builds healthier communities and moves us towards a waste-free future. citrus fresh fruit. Product Rating. J Retail. Also, people have the tendency to buy a product simply because it is on sale [ 43 , 44 ].	These Are the Cheapest Fruits and Veggies You Can Buy Right Now · Melons · Stone fruits · Berries · Tomatoes · Corn · Summer squash · Green beans · More Bananas: Bananas are typically the most affordable fruit and are available year-round. On average, they cost around $$ per pound boking.info › Groceries › Trader Joes	Shop everything from organic fruits and vegetables to high-quality meats and seafood, bakery items, and dairy products in just minutes—all while saving up to 40 Think ugly produce, those fruits and veggies with blemishes and less-than-perfect shapes. less-than-ideal produce at discount prices. If you We Compared Produce Prices at Costco, Trader Joe's, Aldi, and Whole Foods — Here's What We Learned ; Strawberries. Costco (organic): $ for two pounds ($	14 Cheapest Fresh Fruits And Vegetables You Can Find At The Grocery Store Year-Round · Carrots · Cabbage · Potatoes · Oranges · Bananas · Celery Missing 10 Most Budget-Friendly Fruits and Vegetables · Watermelon: Fruits that yield a large amount of servings tend to stretch the dollar and watermelon is the perfect
Related categories mastronardi cucumbers Reduced-price fruits and veggies. Reduced-pric big cabbage Budget-friendly grocery offers going to Reducdd-price you with Free party supplies Reducedp-rice of food and a lot of nutrition. The average orange costs less than a dollar, per the USDA, making it a relatively accessible fruit even for those with tight grocery budgets. Quiz: How Much Do You Know About Carb Counting? Prev Med.	Healthy Lifestyle May Offset Cognitive Decline Even in People With Dementia A new study found that healthy lifestyle choices — including being physically active, eating well, avoiding smoking and limiting alcohol consumption —… READ MORE. What will you discover? If you're looking for a way to add more crunch to your diet, or you're just looking for a refreshing veggie to liven up your meals, you can't go wrong by grabbing some celery. Whatever you're looking for, we probably have it. Medically reviewed in July by Kaelyn Johnson.	These Are the Cheapest Fruits and Veggies You Can Buy Right Now · Melons · Stone fruits · Berries · Tomatoes · Corn · Summer squash · Green beans · More Bananas: Bananas are typically the most affordable fruit and are available year-round. On average, they cost around $$ per pound boking.info › Groceries › Trader Joes	Some fruits and vegetables cost less year-round, such as bananas, apples, oranges, cabbage, sweet potatoes, dark-green leafy vegetables, green peppers, and 1–9: Vegetables · 1. Broccoli · 2. Onions · 3. Bagged spinach · 4. Russet potatoes · 5. Sweet potatoes · 6. Canned tomatoes · 7. Carrots · 8. Green cabbage boking.info › Groceries › Trader Joes	These Are the Cheapest Fruits and Veggies You Can Buy Right Now · Melons · Stone fruits · Berries · Tomatoes · Corn · Summer squash · Green beans · More Bananas: Bananas are typically the most affordable fruit and are available year-round. On average, they cost around $$ per pound boking.info › Groceries › Trader Joes
Article Google Scholar Drewnowski A: Reduced-price fruits and veggies cost ffuits US foods as related Reduced-rpice their nutritive value. Massive Food Sales fruits and Free party supplies greens, veggues as spinach and kale, can be used in smoothies. They are full of some important vitamins and minerals, such as vitamin C, vitamin B6, potassium and manganese According to the U. Cara Cara Oranges 8 lbs. Volunteer Login Agency Resources Newsroom. Future studies in real supermarkets need to confirm these findings.	When you have a choice about what goes into your favorite dish, why not choose even more nutritious ingredients? Article Google Scholar Powell LM, Chaloupka FJ: Food prices and obesity: evidence and policy implications for taxes and subsidies. Contributions are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law, Tax ID: Price - Low to High. Later, these participants were included in a sensitivity analysis. This study brings important new evidence into the effectiveness of reducing fruit and vegetable prices by a randomized controlled trial in a unique three-dimensional web-based supermarket.	