executive summary · web viewthe nuttab 20101 database and nutrient reference values for australia...

AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to the many people, who have assisted in the production of this report, including:

store managers

managers of supermarkets and local corner stores

nutrition teams

community members

Northern Territory Health 2019.

This publication is copyright. The information in this report may be freely copied and distributed for non-profit purposes such as study, research, health service management and public information subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source. Reproduction for other purposes requires the written permission of the Chief Executive of the Department of Health, Northern Territory.

An electronic version is available at: www.health.nt.gov.au.

General enquiries about this publication should be directed to:

Director, Health Improvement

Northern Territory Health

PO Box 40596 Casuarina NT 0811

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

1 Executive summary..................................................................................................................21.1 Survey results - 2017...........................................................................................................2

1.2 Survey results – Trend Data 2000 – 2017...........................................................................22 Background and history...........................................................................................................3

2.1 Food baskets used in the MBS............................................................................................32.2 Additional survey information...............................................................................................3

3 Results for 2017 survey............................................................................................................53.1 Store characteristics............................................................................................................5

3.2 Variety and quality of fresh fruit and vegetables..................................................................63.3 Food basket costs................................................................................................................8

3.4 Cost compared to 2016 survey..........................................................................................114 Comparison of surveys, 2000 to 2017...................................................................................12

4.1 Store characteristics..........................................................................................................124.2 Food variety and quality.....................................................................................................13

4.3 Price comparisons.............................................................................................................155 Discussion...............................................................................................................................19

5.1 External influences on the survey......................................................................................195.2 Store characteristics..........................................................................................................19

5.3 Fruit and vegetable variety................................................................................................195.4 Basket costs......................................................................................................................20

5.5 Limitations of the survey....................................................................................................216 Summary..................................................................................................................................227 Appendix A: List of foods in the HFB and CDB...................................................................238 Appendix B: 2017 Market Basket Survey by district and food group................................249 Appendix C: 2017 Market Basket Survey by district and community................................2510 References...............................................................................................................................28

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Page 1 of

1 Executive summary

1.1 Survey results - 2017 The 2017 Market Basket Survey (MBS) is the eighteenth annual survey of remote stores in the

Northern Territory (NT).

Seventy-one remote stores were surveyed between August and October 2017; a supermarket and corner store in the major town/city in each of the district centres were also surveyed for comparison.

A Healthy Food Basket (HFB) and Current Diet Basket (CDB) were priced in each of the stores. The HFB is based on foods recommended in the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating, the CDB is based on the most recent survey of dietary patterns of Aboriginal* people in Australia. Both baskets contained sufficient food to feed a hypothetical family of six for a fortnight. 2017 is the second year the CDB has been included.

The average cost of the CDB was higher than the HFB in all districts and all store types.

The CDB was 8% higher in remote stores ($920 compared to $854), 4% higher in corner stores ($729 compared to $699) and 23% higher in district centre supermarkets ($658 compared to $535) compared to the HFB.

On average, the HFB in remote stores was 60% more expensive than in the district centre supermarkets and 22% higher than the average of the district centre corner stores.

On average, the CDB in remote stores was 40% more expensive than in the district centre supermarkets and 26% higher than the average of the district centre corner stores.

Compared to 2016, the average cost of the HFB increased by 2% in remote stores and decreased by 12% in district centre supermarkets.

62% of people employed in remote community stores were Aboriginal*.

81% of fresh fruits and 80% of fresh vegetables were rated to be of ‘good’ quality.

On average 96% of items in the HFB were available, or usually available, in the remote stores surveyed.

1.2 Survey results – Trend Data 2000 – 2017 In remote stores, there has been an increase in the average number of varieties of fresh fruit

and vegetables from 2000 to 2017. The average number of varieties of fresh vegetables available was highest in 2017 when there was an average of 18 varieties available.

On average, the cost of the HFB has risen annually by 3.5% in remote stores and 2.3% in district centre supermarkets. The average consumer price index over this period was 2.8%.

* Throughout this document the term Aboriginal should be taken to include Torres Strait Islander people.


2 Background and historyIn 1995 the then Northern Territory (NT) Department of Health and Community Services released the NT Food and Nutrition Policy. One of the strategies identified in this policy was to develop a tool to monitor food cost, availability, variety and quality in remote community stores as the community store is a major contributor to the food supply in remote communities. The tool developed was the Market Basket Survey (MBS), the first survey of a sample of remote stores was conducted in 1998 and the first Territory wide survey was done in 2000.

2.1 Food baskets used in the MBSMarket Basket Surveys 2000 – 2015 Surveys conducted during this period priced a basket of foods that would meet the average energy and recommended nutrient needs of a hypothetical family of six for a fortnight. The family was chosen to represent a cross-section of people who have different nutrient requirements because of their age and sex. The family consists of:

a grandmother aged 60 years,

a man aged 35 years,

a woman aged 33 years,

a male aged 14 years,

a girl aged eight years, and

a boy aged four years.

The NUTTAB 20101 database and Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand2 were used to determine the quantities of each food in the basket required to provide 95% of the family’s energy requirements and 100% of selected nutrient* requirements for a fortnight.

Information on food costs collected during this period showed food was more expensive in remote stores than district centre stores and the cost of food increased each year from 2000 to 2015. Details are available in previously published surveys3. Whilst data from these surveys was valuable, similar results were found each year and it was felt that opportunity existed for the survey to provide more extensive information.

Market Basket Surveys 2016 - 2017In 2016, the cost of a wider range of foods was collected to enable the comparison of two baskets, a Healthy Food Basket (HFB) and a Current Diet Basket (CDB). The HFB is based on recommendations for number of serves of food from each of the food groups detailed in the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating4. The CDB is based on information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics5 on the average diet Aboriginal people in Australia consumed in 2012-13. It contains both healthy and unhealthy foods. Both baskets contain sufficient food to feed the family of six described above for a fortnight. Details of the foods contained in the HFB and CDB are contained in Appendix A.

2.2 Additional survey information In addition to collecting information on cost, the MBS also collects information on store management, employment of Aboriginal people and existence of a store nutrition policy.

As part of the survey, a major supermarket and corner store in each of the district centres are surveyed so urban and remote store prices can be compared. The corner store is a small suburban supermarket that provides a benchmark store with a similar buying power to the remote stores.

