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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Enhancing Food Security and Physical Activity for Māori, Pacific and Low-income Peoplesshould if practicable encourage the consumption of foods of high nutrient quality. Thethird option is therefore the best.B: Eligibility for a Smart CardIt is envisaged that there would be one card per family unit, and that the amountloaded on the card would be of the order of $5 per dependent child x per week, or asimilar amount for an eligible household comprising adults only.There are several possibilities for determining eligibility. One is that eligibility shouldbe restricted to only those households whose principal income source is one of themain income-tested benefits. This, however, does not address the problem of foodinsecurity in those low-income families not receiving an income-tested benefitBetter options are either:Income tested eligibility. Coverage would include, in addition to families relying onincome-tested benefits, low-income households in general, apart from those whosemajor income source is NZ Superannuation (food insecurity does not appear to be asignificant problem in the pensioner age-group). It would be similar in coverage to thecurrent Community Services Card (and could in fact replace that card), taking in, forexample, all families qualifying for the Family Tax Credit (formerly Family Support).Or,Universal eligibility for all households. All families with dependent children, regardlessof income, should be entitled to the Card.The advantages of the ‘Universal’ option are its simplicity - the amount could be taxfreeand there would be no ‘abatement’ or ‘incentive’ problems and that it overcomesstigmatisation issues. The disadvantages are that it is expensive, of the order of$260 million per year on the calculations above, and that much of this expenditure isdirected to relatively well-off family households. The ‘Income-tested’ option, on theother hand, could carry ‘stigma’, but is better-targeted to those lower-incomehouseholds more likely to be facing food insecurity problems. These include manyMāori and Pacific people households. It would also be less expensive (assuming thesame amount per dependent child, for instance), of the order of perhaps around halfof the ‘universal’ option.On balance ‘income-tested’ entitlement appears preferable to ‘universal’ entitlement.Recommendation II: The concept of a Smart Card for subsidising food costsand thereby reducing food insecurity has attractive features and shouldtherefore receive further detailed investigation.Such further investigation would include discussion on which foodstuffs should becovered; who should be entitled and to how much; discussion in focus groups andelsewhere of the proposal including with Māori, Pacific and low-income peoples;further investigation of experience elsewhere of such proposals; cost-benefitmodelling of the likely impact in New Zealand; and eventually small-scale trialling andevaluation of how the approach would work in New Zealand.x The amount of $5 is used here for illustrative purposes. As discussed earlier it is also an amount whichis fiscally ‘possible’, which makes a reasonable income contribution to low-income families, and whichis not so large as to encourage trading of subsidy entitlement.33
Enhancing Food Security and Physical Activity for Māori, Pacific and Low-income PeoplesReferences1. O'Connor T. No formal support for GST off food campaign. Kai Tiaki: Nursing NewZealand 2008;14(9):29.2. Brooks G. NZNO should support GST off food.(LETTERS)(Letter to the editor). KaiTiaki: Nursing New Zealand 2008;14(11):3(2).3. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Assessing the impact of electronic benefitstransfer on America's communities and the U.S. payment system: Availablefrom: http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedpdp/05-02.html. Accessed January 2009,2005.4. Department of Human Nutrition University of Otago. Information package for usersof the estimated food costs: Available from:http://nutrition.otago.ac.nz/__data/assets/file/0003/4926/2009FoodCosts.pdf.Accessed June 2009., 2009.5. Michelini C. New Zealand Household Consumption Patterns 1983-1992: AnApplication of the Almost-Ideal-Demand-System. New Zealand EconomicPapers December 1999;33(2).6. Khaled M, Lattimore R. The changing demand for apparel in New Zealand andimport protection. Journal of Asian Economics June 2006;17(3):494-508.7. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. InternationalFood Consumption Patterns. Available from:http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/InternationalFoodDemand/. Accessed June2009.8. Khaled M, McWha V, Lattimore R. Fragmenting food markets: some New Zealandevidence from a two-stage budget model. NZ Trade Consortium working paperno. 30. Wellington: The New Zealand Trade Consortium in association with theNew Zealand Institute of Economic Research (Inc), March 2004.9. Schroeter C, Lusk J, Tyner W. Determining the impact of food price and incomechanges on body weight. Journal of Health Economics 2008;27(1):45-68.10. Jones E. The economics of eating fresh fruits and vegetables: recognisingdiscernible patterns for obesity patterns among lower- and higher-incomeconsumers. Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting.Orlando, Florida: Department of Agricultural Economics, The Ohio StateUniversity, 2006.11. Jensen JD, Smed S. Cost-effective design of economic instruments in nutritionpolicy. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity2007;4.12. Gustavsen GW, Rickertsen K. Public Policies and the Demand for Vegetables.2002.13. Gustavsen GW, Rickertsen K. A censored quantile regression analysis ofvegetable demand: the effects of changes in prices and total expenditure.Canadian journal of agricultural economics 2006;54(4):631-646.14. Lechene V. Income and price elasticities of demand for foods consumed in thehome. National Food Survey: 2000. London: Department for EnvironmentFood and Rural Affairs(http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/nfs/2000/Section6.pdf, accessedDecember 2008), 2000.15. Davis CG, Stefanova S, Hahn W, Yen S. Complements and Meat Demand in theU.S. American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. Orlando,Florida, 2008.16. Bertail P, Caillavet F. Fruit and vegetable consumption patterns: A segmentationapproach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008;90(3):827-842.34
Page 1 and 2: ENHANCING FOOD SECURITYAND PHYSICAL
Page 3: Enhancing Food Security and Physica
Page 8 and 9: Enhancing Food Security and Physica
Page 86 and 87:
Enhancing Food Security and Physica
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?