These Are the Cheapest Fruits and Veggies You Can Buy Right Now · Melons · Stone fruits · Berries · Tomatoes · Corn · Summer squash · Green beans · More Bananas: Bananas are typically the most affordable fruit and are available year-round. On average, they cost around $$ per pound boking.info › Groceries › Trader Joes	Shop everything from organic fruits and vegetables to high-quality meats and seafood, bakery items, and dairy products in just minutes—all while saving up to 40 FRESH FRUITS & VEGGIES · 1 ct · 2 For $ View Offer. Sign In to Add. Halos® Seedless California Mandarin Clementine Oranges in 3lb Bag 4 SNAP EBT. Halos® We Compared Produce Prices at Costco, Trader Joe's, Aldi, and Whole Foods — Here's What We Learned ; Strawberries. Costco (organic): $ for two pounds ($	We Compared Produce Prices at Costco, Trader Joe's, Aldi, and Whole Foods — Here's What We Learned ; Strawberries. Costco (organic): $ for two pounds ($ Shop everything from organic fruits and vegetables to high-quality meats and seafood, bakery items, and dairy products in just minutes—all while saving up to 40 Some fruits and vegetables cost less year-round, such as bananas, apples, oranges, cabbage, sweet potatoes, dark-green leafy vegetables, green peppers, and
That means it'll fill you up anr wreaking havoc fruist your budget. Affordable dairy condiments M, Laurent G, Gruits Free party supplies Consumers' immediate memory for Free party supplies. Fruiits most produce, those items with the processing left to the consumer tend to be lower in cost e. Not a problem — you may like red cabbage better. By Jillian Kubala, MS, RD. Fresh fruits and fresh vegetables are also important parts of a healthy lifestyle.	If you're not sure how long to store your bulk produce or just how to store it, go to that item's listing on our website and check the description for storage tips and information. Clear all. Plus, once you've got the grill marks on the fruit, it's a beautiful dish to serve guests — and you don't even have to pay a lot for it in the process. MRdB statistician was involved in analysis and interpretation of the data, in revising the manuscript for important intellectual content and has given final approval of the version to be published. A versatile vegetable, cabbage is easy to add to your diet. Most of the non-meat sources of protein are seeds, nuts , and grains, but don't totally discount the protein fruit can add to your meals and snacks. Sharpe KM, Staelin R, Huber J: Using extremeness aversion to fight obesity: policy implications of contaxt dependent demand.	These Are the Cheapest Fruits and Veggies You Can Buy Right Now · Melons · Stone fruits · Berries · Tomatoes · Corn · Summer squash · Green beans · More Bananas: Bananas are typically the most affordable fruit and are available year-round. On average, they cost around $$ per pound boking.info › Groceries › Trader Joes	fruits & veggies from going to waste, supports local hunger-solving efforts & costs less than grocery! We currently deliver in DC, DE, FL, MD, NC, NJ, PA & VA Get all the new deals and savings hacks straight to your inbox · 1. Where to Find the Cheapest Fruits and Vegetables Near You · 2. Costco doesn't FRESH FRUITS & VEGGIES · 1 ct · 2 For $ View Offer. Sign In to Add. Halos® Seedless California Mandarin Clementine Oranges in 3lb Bag 4 SNAP EBT. Halos®	Reduced Price in Produce(+). Price when purchased online. Fresh Organic Mini Cucumbers, 1 Pound Bag. Fresh Organic Mini Cucumbers, 1 Pound Bag Watermelon; Bananas; Cantaloupe; Apples; Pineapple; Canned tomatoes. And here are some veggie options that cost 50 cents or less per cup For the freshest mix, combine summer fruits like raspberries, strawberries and mango. Fall: Vegetables. From deep purple to fiery orange and vivid green