* Nutrients selected were those used in modelling for the development of the current Australian Guide to Healthy Eating.6


Figure 1: Location of stores surveyed and cost of food basket in each district

Darwin

Nhulunbuy

Katherine

TennantCreek

Alice Springs

District CentreCommunity Surveyed

Legend

Healthy Food Basket $541Current Diet Basket $653

Healthy Food Basket $510Current Diet Basket $633

Healthy Food Basket $554Current Diet Basket $688 Supermarket:

Supermarket:

Supermarket:

71 remote storeswere surveyedacross the NT

District remotestore average

Darwin districtHealthy Food Basket $843Current Diet Basket $913

East Arnhem districtHealthy Food Basket $816Current Diet Basket $920

Katherine districtHealthy Food Basket $851Current Diet Basket $925

Alice Springs districtHealthy Food Basket $870Current Diet Basket $923

Barkly districtNo stores surveyed


3 Results for 2017 survey71 remote stores were surveyed between August and October 2017, results are shown below.

3.1 Store characteristicsTable 1:Ownership/Management characteristics by district, remote stores, 2017

Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Katherine Total remote stores

Ownership*Owned and managed by community or Aboriginal corporation

14 7 0 1 22

Privately owned 8 4 1 3 16Owned by store group (e.g. ALPA)

0 1 3 0 4

Managed by store group (e.g. Outback Stores, ALPA)

8 5 4 8 25

Leased from community 0 0 0 1 1Other/Not recorded 2 1 0 0 3Management characteristics

Store committee 22 11 7 8 48Nutrition policy 12 11 7 8 38Number of stores 32 18 8 13 71

31% (22) of stores were owned and managed by the community or a local Aboriginal corporation.

41% (29) of stores were either owned or managed by a store group [e.g. Arnhem Land Progress Association (ALPA) and Outback Stores].

23% (16) of stores were privately owned.

68% (48) of stores had a store committee.

54% (38) of stores stated they had a nutrition policy.

Table 2:Store Licensing* by district, remote stores, 2017

Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Katherine Total remote stores

Licensed 19 13 6 11 49Not licensed 1 3 0 2 6Not recorded/unknown 12 2 2 16Number of stores 32 18 8 13 71

69% (49) of stores were licensed by the Australian Government, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

* Federal legislation (Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012) requires most remote community stores in the NT to be licensed operate.


Table 3:Employment characteristics by store ownership and management, remote stores, 2017

Owned and managed by

community or Aboriginal

corporation

Privately owned/

Leased from Community

Owned by store group (e.g. ALPA)

Managed by store group

(e.g. Outback Stores, ALPA)

Other/not recorded

All remote stores

Number stores with Aboriginal employees

21 6 4 25 2 58

Number of Aboriginal employees

144 15 100 202 13 474

Total employees 254 97 114 267 34 766Percent Aboriginal employees 57% 15% 88% 76% 38% 62%

Number of stores 22 17 4 25 3 71

62% of employees in the remote stores surveyed were Aboriginal.

The proportion of Aboriginal employees was highest in stores owned (88%) or managed (76%) by a store group (e.g. ALPA and Outback Stores).

3.2 Variety and quality of fresh fruit and vegetablesIn this survey, variety is defined as a type of fruit or vegetable (e.g. apple or capsicum). If different options are found (e.g. red and green capsicum) they are counted as one variety.

Table 4: Number of varieties of fresh fruit and vegetables by district, remote stores, 2017

Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Katherine All remote stores

Average number of fresh fruit varieties

9 16 13 12 12

Range 1 - 21 5 - 27 7 - 17 3 - 19 1 - 27Average number of fresh vegetable varieties

13 25 22 17 18

Range 2 - 30 12 - 37 19 - 28 6 - 28 2 - 37Number of stores 32 18 8 13 71

On average there were 12 varieties of fresh fruit and 18 varieties of fresh vegetables in remote stores.


Table 5: Number of varieties of vegetables (fresh, frozen, canned) by subgroups* by district, remote stores, 2017

Alice Springs

Darwin East Arnhem

Katherine All remote stores

Average number of green and brassica vegetable varieties 5 9 9 6 7

Range 2 - 10 5 - 11 7 - 10 3 - 10 2 - 11Average number of orange vegetable varieties 2 2 2 2 2

Range 2 - 2 2 - 2 2 – 2 2 - 2 2 - 2Average number of starchy vegetable varieties 3 3 3 3 3

Range 2 - 4 2 - 4 3 - 3 2 - 3 2 - 4Average number of other vegetable varieties 12 20 18 15 15

Range 6 - 21 12 - 29 14 - 24 10 - 23 6 - 29Number of stores 32 18 8 13 71

At least one variety of vegetables (fresh, frozen or canned) were available for all vegetable subgroups in all districts as shown in the table above.

Table 6:Quality# of fresh fruit by district and remote stores, 2017

Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Katherine All remote Stores

Good 81% 74% 82% 93% 81%Fair 17% 12% 17% 5% 13%Poor 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%Rotten - - - - -Not rated - 13% - - 4%

Table 7:Quality# of fresh vegetables by district, remote stores, 2017Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Katherine All remote

storesGood 84% 76% 77% 87% 80%Fair 15% 15% 21% 12% 15%Poor - 1% 2% 1% 1%Rotten - - - 1% -Not rated - 9% - - 3%

Overall, 81% of fresh fruit and 80% of fresh vegetables were rated to be of ‘good’ quality on the day of survey.

Katherine remote stores had the highest proportion of ‘good’ fresh fruit and ‘good’ fresh vegetables on the day of survey.

* Vegetable subgroups were adopted from the food modelling system used to inform the revision of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating.7

# Rating quality of fresh food is difficult and dependent on the opinion of those undertaking the survey. Descriptive tables were included in the survey sheets to help reduce the variance amongst those undertaking the survey.


3.3 Food basket costsIn order to compare the cost of the food basket between stores, it is sometimes necessary to establish a price for items not in stock on the day of the survey, or not carried by the store. If the item is not in stock, its usual price is used. If the item is not carried by the store, the average price of that item in other remote stores in the same district is used instead.

Table 8:Usual availability of HFB (CDB) items by district, remote stores, 2017

Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Katherine All remote stores

Average availability of prices of items in food basket

94%(93%)

98%(97%)

97%(97%)

96%(94%)

96%(95%)

Range 73 - 100%(67 -100%)

90 - 100%(92 – 100%)

93-100%(94 – 100%)

83- 100%(72 -100%)

73 - 100%(67 – 100%)

Number of stores with 100% of items

16(9)

12(8)

3(2)

9(7)

40(26)

Number of stores 32 18 8 13 71

On average 96% of items in the HFB and 95% of items in the CDB were available or usually available in remote stores.

56% (40) of the 71 remote stores had, or usually had, all the items in the HFB available in their store.

Figure 2: Cost of the food baskets by district and type of store, 2017

Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Katherine NT average0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Remote HFB Remote CDB Supermarket HFB Supermarket CDBDistrict

Cos

t of b

aske

t ($)


Table 9:Cost# of food baskets by district and type of store, 2017Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Katherine Average

SupermarketHealthy food basket $541 $510 $554 - $535Current diet basket $653 $633 $688 - $658

Corner storeHealthy food basket $691 $707 - $699Current diet basket $747 $711 - $729

Remote storesHealthy food basket

(range)$870

($699-$1,174)$843

($756-$935)$816

($751-$862)$851

($743-$1,206)$854

($699-$1,206)Current diet basket

(range)$923

($819-$1153)$913

($829-$1,008)$920

($876-$949)$925

($826-$1,210)$920

($819-$1210)

Supermarket

East Arnhem had the most expensive supermarket for both the HFB and CDB ($554 and $688 respectively) and Darwin had the cheapest ($510 and $633 respectively).

Remote stores

The Alice Springs district had the most expensive HFB ($870) and the Katherine district had the most expensive CDB ($925).

