enhancing food security and physical activity for maori, pacific and ...

Enhancing Food Security and Physical Activity for Māori, Pacific and Low-income PeoplesResults – key informant interviewsThis section reports on the findings from the seven key informant interviews.Interventions and policyWhen asked about influencing food pricing of healthy, nutritious food to increase foodsecurity, all key informants considered this to be a complex and difficult area. The costof food was reported to be dependent on many factors including: the global cost ofcommodities; government regulation such as labelling and employment law (the foodindustry being one of the biggest employers in New Zealand); the cost of production;supply chain efficiency; consumer demand; and environmental changes.Both industry informants commented that the food industry was highly competitive,worked on tight margins, and had limited ability to further reduce the cost of healthy food.One informant stated that, “the industry does not put excessive margins on healthy foodsand thus it is difficult to respond to the question as to how to reduce costs”. This wasechoed by an Australian informant who noted that profit margins were low on healthierproducts relative to unhealthy items like chocolate and potato chips which were oftenmade from low cost primary ingredients.Two informants stressed the importance of understanding the relationship between foodsuppliers and supermarkets. One considered that it was up to supermarkets to decidethe price of food (within parameters, rules and regulations). This informant noted that“food companies do not have a lot of control over what the supermarkets do.” Thesecond informant commented that while the supermarket sets the price to the consumer,the food companies set the price in the first instance and that “to have an impact on thatis a very difficult thing”.Despite this complexity, a number of possible interventions focusing on the food industrywere suggested by informants that could be, or have been, successful in reducing thecost of healthy nutritious food. Informants were asked to discuss potential interventionsin relation to the Swinburn criteria 92 of feasibility, sustainability, effect on equity, potentialside effects, and acceptability to stakeholders. Suggested interventions discussed arelisted below.Loss leaders (and bundling) in supermarketsThree informants commented on loss leading in supermarkets. Loss leading is a pricingstrategy where retailers set very low prices for some products, sometimes below cost, toentice customers into stores. Loss leaders were seen as being more often focused onoccasional food items such as “ice-cream, coke, and chocolate”. The proposedintervention was to increase the balance of healthier food items being used as lossleaders. In addition, loss leaders could be bundled to facilitate the making of a healthycheap meal.In terms of specifying the intervention, one informant commented that loss leaders was“hard to pin down” as a government intervention. Loss leading was seen as being “inthe realm of the free market” and therefore not readily open to government intervention.Public monitoring of supermarkets was suggested as a way to motivate supermarkets tofocus loss leaders on healthier foods.117