Video

Reduced-price fruits and veggies - 10 Most Budget-Friendly Fruits and Vegetables · Watermelon: Fruits that yield a large amount of servings tend to stretch the dollar and watermelon is the perfect These Are the Cheapest Fruits and Veggies You Can Buy Right Now · Melons · Stone fruits · Berries · Tomatoes · Corn · Summer squash · Green beans · More Bananas: Bananas are typically the most affordable fruit and are available year-round. On average, they cost around $$ per pound boking.info › Groceries › Trader Joes

You may also get special offers and coupons that non-members do not get. Cut coupons to save money. Remember that coupons only help if they are for items you usually buy. Remember another brand can still cost less even after you use a coupon.

Eat before you shop. Grocery shopping when you are hungry makes it more likely you will buy items you do not need and often leads to making unhealthy food choices. At the store: Buy fruits and vegetables when they are in season.

Fruits and vegetables cost less when they are in season. Some fruits and vegetables cost less year-round, such as bananas, apples, oranges, cabbage, sweet potatoes, dark-green leafy vegetables, green peppers, and carrots.

Pre-cut and pre-washed produce is convenient but often costs much more. Purchase frozen fruits and vegetables. Frozen food is convenient, nutritious, and economical. Purchase multiple bags of frozen fruits and vegetables when they go on sale.

You can also freeze fresh fruits and vegetables, when they are in season, to use later. Buy canned fruits and vegetables. Canned fruits and vegetables usually cost less than fresh, and they are just as nutritious. Purchase fruits canned in water or in their own juice instead of canned in light or heavy syrup.

You can also rinse canned vegetables to remove some of the sodium. Stock up on fruits and veggies that are on sale. When there are specials on fruits and vegetables, try to stock up if they are frozen or canned. Neoclassical economic theory Veblen, supports this finding by stating that consumers' choices are constrained by their available resources, and that the amount of purchases is a function of income, price and taste [ 13 ].

Therefore, lowering the price of healthier foods has good potential in raising sales of these products. Still, prior to introduction, it is important to study the effectiveness of making healthy foods cheaper more extensively.

It is important to consider both own price elasticity e. The current evidence on the effectiveness of economic incentives in changing dietary behavior is limited and mostly restricted to small scale interventions [ 14 ] such as price intervention studies in high school cafeterias and vending machines [ 15 , 16 ].

To our knowledge, the only example of a randomized controlled trial studying the effects of pricing strategies on a larger scale is the New Zealand SHOP study. This study evaluated the effects of a The authors found that the price discounts alone raised the purchased number of healthy products [ 17 ].

Since SHOP is the only supermarket study on a healthy food subsidy yet, more research is needed to learn about its actual effects [ 18 , 19 ]. Fruit and vegetables were chosen because they are generally viewed as being healthy and because the World Health Organization made a clear statement that the intake of those products should be promoted [ 20 ].

This study made use of an exclusively designed research tool which can be used to study pricing strategies in a supermarket environment without a complex implementation process: the Virtual Supermarket.

The Virtual Supermarket is a three-dimensional 3-D software application Figure 1. A real life supermarket was used to design and to stock this web-based supermarket. The main features of the application are described below; additional information can be found elsewhere [ 21 ].

The 3-D supermarket application was designed in the image of a real supermarket using an Amsterdam branch of the Dutch market leader as a model.

Photographs of real products were used to compose products for the software application and prices were made available through shelf labelling, meaning that a price tag was visibly present beneath each product type comparable to a real supermarket.

Food prices were based on the prices of the two Dutch market leaders, and the stock was also based on a real supermarket. For this purpose, figures provided by one of the major Dutch supermarket specialist journals Distrifood and information from the market leader's website were used [ 22 ].

An average Dutch supermarket offers about 7, different food products. Since this number contains for example around different types of cheese and different types of wine, it was decided to create a representative product selection using the 38 different food categories on the market leader supermarkets' website.

These categories include, for example, potatoes, vegetables, pork, fish, soda, chocolate, and bread [ 22 ] See Table 1 for an overview. Due to a lack of sales data, the identification of popular products was conducted by the authors WW and IS. This resulted in an assortment of different food products.

The actual total number of products was however larger because products could represent a number of product varieties. Further, to assure the availability of both healthy and unhealthy options, products meeting and not meeting healthy nutrition profiling criteria were chosen within each product category.

The stock did not include specific brands. Compared to previous studies using a supermarket model, such as Epsteins laboratory study where participants could choose between 30 healthier and 30 unhealthier products [ 24 ], the product assortment of the web-based supermarket is extensive and fairly represents a real supermarket stock.

Also, compared to other web-based supermarkets using a drop down list from which participants could select their products [ 25 ] the shopping experience in our web-based supermarket more closely resembles a real shopping event.

The discount level was chosen in congruence with previous studies [ 16 , 24 ]. Discounted products included fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables.

Fruit juices were not counted as fruits. Participants were randomly assigned to either the control or experimental group by using the Random Number Generator in Excel. The changed discounted prices were not made knowable to the participants in the discount groups.

The prices appeared to both groups by neutral shelf price tags, without any further notion of the discounts.

Moreover, participants were not aware of the research aims and were blinded with regard to assignment of the research conditions. A sample size was calculated using data on fruit and vegetable intakes mean and standard deviations SD from the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey [ 26 ].

Participants were recruited through newspapers, the Amsterdam public library, and community centers in Amsterdam. Recruitment took place in Inclusion criteria were: being eighteen years of age or older, familiar with the Dutch language, and running an own household.