East Arnhem was the least expensive district for the HFB ($816) and the Darwin district had the least expensive CDB ($913).

The HFB in remote stores was 22% higher than the district centre corner stores ($854 compared to $699) and 60% higher than the district centre supermarkets ($854 compared to $535).

The CDB in remote stores was 26% higher than the district centre corner stores ($920 compared to $729) and 40% higher than the district centre supermarkets ($920 compared to $658).

HFB vs CDB

The CDB was more expensive than the HFB in all districts and store types.

The CDB was 8% higher in remote stores ($920 compared to $854), 4% higher in corner stores ($729 compared to $699) and 23% higher in district centre supermarkets ($658 compared to $535) compared to the HFB.

# Due to rounding of numbers the sum of food groups does not equal the total basket cost in some instances in Table 9.


Table 10: Percentage difference in the cost of the food groups in the basket between remote stores and district centre supermarket, by district, 2017

Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Katherine Average (remote

stores and district centre

supermarkets) Bread & cereals

Healthy food basketCurrent diet basket

51%42%

65%56%

76%84%

District centre supermarket not surveyed

63%58%

FruitHealthy food basketCurrent diet basket

71%73%

82%83%

43%52%

72%76%

VegetablesHealthy food basketCurrent diet basket

23%20%

29%30%

12%16%

28%30%

Meat & alternativeHealthy food basketCurrent diet basket

111%73%

83%99%

48%58%

80%68%

Dairy Healthy food basketCurrent diet basket

67%77%

75%83%

62%61%

69%74%

TakeawayHealthy food basketCurrent diet basket

-34%0%

-20%0%

-59%1%

-38%-3%

Other foodsHealthy food basketCurrent diet basket

53%111%

50%72%

110%51%

60%76%

Total basketHealthy food basketCurrent diet basket

63%40%

65%44%

47%34%

60%40%

On average, the cost of the HFB was 60% higher in remote stores than in district centre supermarkets.

On average, the cost of the CDB was 40% higher in remote stores than in district centre supermarkets.

Alice Springs remote stores had the most expensive HFB, being 71% more expensive than the Darwin supermarket.

East Arnhem remote stores had the least expensive CDB, being 28% more expensive than the Darwin supermarket.

The ‘takeaway’ portion of the HFB was cheaper in all districts than in the Darwin supermarket.

Detailed results of the 2017 survey can be found in Appendix B.


3.4 Cost compared to 2016 survey Table 11: Variation in the cost of the food groups in the HFB and CDB by district, remote stores, 2016 to 2017

Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Katherine Remote store average

HFB CDB HFB CDB HFB CDB HFB CDB HFB CDBBread & cereals -1% 1% 2% 7% 1% 2% <1% -3% <1% 2%Fruit 3% 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% 16% 16% 6% 6%Vegetables 9% 10% 10% 8% 2% 6% 6% 3% 7% 6%Meat & alternative -3% 2% 2% 2% -2% <-1% -5% 3% -2% 2%Dairy 1% 2% 2% 1% -7% -4% 19% 19% 3% 4%Takeaway foods -22% -1% 8% -1% 10% -3% -7% 3% -10% 0%Other -13% 1% 25% 8% 12% 6% -3% 5% -3% 3%Total basket 1% 2% 5% 3% -1% -1% 6% 5% 2% 3%

From 2016 to 2017

The cost of the HFB and CDB increased by 2% and 3% respectively in remote stores.

Katherine remote stores had the largest increase in the cost of the HFB (6%) and CDB (5%).

The ‘vegetable’ portion of the HFB had the greatest cost increase (7%).

The ‘takeaway’ portion of the HFB had the greatest cost decrease (-10%).

Table 12: Variation in the cost of the food groups in the HFB and CDB by district, supermarkets, 2016 to 2017

Alice Springs Darwin East Arnhem Supermarket average HFB CDB HFB CDB HFB CDB HFB CDB

Bread & cereals -14% -12% -35% -27% -27% -37% -25% -23%Fruit 3% 4% -42% -43% -23% -24% -17% -18%Vegetables <1% 1% -9% -4% -13% -14% -6% -4%Meat & alternative -28% -10% -24% -24% -13% -13% -18% -13%Dairy 22% 18% <-1% -14% -4% <1% 3% <1%Takeaway foods -26% 3% -8% 30% 24% 2% <-1% 14%Other -9% -22% 74% -16% -42% -25% 1% -18%Total basket -6% -3% -21% -10% -16% -12% -12% -5%

From 2016 to 2017

The total cost of the HFB and CDB decreased in all district supermarkets.

The average decrease in the HFB and CDB district centre supermarkets was 12% and 5% respectively.

The largest decrease was in the HFB in the Darwin supermarket (-21%).

The ‘bread and cereal’ portion of the basket reduced the most in both the HFB and CDB.

The ‘dairy’ portion of the basket was the only portion to increase in both the HFB and CDB.


4 Comparison of surveys, 2000 to 2017

4.1 Store characteristics Figure 3: Store governance and employment characteristics in remote stores from 2000-2017

Table 13: Store governance and employment characteristics in remote stores from 2000-2017

Year % with store committee % with nutrition policy % Aboriginal employees Number stores surveyed2000 48% 23% 60% 562001 46% 22% 58% 532002 46% 14% 57% 702003 57% 15% 58% 612004 52% 20% 61% 602005 61% 26% 62% 662006 54% 27% 60% 742007 55% 28% 64% 672008 50% 33% 64% 662009 70% 49% 60% 652010 68% 47% 63% 762011 79% 58% 66% 732012 66% 54% 64% 822013 63% 58% 62% 722014 62% 51% 62% 792015 67% 59% 62% 812016 69% 57% 58% 672017 68% 54% 62% 71

The percentage of stores with a store committee was highest in 2011 (79%).

There was a marked increase in the percentage of stores with a nutrition policy in the 2009 survey. This was sustained in subsequent surveys.


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20170

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Store committee Nutrition policy Indigenous employees

Year

Per

cent

age

The percent of Aboriginal employees has been varied little from 2000 to 2017.

4.2 Food variety and qualityFigure 4: Average number of varieties of fresh fruit and vegetables, remote stores, 2000 – 2017

Overall, since 2000 there has been an increase in the average number of varieties of fresh vegetables available in remote stores. The average number of varieties of fresh fruit available was highest in 2014, 2016 and 2017 when there was an average of 12 varieties available. The average number of varieties of fresh vegetables available was highest in 2017 when there was an average of 18 varieties available.

Figure 5: Percentage of fresh fruit and vegetables rated as ‘good’, remote stores, 2000–2017

Whilst there was a decrease in the proportion of fresh fruit and vegetables rated to be of ‘good’ quality in the 2012, 2013 and 2015 surveys.


