An Analysis of the Costs and Benefits to
Consumers and Growers
from the Consumption of Recommended
Amounts and Types of Fruits and Vegetables for Cancer Prevention
Final report prepared for the
California Department of Health Services
Cancer Prevention and Nutrition Section
By
Karen M. Jetter
James A. Chalfant
Daniel A. Sumner
Agricultural
April 2004
Karen M. Jetter
is Research Economist with the
This material was developed
for the California Department of Health Services and the California Nutrition
Network with funding support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Stamp Program. This research was also made possible by funds received from the
Cancer Research Fund, under grant agreement No. 98-16026 with the Department of
Health Services, Cancer Research Program.
An Analysis of the Private
Costs and Benefits to Consumers and Growers from Eating Recommended Amounts and
Types of Fruits and Vegetables for Cancer Prevention
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study examines the
direct economic benefits and costs of Californian consumers adopting four
alternative recommended diets: the very minimum 5-a-day recommendation for
fruits and vegetables, the 5-a-day commodity sub-group recommendations for a
cancer prevention diet, the 7-a-day minimum recommendation for men and active
women, and the 7-a-day commodity sub-group recommendations for a cancer
prevention diet. The study does not
analyze the health consequences of these dietary changes, but focuses on the
direct economic consequences from changes in quantities demanded and supplied, and
on price responses. This study also
examines how changes in fruit and vegetable consumption might affect the use of
the land, labor, and water resources used in farm production.
Increased consumption of
fruits and vegetables has been linked to a decrease in the risk of cancer. In a review of 196 epidemiology studies,
scientists determined that the link between fruit and vegetable consumption,
and a lower incidence of cancer was probable (WCRF and AIC 1997). In addition, convincing evidence exists linking
the consumption of specific fruit and vegetable groups to a reduction in
certain types of cancers. Therefore, the cancer risk reduction diet provides
recommendations for the composition of fruit and vegetable consumption, as well
as the total amount.
While the minimum recommendations for fruit and
vegetable consumption in general are 2 fruit servings and 3 vegetable servings
a day, the USDA minimum recommendations for men and active women are 3 fruit
servings and 4 vegetable servings a day (McNamara et al. 1999). The more specific cancer prevention
recommendations for the 5-a-day program for fruit are at least 1 serving from
the citrus/berry/melon group and at least 1 additional serving of any fruit.
For vegetables, the recommendations are at least 1 serving of dark colored
vegetables, 1 serving of salad, 0.5 servings of a starchy vegetable, at least
0.5 servings of cruciferous vegetables, and 0.3 servings of tomato. The 7-a-day cancer prevention recommendations
add an additional serving of any fruit and an additional 0.7 servings of any vegetable.
Despite the known benefits,
many people do not eat recommended levels of fruits and vegetables. In some cases the difference between actual
and recommended consumption is quite large.
Based on data from the California Survey of Dietary Practices, the
consumption of dark green and orange vegetables by people in low-income
households would need to increase by 307 percent in order to achieve the
recommended levels in the 7-a-day cancer prevention program.
The shift in quantity
demanded toward more fruits and vegetables would be met through increases in
supply of produce from several market channels.
These include imports from other regions in the
|
Percentage Increase in
Quantity Demanded Needed to Reach Each Recommended Level |
||||||||
|
|
5-a-day |
5-a-day cpb |
7-a-day |
7-a-day cp |
||||
|
|
Income Level a |
|||||||
|
|
Low |
High |
Low |
High |
Low |
High |
Low |
High |
|
Citrus-Berry-Melon |
8 |
7 |
35 |
32 |
62 |
60 |
92 |
87 |
|
Other Fruit |
8 |
7 |
-10 |
-10 |
62 |
60 |
42 |
42 |
|
Starchy Vegetables |
75 |
50 |
121 |
92 |
134 |
100 |
157 |
120 |
|
Salad |
75 |
50 |
147 |
85 |
134 |
100 |
187 |
113 |
|
Other Vegetable |
75 |
50 |
-30 |
-34 |
134 |
100 |
16 |
15 |
|
Tomatoes |
75 |
50 |
19 |
6 |
134 |
100 |
39 |
21 |
|
Dark Green and |
75 |
50 |
250 |
226 |
134 |
100 |
307 |
275 |
|
Cruciferous |
75 |
50 |
106 |
75 |
134 |
100 |
139 |
101 |
|
Potatoes |
-67 |
-69 |
-59 |
-60 |
-56 |
-58 |
-52 |
-54 |
|
aLow
income is less than $15,000 a year.