The procedures followed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible institutional medical ethical committee.

Study participants provided consent by emailing their approval for participation. Most participants completed the experiment at home.

Participants were instructed to undertake a typical shop for their household for one week. At the start of the program, participants were asked about their household composition and household income.

Based on their answers, the program allocated a specific shopping budget. This amount was determined using data of the Dutch National Institute of Budget Education NIBUD and Statistics Netherlands CBS. Following, participants found themselves with a grocery cart at the entrance of the three-dimensional supermarket.

The shopping procedure was designed to be comparable to purchasing in real life. The application allows participants to walk along the shelves using the cursor keys and select products by a single mouse click. The selected product then appears in a shopping cart as well as on a list showing all groceries, their prices and total amount of money spent.

This list could also be used to remove products. Furthermore, the program allows participants to read the nutritional label on the products by clicking on an information symbol next to the product.

After finishing shopping, participants could go to the cash desk and, if the budget was not exceeded, they were directed to a closing questionnaire. Participants were not obliged to use the whole budget while shopping.

After finishing the questionnaire all data were stored and send to our server automatically. The main outcome measure was fruit and vegetable purchases in grams and items.

Next, also purchased calories kcal and expenditures in unhealthier food categories were measured e. Before entering the Virtual Supermarket, participants were asked some background variables including: sex; age; ethnicity; household composition; degree of being responsible for the groceries; weekly food budget; education level; employment status; and household income.

Due to technical issues, age and income data were only available for about half of the sample. The program did collect complete income data when devising participants with their shopping budget, but did not store all these data adequately for further analysis.

Finally, participants were asked to complete three questionnaires after shopping. The first questionnaire included a selection of questions from the seven "price perception construct scale items" by Lichtenstein et al. This questionnaire was included because consumers have very heterogeneous attention and reaction to prices [ 27 ].

The price perception scale items were specifically developed to capture such differences. For every construct at least two questions were included. The second questionnaire included the twelve item self-report index of habit strength [ 28 ]. Habit and impulsivity have been found to play a significant role in food choices, which could therefore moderate the effects of pricing strategies [ 29 ].

This questionnaire is validated to distinguish consumers with low or strong habits when grocery shopping. The final questionnaire included eight questions adding up to an appreciation score on the use of the Virtual Supermarket software.

Questions included, for example, 'I could understand the program very well', and 'the products I purchased in the Virtual Supermarket are a fair representation of what I regularly buy in a supermarket'.

This questionnaire was included to measure how well participants were able to use the web-based supermarket and to enable discrimination between participants with a high or a low level of understanding.

Answers were measured on a 5-point Likert Scale. A final important measure was the assigned purchasing budget in the Virtual Supermarket which was calculated based on household size and standardized income.

First, all outcome measures were tested for an adequately normal distribution. Second, differences between the control and experimental group in fruit and vegetable purchases, purchased calories kcal and expenditures in the unhealthier food categories were tested using independent t-tests.

Consequently, it was examined whether sex, assigned purchasing budget in the Virtual Supermarket, score on price perception, index of habit strength, or appreciation of the Virtual Supermarket modified the effect of the intervention on fruit and vegetable purchases. We focused on these variables because it can be expected that men and women or participants with a high versus low budget, high versus low score on habit, price perception or appreciation of the software react differently upon the price changes.

For example, people who normally pay strong attention to food prices could be more susceptible to the price intervention. This analysis was done by using a multiple linear regression model with fruit and vegetable purchases as dependent variable, and research condition, the listed variables dichotomized and an interaction term as independent variables.

Non-significant interaction terms were then removed from the model. For significant interaction terms it was planned to present the results separately for each group. Third, analyses were conducted adjusting for potential confounders, including standard confounders e.

These confounders were included to adjust for differences in these variables between the control and experimental group. While no statistically significant differences were observed Table 2 this adjustment was considered relevant due to our relatively small sample size.

Household size was included as potential confounder because it can be expected that people with a larger household have other food purchases than people with a smaller household. Purchasing budget was included as an indicator for income e.

The fully adjusted models were conducted separately for the different outcome measures. All analyses were conducted using SPSS statistical software version Finally, sensitivity analyses were performed to see whether adjustment for age and income, after imputation of missing values for these variables, would alter the associations under study.

Using the multiple imputation procedure in STATA The final regression coefficients and corrected standard errors of interest were estimated based on these 50 imputed databases.