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 201750

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Fruit VegetablesYear

'Goo

d' Q

ualit

y (%

)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20170

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Fruit VegetablesYear

Ave

rage

Num

ber o

f Cho

ices

Figure 6: Average number of varieties of selected foodstuffs available, remote stores, 2000-2017

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20170

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bread, high fibre Breakfast cereals Canned vegetablesFrozen vegetables (not chips) Lean meat Meat & vegetable meals

Year

Ave

rage

num

ber o

f var

ietie

s

Table 14: Average number of varieties of selected foodstuffs available, remote stores, 2000-2017

YearBread, high

fibreBreakfast

cerealsCanned

vegetables

Frozen vegetables (not chips) Lean meat

Meat & vegetable

meals2000 0.9 2.6 6.8 3.3 2.5 4.82001 1.4 3.0 7.8 4.6 2.7 5.12002 1.3 2.7 7.8 4.0 2.6 5.22003 1.2 2.7 8.2 4.6 2.6 6.02004 1.5 3.0 8.3 4.8 3.4 6.62005 1.6 2.9 9.4 5.9 3.6 6.52006 1.8 2.7 8.1 5.0 3.5 6.32007 1.9 3.1 9.0 5.7 4.3 6.22008 2.0 3.3 8.9 5.2 3.8 6.22009 2.6 3.5 8.3 5.5 4.7 7.32010 2.5 3.4 8.5 6.2 5.2 7.52011 2.5 3.5 10.2 6.1 4.9 7.22012 2.5 3.2 10.1 5.9 4.7 7.92013 2.5 3.9 9.6 5.8 5.1 6.82014 2.7 3.9 9.7 6.3 5.2 7.32015 2.7 3.9 9.7 6.5 5.6 8.02016 2.8 4.7 10.4 6.6 5.6 8.12017 3.1 4.7 10.3 6.6 5.0 8.7

Overall, the average number of varieties of all the foods has shown an increase in remote stores from 2000 to 2017.

The average numbers of varieties of all the foodstuffs shown above were the highest in the 2016 survey. There was further increase in average number of varieties of high fibre breads, and meat and vegetable meals and a decrease in lean meats available in 2017.


4.3 Price comparisonsAs discussed previously, a number of new food items were added to the survey in 2016 to enable the calculation of the CDB. As these products were not included in prior surveys, comparison of the CDB is not possible. Data shown below is therefore for the HFB only.

Figure 7: Average cost of the HFB, store type, 2000–2017

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017250300350400450500550600650700750800850900

Remote store average Corner store average Supermarket average

Year

Ave

rage

Cos

t ($)

Table 15: Average cost of the HFB, store type, 2000–2017

Year Supermarket average Corner store average Remote store average2000 $364 $420 $4742001 $392 $436 $4972002 $422 $482 $5152003 $442 $521 $5382004 $469 $502 $5522005 $437 $537 $5512006 $501 $575 $5972007 $509 $540 $6192008 $558 $653 $6592009 $548 $677 $6952010 $522 $695 $7102011 $571 $704 $7642012 $510 $687 $7252013 $532 $725 $7332014 $517 $680 $7702015 $565 $680 $7822016 $606* $710 $8332017 $535* $699 $854Average annual increase# 2.3% 3.0% 3.5%

The average annual increase ranged from 2.3% in district centre supermarkets to 3.5% in remote stores.

* Barkly supermarket not surveyed, historically Barkly supermarket has been more expensive than other supermarkets.# Average increase = [((final value/initial value) 1/number years)-1]x100.


Figure 8: Cost of the HFB, remote stores compared with NT supermarkets, 2000 – 2017

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Supermarket average Remote store Percentage difference

Year

Ave

rage

cos

t ($)

Diff

eren

ce (%

)

Table 16: Cost of the HFB, remote stores compared with NT supermarkets, 2000 – 2017

Year Supermarket average Remote store average* Percentage difference2000 $364 $474 30%2001 $392 $497 27%2002 $422 $515 22%2003 $442 $538 22%2004 $469 $552 18%2005 $437 $551 26%2006 $501 $597 19%2007 $509 $619 22%2008 $558 $659 18%2009 $548 $695 27%2010 $522 $710 36%2011 $571 $764 34%2012 $510 $725 42%2013 $532 $733 38%2014 $517 $770 49%2015 $565 $782 38%2016 $606* $833 38%*2017 $535* $854 60%*

* Barkly supermarket not surveyed in 2016, both Barkly supermarket and Katherine supermarket were not surveyed in 2017, historically these supermarket has been more expensive than other supermarkets.

The cost difference between remote stores and the district centre supermarkets was least in 2004 and 2008, when the HFB cost 18% more in remote stores.

The cost difference between remote stores and the district centre supermarkets was the highest in 2017 when the HFB cost 60% more in remote stores. However the Barkly and Katherine supermarkets were not able to be surveyed in 2017. Historically these supermarkets have been more expensive than other supermarkets, which may account for some of the observed difference.


Figure 9: Cost of the HFB compared with projected cost of the HFB with annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, remote stores and district centre supermarkets, 2000 - 2017

Table 17: Cost of the HFB compared with projected cost of the HFB with annual CPI increases, remote stores and district centre supermarkets, 2000 – 2017

Year Remote stores average*

Remote stores plus CPI percent

increase

Supermarket average

Supermarket average plus CPI percent

increase

Consumer Price Index

2000 $474 - $364 -2001 $497 $502 $392 $386 6.0%2002 $515 $517 $422 $397 2.9%2003 $538 $533 $442 $409 3.1%2004 $552 $546 $469 $419 2.4%2005 $551 $559 $437 $429 2.4%2006 $597 $577 $501 $443 3.2%2007 $619 $594 $509 $456 2.9%2008 $659 $614 $558 $471 3.4%2009 $695 $633 $548 $486 3.1%2010 $710 $652 $522 $501 3.1%2011 $764 $676 $571 $519 3.6%2012 $725 $684 $510 $525 1.2%2013 $733 $700 $532 $538 2.4%2014 $770 $721 $517 $554 3.0%2015 $782 $732 $565 $562 1.5%2016 $833 $740 $606* $568 1.0%2017 $854 $754 $535# $579 1.9%Average annual increase* 3.5% 2.8% 2.3% 2.8% 2.8%

(average)

In remote stores the actual cost of the HFB has been higher than the projected cost of the HFB using annual CPI8 rates, from 2006 to 2017.

In the district centre supermarkets the actual cost tended to be above projected cost between 2005 and 2011 and in 2016.

*average increase = [(final value/initial value)1/number years]-1.


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017250

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

Remote stores average Remote stores plus CPI Supermarket averageSupermarket average plus CPI

Year

Ave

rage

Cos

t ($)

Figure 10: Cost of food groups in the HFB in remote stores, 2000 – 2017

20002001 200220032004 20052006 20072008 200920102011 20122013 20142015 20162017 $-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Breads and cereals Fruit VegetablesMeat and Alternative Dairy TakeawayOther

Year

Ave

rage

Cos

t ($)

Table 18: Cost of food groups in the HFB in remote stores, 2000-2017*

Year Bread & cereals Fruit Vegetables Meat & alternative Dairy Takeaway Other2000 $68 $92 $101 $122 $922001 $72 $98 $110 $129 $892002 $74 $98 $106 $140 $972003 $79 $97 $111 $148 $1032004 $81 $104 $113 $153 $1012005 $82 $101 $112 $155 $1012006 $85 $120 $127 $165 $1012007 $92 $118 $132 $170 $1072008 $95 $124 $137 $182 $1222009 $97 $131 $140 $182 $1452010 $96 $119 $143 $200 $1512011 $99 $165 $148 $201 $1512012 $101 $130 $142 $201 $1502013 $109 $133 $149 $186 $1562014 $108 $145 $162 $192 $1632015 $109 $142 $163 $211 $1572016 $111 $141 $167 $225 $169 $4* $3*2017 $111 $150 $179 $221 $175 $16* $15*

A large increase is evident in the cost of the ‘fruit’ portion of the basket from 2010 to 2011, this was mostly due to a spike in the price of bananas as a result of a cyclone destroying banana plantations in Queensland.

* A price for the ‘takeaway’ and ‘other foods’ portions of the basket were not available prior to 2016.


5 DiscussionThe 2017 MBS is the eighteenth annual survey of remote community stores in the Northern Territory. The 2017 survey was the second survey to enable the comparison of the cost of a basket of foods that represents the current dietary patterns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with an ideal, or ‘healthy’, basket of foods.

5.1 External influences on the surveySince the MBS was first conducted in 2000, the Australian Government has introduced two initiatives that have the potential to impact on results of this survey.

Outback Stores - In 2007 the Australian Government established Outback Stores, a company set up to manage stores on behalf of remote communities to ensure their commercial viability and a reliable supply of healthy, affordable food. In this survey Outback Stores managed 21% (15) of the remote stores surveyed.

Licensing of remote stores - In late 2007 the Australian Government commenced licensing of remote stores to improve both the management of stores and the quality of food they provide, in 2012 the licensing of stores was incorporated into legislation through the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act. As a result stores in NT remote indigenous communities in this survey are required to be licensed, some stores in more accessible areas (e.g. in small towns on major highways) are not required to be licensed. As part of licensing conditions stores are expected to have a reasonable range of groceries and consumer items, including healthy food and drinks. In this survey 69% (49) of the remote stores were licensed.

The introduction of both stores licensing and Outback Stores, is likely to have had an impact on some of the information monitored through this survey since 2007.

5.2 Store characteristicsThe local store is an important source of employment for people living in remote communities. ALPA and Outback Stores both have a policy of employing local Aboriginal people to work in their stores. The proportion of Aboriginal employees was higher in stores owned (88%) or managed (76%) by a store group (e.g. ALPA and Outback Stores) than in other stores. Information was not collected on the type of employment (e.g. full time, part time or casual).

There was a marked increase in the percentage of stores with a Store Committee and/or Nutrition Policy from 2009 (Figure 3), since then this has been maintained at the 2009 level. It is likely this is due to the introduction of stores licensing and/or an increase in the number of stores managed by Outback Stores.

5.3 Fruit and vegetable varietyThere is strong evidence to suggest an adequate intake of vegetables has a protective effect against cardiovascular disease and recent research has strengthened the evidence of the beneficial effects of various non-starchy vegetables in reducing risk of some site-specific cancers.9 The National Health Survey (2017-18) reports only 7.5% of Australians have an adequate daily intake of vegetables.10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the NT are less likely to have an adequate intake of vegetables, with only 3% reporting an adequate intake in the 2012-13 Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey.11

There is also strong evidence that including fruit in the diet is protective against cardiovascular disease and there is a protective effect against a number of chronic diseases when vegetables and fruit have been studied together. The National Health Survey (2017-18) and Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey (2012-13) report 49% of Australian and 47% of NT


Aboriginal adults are not having recommended serves of fruit daily.10;11

For these reasons there is a focus on data regarding fruit and vegetable quality and variety in this survey. Whilst there are no recommendations as to the number of varieties of vegetables that should be available in remote stores, a diet including daily consumption of a variety of vegetables, including different types and colours and legumes/beans is recommended.9 In a technical document produced to inform the revision of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGTHE), the authors divide the ‘vegetable and legumes’ group into five sub-groups (green and brassica, orange vegetables, starchy vegetables, other vegetables and legumes) in recognition of the variability in energy and nutrient content across this group.7 This classification was therefore adopted in this survey to assess the adequacy of the range of vegetables available in remote stores. The authors of the AGTHE revision document did not feel it necessary to divide fruit into subgroups and as there is no evidence of health advantages of specific subgroups of fruits, the fruit group was not divided into subgroups for further analysis in this report.

Survey results indicate there has been an increase in the average number of varieties of fresh fruit and vegetables available in remote stores since 2000 (Figure 6). The data also suggests people living in remote areas have access to vegetables from each of the vegetable subgroupings in their local store.

Positive trends are emerging from the MBS results, particularly regarding the availability and variety of some healthy foods. For example, the number of varieties of fresh fruit and vegetables were maintained at high levels in remote stores from 2000 to 2016.

5.4 Basket costsHealthy diet costs compared to current diet costs

The CDB basket was more expensive than the HFB in all store types and all districts in this survey suggesting a healthy diet is less expensive than the current diet consumed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Whilst the CDB contains both healthy and unhealthy foods, the most expensive portion of the CDB was the ‘takeaway’ portion which contains only discretionary (unhealthy) foods. These findings are similar to those of Lee et al12 who found ‘healthy diets can be more affordable than current (unhealthy) diets in Australia’. Lee et al used a similar methodology. but costed a more comprehensive range of foods and included alcohol in the current (unhealthy) diet.

Other studies have had different findings and it is commonly cited that healthier foods are more expensive than less healthy foods. A report by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) investigated different measures of costing healthy foods compared to unhealthy foods and concluded healthy foods cost more than unhealthy foods if measured on the basis of energy (cost/calorie). However healthy foods cost less than unhealthy foods if measured on the basis of edible weight (cost/100 edible grams) or average portion (cost/average portion).13

The 2017 MBS compared the cost of a healthy basket to the current diet (mostly unhealthy) using serve sizes, so findings are consistent with the USDA report, findings may have been different if the baskets of food were compared on the cost per calorie.

Food basket costs in remote stores compared to district centres

In 2017, the average cost of the HFB and CDB in remote stores were 60% and 40% higher than the average of district centre supermarkets baskets. This is the highest difference in cost of the HFB between remote stores and the district centre supermarkets in any of the years surveyed. However the district centre supermarkets in Katherine and Tennant Creek (Barkly district) were not able to be surveyed in 2017. These two supermarkets are historically more expensive than other supermarkets. The absence of these two supermarkets is likely to account for part of the increase in price difference in 2017.


The ‘takeaway’ portion of both the HFB and CDB was the only portion to be less in remote stores than the district centre supermarket average. The HFB contains only one takeaway item, bottled water, which is sold at a discounted price in many remote stores to encourage consumption of water rather than sugar sweetened beverages. This discount accounts for the lower cost of the ‘takeaway’ portion of the HFB in remote stores. The ‘takeaway’ portion was relatively high in the CDB in the East Arnhem district centre and unduly inflated the cost of the ‘takeaway’ portion of the CDB in the district centre average as data was only available for three district centres. This accounts for the higher ‘takeaway’ costs in district centres compared to remote stores.