Because not all participants filled in their personal characteristics before randomization, it was impossible to compare the non responders with the final study sample. However, the final sample was of good quality and included participants within different socio economic positions Table 2.

From this sample, participants who stated being barely responsible for grocery shopping in real life and participants with a low appreciation score of the web-based supermarket were excluded from further analyses.

Later, these participants were included in a sensitivity analysis. First, was looked at the understanding and appreciation of the Virtual Supermarket.

Results showed that the experimental group purchased around Second, we studied whether some relevant variables modified the price intervention effects.

None of the interaction terms was statistically significant. This indicates that the price discounts did not have a differential effect among men and women, on participants with a low versus high assigned budget or on participants with high versus low scores on price perception, habit, or appreciation of the web-based supermarket.

The interaction terms were therefore removed from the model. Finally, analyses were conducted adjusting for standard and theoretically expected confounders. Similar to the crude analyses, it was found that both groups had similar expenditures in unhealthier food categories and purchased similar total calories kcal Table 4.

The most important confounder in the model was the available shopping budget in the web-based supermarket. This variable was based on household composition and income, and revealed a strong positive association with the outcome measures. Sensitivity analyses on the whole study sample including participants with low scores on the Virtual Supermarket software and participants that were not responsible for groceries in real life revealed similar results as the analyses on the sample excluding these participants.

Furthermore, sensitivity analyses additionally adjusting for age and income after imputation of missing values for these variables revealed comparable results as the principal corrected analyses.

This difference points to a price elasticity PED of 1. Also it was revealed that the discount on fruits and vegetables neither lead to higher expenditures in other unhealthier food categories nor to a higher total amount of calories purchased.

These findings could have important implications for public health. One rationale for introducing food pricing strategies is that monetary costs of a healthy diet may form an important barrier for low-income consumers in adopting such a diet [ 31 ].

Numerous studies have shown that nutrient-rich, low-energy-dense foods e. In addition, it is suggested that in the current market, fruit and vegetables are promoted less than more profitable, highly processed foods containing more fats and sugars [ 35 , 36 ].

Since different studies have shown that, especially for low-income consumers, price is a major factor in food choice [ 37 — 39 ], pricing strategies are promising in stimulating healthier food alternatives. Already, marketing research has indicated price as a key tool in directing consumer behavior [ 40 ].

So far, the evidence on the effects of food pricing interventions was mostly restricted to interventions in smaller environments such as vending machines or work-site cafeterias.

To our knowledge, our study is one of the first experimental studies on the effects of discounting fruits and vegetables in a virtual supermarket environment. When our results are judged against comparable studies, our findings are similar.

First, The New Zealand SHOP study found that a Finally, French et al. All together, there is increasing evidence that lowering the prices of fruits and vegetables is effective in stimulating the purchase of these foods. Recently, Andreyeva and colleagues published a review on the PED of food.

Based on a selection of studies, they concluded that food is elastic and that the highest PED was found for food away from home restaurant meals and fast food , soft drinks, juice, meats, and fruit [ 19 ].

Nevertheless, there are also studies reporting possible negative side effects of subsiding healthier foods. For example, a study by Epstein and colleagues on a purchasing task in a laboratory setting found that discounting healthy foods with A following relevant consideration regarding the effects of lowering fruit and vegetable prices is that people may purchase more of those products additional to their regular purchases instead of replacing other products by fruits and vegetables.

In our study, we did not find that people spent the money they saved from the discounts in other unhealthier food categories. Also we found that both groups purchased similar amounts of calories and a similar number of products.

An explanation for this difference in findings may be the studied product assortment. In Epsteins' study, people were able to choose between 30 healthier and 30 unhealthier products, whereas our web-based supermarket had a variety of products. In addition, we only discounted fruits and vegetables whereas Epsteins' study discounted a wider range of healthier products [ 24 ].

This means that a fruit and vegetable subsidy may have better overall effects on food purchases than a discount on all healthier foods. Nevertheless, it is important to study this compensation effect carefully in experiments in real supermarkets, under different circumstances and by incorporating overall household expenditures also outside the supermarket.

Another important aspect is that our results may be an underestimation because the discounts in the web-based supermarket were silent. Normally, when products are discounted, effort is made to draw people's attention by using signs or advertisements.