Compared to 2016, the average cost of the HFB in 2017 increased by 2% in remote stores and decreased by 12% in district centre supermarkets. The decrease in the average cost of the HFB in district centre supermarkets is partly due the absence of surveys in Katherine and Tennant Creek as discussed above.

5.5 Limitations of the surveyWhen interpreting the results of this survey, a number of issues must be considered. These include the following:

A letter was sent to each store manager prior to the survey period informing them that their store would be surveyed in the coming months. Prior notice may have influenced store prices and availability of foods during the survey period.

The MBS measures the variety, quality and availability of some healthy food items; it makes no attempt to measure the quantities available or purchased.

The food basket contains a relatively small number of items (41). The prices of these items are then multiplied by varying amounts to provide the total cost in each of the food baskets. Therefore significant changes in the price of one or two items may have an unduly inflated effect on the total cost of the basket. An example of this occurred in 2006 and 2011 when banana crops in Queensland were destroyed by tropical cyclones, resulting in an increase in the price of bananas. As a result, the cost of the ‘fruit’ portion of the basket in NT supermarkets increased by 45% in 1996 and 68% in 2011, compared to the preceding years.

The 2017 survey was conducted over a three month period. During this time frame there is the potential for variation in the prices of fresh fruit and vegetables. To reduce the impact of this variation surveyors are encouraged to conduct the district centre supermarket surveys in the middle of the survey period as these stores are used as a benchmark.

When conducting the survey, surveyors are asked to record the price of a particular brand and pack size for each item in the food basket. For occasions when the standard brand and pack size is not available, surveyors are provided a set of instructions on which alternative product to price (i.e. a different brand or pack size). Therefore on some occasions a larger or smaller pack size (of different brand) may be priced in a remote store compared to the district centre stores. This may have a notable impact on the price of the basket in some individual store reports; however the impact will be lessened with the aggregated data provided in this report.

Items in the food baskets are chosen from those that are commonly found in remote stores, this limits the occasions when the price for a substitute product is recorded and minimises inaccuracies in price comparisons between stores. It does however, limit the number of items that can be included in the survey, particularly as some stores are in small communities and stock a smaller range of foods than larger stores and supermarkets.

While efforts are made to include the same stores in the survey each year this is not always possible. For example in 2015 only one store in the Barkly district was able to be surveyed (as opposed to an average of six). Data from this store was therefore amalgamated with data from the Alice Springs district.


6 Summary71 remote stores were surveyed in the NT between August and October 2017. These surveys collected information on the cost of two baskets of foods, a ‘healthy’ basket and a basket that reflects current eating patterns (‘current’ diet). Both baskets contained sufficient food to feed a family of six for a fortnight. Information was also collected on the quality, variety and availability of a selection of healthy foods, and store management characteristics.

The 2017 survey found the CDB was, on average, 8% more expensive in remote stores than the HFB and the cost of the HFB was, on average, 60% higher in remote stores than in district centre supermarkets. The cost of the HFB increased by 2% in remote stores and decreased by 12% in district centre supermarkets between 2016 and 2017.

From 2000 to 2017, the cost of the HFB has risen by an average 3.5% annually in remote stores and 2.3% in district centre supermarkets. The average consumer price index increase over this period was 2.8%.


7 Appendix A: List of foods in the HFB and CDB

Healthy Food Basket Current diet - basketServe size

Volume in basket Number serves Volume in basket Number serves

Breads and Cereal Bread, white high fibre, iron enriched 40g 8400g 12 x 700g loaves 210 8400g 12 X 700g loaves 210Flour, white, plain 50g 4000g 4 x 1kg bags 80 4000g 4 x 1kg bags 80Weetbix 30g 1500g 4 X 375g packets 50 1125g 3 x 375g boxes 38Oats, rolled 30g 1000g 2 x 500g packets 33 0g - 0Rice, white 35g 2000g 2 X 1kg packet 57 0g - 02 minute noodles 26g 0g - 0 560g 8 x 70g packets 22Spaghetti in tomato & cheese sauce, canned 200g 840g 2 x 420g tins 4 840g 2 x 420g tins 4

Total serves 435 Total serves 353 Recommended number serves 434 Serves from ATSI Health survey 353

Fruits Apple, red 150g 4500g 30 apples 30 3150g 21 apples 21Orange, navel/valencia 150g 5075g 35 oranges 34 3045g 21 oranges 20Banana 150g 4340g 35 bananas 29 3100g 25 bananas 21Peach, canned in light syrup 150g 3280g 8 x 410g cans 22 3280g 8 x 410g cans 22Orange juice, 100% no added sugar 125ml 5000ml 5 x 1 litre bottles 40 4000ml 4 x 1 litre bottles 32

Total serves 155 Total serves 116Recommended number serves 154 Serves from ATSI Health survey 116

Vegetables

Tomato 75g 2000g 2kg 27 1000g 1 kg 13Potato, washed 75g 8000g 8kg 107 2500g 2.5kg 33Pumpkin 75g 3000g 3kg 40 500g 0.5kg 7Cabbage 75g 3000g 1 cabbage 40 750g 0.25 cabbage 10Carrots 75g 4000g 4kg 53 500g 0.5kg 7Onions, brown 75g 3000g 3kg 40 500g 0.5kg 7Peas and carrots, canned 75g 2520g 6 x 420g cans 34 1680g 4 x 420g cans 22Mixed vegetables, frozen 75g 3000g 6 x 500g packets 40 1500g 3 x 500g packets 20Tomatoes, canned 75g 2075g 5 x 415g cans 28 1245g 3 x 415g cans 17Baked beans, canned in tomato sauce* 150g 3080g 14 x 220g cans 21 0g - 0


Meat and alternatives Baked beans, canned in tomato sauce* 75g 3080g 14 x 220g cans 41 0g - 0Beef, corned, canned 65g 0g - 0 3060g 9 x 340g cans 47Meat and vegetable meal, canned 375g 4000g 10 X 400g cans 11 4000g 10 X 400g cans 11Beef mince (medium fat) 90g 6000g 6kg 67 2000g 2kg 22Sausages 90g 0g - 0 2000g 2kg 22Chicken drumsticks 90g 6000g 6kg 67 2500g 2.5kg 28Eggs 132g 792g 2 dozen 6 1400g 2 dozen 11


Dairy Milk, powdered, full cream 34g 3600g 9 X 400g packets 106 1600g 4 x 400g packets 47Milk, UHT, full cream 250ml 25000ml 25 x 1 litre cartons 100 12000ml 12 x 1 litre cartons 48Iced coffee, full cream 250ml 0ml - 0 2400ml 4 x 600ml cartons 10Cheese cheddar 40g 750g 3 x 250g packets 19 0g - 0