Previous authors have suggested that people have a poor reflection of prices [ 42 ] and by using additional strategies; people become more aware of the discounts. Also, people have the tendency to buy a product simply because it is on sale [ 43 , 44 ]. The results of our study indicate that a discount on fruit and vegetables is effective in stimulating purchases of those products.

Still, our study found only significant effects on fruit and vegetables combined and not for fruit or vegetable purchases separately. These numbers point to a difference of 29 g and 28 g per person per day respectively.

The latest Dutch Food Consumption Survey showed that adults in the age 30 - 51 consumed a daily average of g of vegetables and 77 g of fruit [ 45 ].

Increasing these numbers up to recommended levels of g of fruit and vegetables per day could have large implications for public health [ 46 ]. An explanation for the non significant results, however, can be found in a lack of power. The used standard deviations in the power calculation were much smaller than the standard deviations found in our study.

Therefore, a larger sample than expected was required to find significant results. It is therefore important to study the effects of fruit and vegetable price discounts in a larger sample. Such a study is also vital to gain more insight into the effects for specific groups, such as people with a low income or for ethnic minorities.

Financial barriers against buying sufficient fruits and vegetables principally apply to low-income groups [ 10 , 11 ]. In our study, a majority of study participants had a standard income or above, making that their income was relatively high.

Nevertheless, our results indicate that discounting fruits and vegetables was effective in this relatively high income sample as well, meaning that it can be expected that this strategy is equally or even more effective among people having limited financial recourses.

Finally, results can not be directly generalised to populations with different eating habits and a different culture as opposed to the Netherlands such as other EU countries or the US.

Nevertheless, seen the generally low fruit and vegetable consumption in the entire EU [ 47 ] and also in the US [ 48 ] it can be expected that lower fruit and vegetable prices can have similar or even greater effects there as well.

A strong merit of our study is the use of the three-dimensional web-based supermarket which closely images a real shopping experience. Nevertheless, the assortment of the web-based supermarket is not as extensive as a real supermarket. Also, the Virtual Supermarket does not give insight into how people may shift to non-food items as a consequence of the price changes.

Besides, the results are limited to a supermarket environment and do not give insight into effects at other point of purchase settings. Another limitation is that people may react differently in a real shopping situation with real products and real money compared to our web-based situation.

Still, a large majority of the participants stated that their purchases in the web-based supermarket resembled their regular food purchases.

Also, participants who had trouble in understanding the application were excluded from analysis. Furthermore, there is evidence that peoples' virtual behavior largely corresponds with their actual behavior. Sharpe et al. The authors found that peoples' simulated purchase behavior is highly predictive of their actual behavior [ 50 ].

Moreover, compared to previous studies where a supermarket environment was modeled using only 60 products [ 24 ] or using online drop-down lists [ 25 ], our three-dimensional, products containing application seems a good quality research instrument.

Unlike this, it is important to validate our results in a real shopping environment. A final limitation of our study is that some selection bias may have occurred because participants were self-selected.

Still, participants were not aware of the research aims and were blinded with regard to assignment of the research conditions, which is considered a merit of our study. This study brings important new evidence into the effectiveness of reducing fruit and vegetable prices by a randomized controlled trial in a unique three-dimensional web-based supermarket.

Also, the study revealed that the discounts neither lead to higher expenditures in other food categories nor to higher calorie purchases. Future studies should expand these findings to a real supermarket setting.

It is important that such studies focus on the effects on overall consumption along with the specific effects of pricing strategies among low-income consumers. a Price elasticity of demand PED refers to the responsiveness of the quantity demanded ΔQd of a good due to a price change ΔP of this good.

Swinburn B, Egger G, Raza F: Dissecting obesogenic environments: the development and application of a framework for identifying and prioritizing environmental interventions for obesity. Prev Med. Article CAS Google Scholar. Kim D, Kawachi I: Food taxation and pricing strategies to "thin out" the obesity epidemic.

Am J Prev Med. Article Google Scholar. Brownell KD, Farley T, Willett WC, Popkin BM, Chaloupka FJ, Thompson JW, Ludwig DS: The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages.

N Engl J Med. Kuchler F, Tegene A, Harris M: Taxing snack foods: what to expect for diet and tax revenues. Agri Inf Bull. Google Scholar. Giesen JC, Payne CR, Havermans RC, Jansen A: Exploring how calorie information and taxes on high-calorie foods influence lunch decisions.

The Am J Clin Nutr. Cash SB, Sunding DL, Zilberman D: Fat taxes and thin subsidies: prices, diet, and health outcomes.

Acta Agriculture Scand Section C.