Other Margarine 0g - 500g 1 x 500g tub Sugar 0g - 5000g 5 x 1kg packet Oil, monounsaturated 2000ml 2 x 1 litre bottle 1000ml 1 x 1 litre bottle Scotch Finger biscuit 0g - 1500g 6 x 250g packets Cordial base 0g - 3000g 3 x 1 litre bottles Takeaway items Pie 0g - 2280g 12 x 190g pies Chips 0g - 2400g 16 x 150g buckets Coke 0g - 15000g 40 x 375ml cans Water 1200ml 2 x 600ml bottles 0ml -

Energy provided 645,980KJ 639,111KJ

*Baked beans have been counted in both ‘vegetable’ and ‘meat and alternatives’ groups

Page 23 of 29

8 Appendix B: 2017 Market Basket Survey by district and food groupAlice Springs Barkly Darwin East Arnhem Katherine NT Average

HFB CDB HFB CDB HFB CDB HFB CDB HFB CDB HFB CDBBread & cereals

Supermarket $73 $72 $68 $67 $64 $55 - - $68 $65Corner store

Remote stores$92

$111$87

$102$109$112

$93$105 $113 $102

-$111

-$99

$101$111

$90$102

Fruit -Supermarket $92 $71 $76 $59 $93 $70 - - $87 $67Corner store

Remote stores$111$158

$85$122

$117$139

$92$108 $132 $107

-$156

-$123

$114$150

$88$117

VegetablesSupermarket $152 $50 $140 $44 $126 $38 - - $139 $44Corner store


$42$60

$169$180

$53$57 $156 $51

-$171

-$54

$154$179

$48$57

Meat & alternativeSupermarket $107 $130 $107 $122 $154 $153 - - $123 $135Corner store


$186$226

$143$212

$153$223 $228 $240

-$216

-$227

$170$221

$170$227

DairySupermarket $102 $51 $102 $52 $105 $56 - - $103 $53Corner store


$71$91

$153$179

$76$94 $170 $91

-$181

-$95

$145$175

$74$92

TakeawaySupermarket $5 $241 $5 $240 $6 $264 - - $5 $248Corner store

Remote stores$3$3

$214$240

$5$4

$177$239 $2 $250

-$3

-$244

$4$3

$196$242

Other foodsSupermarket $10 $38 $12 $50 $7 $52 - - $9 $47Corner store

Remote stores$11$15

$62$81

$11$18

$67$86 $14 $78

-$13

-$83

$11$15

$64$83

Total basketSupermarket $541 $653 $510 $633 $555 $688 - - $535 $658Corner store $691 $747 $707 $711 - - $699 $730

Remote stores $870 $923 $843 $913 $816 $920 $851 $925 $854 $920

9 Appendix C: 2017 Market Basket Survey by district and communityAlice Springs

Store Ownership*

Nutrition policy

Store committee

Number Aboriginal staff

Number non Aboriginal staff

Healthy Food Basket

Current Diet Basket

Availability Fruit (fresh) variety

Fruit (fresh) quality Vegetable (fresh) variety

Vegetable (fresh) quality

Population

P No No 2 0 $1,174 $1,091 91% 1 1 good 8 6 good, 2 fair UnknownP No No 0 3 $1,144 $1,153 72% 4 4 good 10 10 good UnknownP No No 0 4 $1,086 $1,031 91% 7 6 good, 1 fair 13 10 good, 2 fair, 1 poor UnknownP No No 0 3 $1,051 $1,046 84% 6 5 good, 1 poor 7 5 good, 2 fair UnknownP Unknown No 0 3 $1,043 $1,017 78% 3 2 good, 1 fair 9 9 good UnknownC Yes No 0 1 $1,005 $1,076 75% 2 2 good 9 7 good, 1 fair, 1 poor 100-399C Unknown Yes 3 3 $962 $911 94% 10 8 good, 2 fair 17 3 good, 13 fair, 1 poor UnknownP No No 0 5 $900 $931 72% 5 2 good, 3 fair 5 5 good, 100-399C No Yes 6 9 $897 $1,018 94% 11 9 good, 2 fair 13 12 good, 1 fair 100-399C Unknown Yes 2 5 $884 $950 94% 11 9 good, 2 fair 23 23 good UnknownC No Yes 6 2 $881 $910 84% 9 8 good, 1 fair 15 15 good UnknownC No Yes 3 2 $869 $922 91% 6 2 good, 3 fair, 1 poor 13 8 good, 5 fair UnknownC Yes Yes 7 6 $858 $956 94% 10 9 good, 1 fair 18 17 good, 1 fair UnknownC Unknown Yes 2 4 $856 $954 84% 7 3 good, 1 fair, 3 poor 11 9 good, 2 fair 100-399C No Yes 6 2 $853 $885 94% 18 18 good 30 30 good 100-399C Unknown Unknown 3 1 $850 $924 94% 8 6 good, 2 fair 9 6 good, 3 fair UnknownC No Yes 3 1 $837 $874 84% 9 9 fair 4 4 good 800-1599P No No 1 2 $836 $860 91% 9 7 good, 2 fair 11 10 good, 1 fair 100-399C No Yes 2 2 $835 $863 69% 3 2 good, 1 fair 4 2 good, 1 fair, 1 poor 100-399MSG Yes Yes 1 1 $834 $908 94% 11 11 good 14 14 good 100-399P Yes No 0 3 $822 $849 69% 5 5 good 2 1 good, 1 fair 100-399O Unknown Yes 11 7 $810 $858 91% 8 7 good, 1 fair 14 13 good, 1 fair 400-799C No Yes 3 3 $794 $893 94% 13 11 good, 2 fair 12 12 good 100-399MSG Yes Yes 3 2 $781 $861 94% 12 7 good, 5 fair 13 7 good, 6 fair 100-399MSG Yes Yes 3 2 $779 $876 94% 11 11 good 16 15 good, 1 fair 100-399MSG Yes Yes 6 2 $765 $846 91% 16 14 good, 2 fair 13 11 good, 2 fair 100-399O Yes Yes 2 10 $758 $889 94% 14 12 good, 2 fair 25 24 good, 1 fair 800-1599MSG Yes Yes 5 2 $758 $850 94% 8 7 good, 1 fair 15 13 good, 2 fair 100-399MSG Yes Yes 5 1 $750 $836 94% 12 10 good, 2 fair 15 10 good, 5 fair 100-399C No Yes 13 14 $748 $842 94% 21 21 good 25 25 good UnknownMSG Yes Yes 3 1 $727 $823 94% 6 6 good 4 4 good 100-399MSG Yes Yes 11 2 $699 $819 94% 17 12 good, 5 fair 24 13 good, 11 fair 800-1599

Remote Stores Average 4 4 $870 $923 88% 9 13Supermarket $541 $653Corner Store $691 $747

*C = owned and managed by community or Aboriginal corporation, P = private, OSG = owned by store group, MSG = managed by store group, L = leased from community, O = other

Page 25 of 29

Darwin Store Ownership*

Nutrition policy

Store committee



Healthy Food Basket

Current Diet Basket



Vegetable (fresh) quality Population

MSG Yes Yes 25 3 $935 $958 94% 17 16 good, 1 fair 25 25 good 400-799P No No 0 10 $904 $880 88% 9 6 good, 3 fair 15 13 good, 2 fair 100-399 No No 0 4 $883 $857 94% 11 11 good 18 17 good, 1 fair 800-1599C Yes Yes 5 10 $880 $939 94% 20 15 good, 5 fair 30 19 good, 11 fair >=1600C Yes Yes 8 2 $875 $1,008 94% 13 12 good, 1 fair 21 19 good, 2 fair 400-799MSG Yes Yes 16 3 $857 $951 94% 27 18 good, 1 fair, 8 not

rated37 27 good, 5 fair, 1 poor,

4 poorUnknown

OSG Yes Yes 10 1 $856 $950 94% 18 13 good, 3 fair, 2 not rated

26 18 good, 7 fair, 1 poor Population Unknown

P Unknown Unknown 6 6 $856 $909 84% 14 6 good, 1 fair, 1 poor, rotten, 6 not rated

21 9 good, 1 fair, 11 poor 800-1599

MSG Yes Yes 6 4 $848 $887 94% 18 17 good, 1 fair 26 21 good, 5 fair, 800-1599MSG Yes No 8 1 $844 $948 94% 18 9 good, 7 fair, 1 poor,

1 rotten26 15 good, 8 fair, 3 poor 400-799

C Yes Unknown 2 3 $838 $942 84% 5 5 good 15 12 good, 3 fair 100-399P No No 0 2 $828 $908 94% 6 6 good 12 11 good, 1 fair 100-399C Yes Yes 30 7 $817 $887 94% 18 17 good, 1 fair 24 21 good, 3 fair 800-1599C Yes Yes 16 4 $814 $923 94% 21 7 good, 3 fair, 11 not

rated34 14 good, 4 fair, 16 poor 800-1599

C No Yes 6 22 $813 $895 91% 17 13 good, 4 not rated 26 23 good, 1 fair, 2 poor, >=1600MSG Yes Yes 12 3 $790 $925 94% 10 5 good, 5 fair 22 13 good, 9 fair 400-799

C No Yes 8 5 $787 $843 91% 20 13 good, 1 fair, 6 not rated

32 31 good, 1 fair >=1600

P No No 1 14 $756 $829 94% 21 20 good, 1 fair 37 30 good, 3 fair, 4 poor 800-1599

Remote Stores Average 9 6 $843 $913 92% 16 25

Supermarket $510 $633Corner Store $707 $711


Page 26 of 29

East Arnhem Store Ownership*

Nutrition policy

Store committee



Healthy Food Basket

Current Diet Basket




MSG Yes Yes 10 2 $862 $933 91% 11 8 good, 3 fair 19 18 good, 1 fair, 400-799OSG Yes Yes 26 4 $851 $949 91% 14 10 good, 3 fair, 1 poor 26 12 good, 12 fair, 2 poor, 800-1599OSG Yes Yes 31 4 $822 $945 94% 13 6 good, 7 fair 20 16 good, 4 fair 800-1599MSG Yes Yes 11 4 $821 $938 88% 12 12 good 20 19 good, 1 fair UnknownMSG Yes Yes 9 2 $821 $905 91% 15 15 good 20 20 good P Unknown Unknown 0 4 $804 $876 94% 11 11 good 26 23 good, 3 fair MSG Yes Yes 3 1 $796 $916 91% 7 6 good, 1 fair 19 17 good, 2 fair OSG Yes Yes 33 5 $751 $896 94% 17 14 good, 3 fair 28 12 good, 15 fair, 1 poor


Supermarket $554 $688

Katherine Store Ownership*

Nutrition policy

Store committee



Healthy Food Basket

Current Diet Basket




P No No 0 15 $1,206 $1,210 84% 11 10 good, 1 fair 6 5 good, 1 fair 100-399P No No 2 0 $1,003 $986 78% 3 1 good, 1 fair, 1 poor 11 5 good, 3 fair, 1 poor, 2

poor Unknown

L No No 3 0 $925 $960 78% 6 5 good, 1 fair 7 6 good, 1 fair 100-399P No No 0 8 $863 $935 94% 12 11 good, 1 fair 15 12 good, 2 fair, 1 poor 400-799C No No 10 2 $844 $897 91% 12 10 good, 2 poor 13 9 good, 4 fair 100-399MSG Yes Yes 4 3 $820 $902 94% 17 16 good, 1 fair 21 18 good, 3 fair 100-399MSG Yes Yes 4 1 $814 $922 94% 15 14 good, 1 fair 21 20 good, 1 fair UnknownMSG Yes Yes 15 3 $805 $885 94% 12 11 good, 1 fair 16 10 good, 6 fair 400-799MSG Yes Yes 7 0 $776 $853 94% 15 15 good 23 23 good 100-399MSG Yes Yes 13 6 $757 $826 94% 11 11 good 20 18 good, 2 fair 400-799MSG Yes Yes 5 10 $756 $871 94% 15 14 good, 1 fair 22 19 good, 3 fair UnknownMSG Yes Yes 5 2 $746 $928 94% 14 14 good 28 28 good 100-399MSG Yes Yes 12 4 $743 $846 94% 19 19 good 21 21 good 400-799



Page 27 of 29

10 References (1) Food Standards Austalia and New Zealand. NUTTAB database. 2014 [cited 5 Nov 2014];

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/nutrientables/nuttab/Pages/default.aspx. Last accessed: 24 Jan 2019.

(2) National Health and Medical Research Council. Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand including Recommended Dietary Intakes. Canberra: Australian Government; 2006.

(3) Department of Health. Northern Territory Market Basket Survey 2015. 2015; https://digitallibrary.health.nt.gov.au/prodjspui/bitstream/10137/656/8/Northern%20Territory%20Market%20Basket%20Survey%20report%202015%20FULL.final.pdf. Last accessed: 31 Jan 2019.

(4) Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council. Dietary Guidelines for Australian Adults - A Guide to Healthy Eating. 20013.

(5) Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey: Consumption of Food Groups from the Australian Dietary Guidelines, 2012-13. Commonwealth of Australia; 2016. Report No.: 4727.0.55.008.

(6) National Health and Medical Research Council. Eat for health Educator Guide. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2013.

(7) Dietitians Association of Australia. A food modelling system to inform the revision of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. 2011. National Health and Medical Research Council, Commonwealth of Australia.

(8) Australian Bureau of Statistics. Consumer Price Index, Australia. [6401.0]. 2017. Canberra.

(9) National Health and Medical Research Council (2013). Australian Dietary Guidelines. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council.

(10) Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Health Survey: First Results, 2017-18 [4364]. 2018. Canberra

(11) Australian Bureau of Statistics. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey: Updated results, 2012-13. [4727]. 2014. Canberra

(12) Lee AJ, Kane S, Ramsey R, Good E, Dick M. Testing the price and affordability of healthy and current (unhealthy) diets and the potential impacts of policy change in Australia. BMC Public Health 2016;16(1):315.

(13) Carlson A, Fraz+úo E. Are healthy foods really more expensive? It depends on how you measure the price. EIB-96, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research, May 2012.

executive summary · web viewthe nuttab 20101 database and nutrient reference values for australia...

Documents