High income is equal to or greater than $15,000 a year. bAs
noted in the text, the cp (cancer prevention) diet is more specific than the
general fruit and vegetable recommendations.
|
||||||||
Main Results
Even though the shift in quantity demanded by Californians is
large in percentage terms, it is small relative to the total market for produce
in the
Consumers substitute away from the commodities with the
greatest increase in prices, and into the commodities with the lowest increase
in prices. This affects the projected
changes in consumption patterns as people shift into eating better diets. Consumption of some items (grapefruit,
bananas, pineapples, plums and prunes) is actually higher than the initial
increase in demand for Californians and increases for people in the rest of the
Net economic gains for
The gains to growers in
The sum of net benefits to all consumers and growers in the
|
Total Change in
Surplus (in millions) |
||||
|
|
5-a-day |
5-a-day cp |
7-a-day |
7-a-day cp |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low-income consumers |
2,083 |
2,258 |
5,858 |
4,785 |
|
High-income consumers |
11,894 |
13,978 |
43,043 |
35,131 |
|
Growers |
316 |
464 |
788 |
836 |
|
All |
14,296 |
16,703 |
49,687 |
40,753 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rest of the |
|
|
|
|
|
Low-income consumers |
-233 |
-161 |
-674 |
-521 |
|
High-income consumers |
-2,123 |
-1,615 |
-5,952 |
-4,713 |
|
Growers |
144 |
152 |
712 |
606 |
|
All |
-2,214 |
-1,624 |
-5,913 |
-4,629 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
Low-income consumers |
1,851 |
2,096 |
5,182 |
4,265 |
|
High-income consumers |
9,772 |
12,367 |
37,090 |
30,418 |
|
Growers |
460 |
619 |
1,498 |
1,442 |
|
All |
12,080 |
15,080 |
43,773 |
36,124 |
INTRODUCTION
This study estimates the
economic impact on producers and consumers in
Increased consumption of
fruits and vegetables has been linked to a decrease in the risk of cancer. In a
review of 196 epidemiology studies, scientists determined that the link between
fruit and vegetable consumption and a lower incidence of cancer was probable
(World Cancer Research Fund, 1997). In
addition, convincing evidence exists linking the consumption of specific fruit
and vegetable groups to reductions in certain types of cancers. For example, eating dark vegetables has been
associated with a lower incidence of lung and stomach cancers (World Cancer
Research Fund, 1997). Therefore, the
cancer risk reduction diet provides recommendations for the composition of fruit and vegetable
consumption, as well as the total level.
Four scenarios are developed
in this study to meet different minimum targeted consumption levels. The first
is a general 5-a-day recommendation, the second scenario is for more specific
food subgroups within the 5-a-day recommendation, the third is a general
7-a-day recommendation, and the final scenario is for specific food subgroups
within the 7-a-day recommendation.
Because people with lower incomes eat fewer fruits and vegetables than
do people with higher incomes, the change in eating habits and the associated
benefits for individuals with lower incomes who move to a diet with more fruits
and vegetables may be greater. Consequently,
this study distinguishes between people living in lower income households (less
than $15,000 a year) and people living in higher income households (more than
$15,000 a year). That level of income
seems to correspond to a shift in consumption patterns, representing a turning
point in the number of servings consumed per day, as income rises.
A shift in consumption
patterns to the recommended levels would cause the demand for fruits and
vegetables to rise significantly, leading to higher prices and increased
production, shifting the use of agricultural resources (such as land, labor,
and water) into the production of those commodities, and benefiting the entire
agricultural sector. Californians consume fruits and vegetables produced
throughout the
Previous evaluations of the
societal benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables have focused on the
reductions in health-care expenditures from a reduction in chronic diseases
associated with poor diets, including but not limited to some cancers,
diabetes, and heart disease. We take it
as a given that healthier diets are desirable, and identify the extent to which
agricultural producers benefit from such an outcome. This study represents the first attempt to
address the effect on growers who could expect to gain from such an increase. Such a benefit to producers might justify
additional public sector investment in promoting healthier diets. Much like the situation with generic
advertising of specific commodities, individual producers and even entire
industries have limited incentives to invest in promoting healthier diets;
there is an underinvestment in promoting such messages by industry, since
producers capture only a portion of the benefits to society.
Without an increase in
consumer incomes, increasing the consumption of fruits and vegetables means
decreasing the consumption of at least one other product, whether a less
healthy food or any other item. The
effect of such a compensating reduction in other purchases, in the absence of any
change in total spending by consumers, is beyond the scope of the present
study, which considers only fruits and vegetables. Consumer benefits are therefore complicated
by uncertainty over both the dollar value of health benefits and the nature of
adjustments in other spending. However,
we report partial effects on consumer benefits, based on the fruit and
vegetable markets.
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE RECOMMENDATIONS
The USDA’s minimum recommendations for fruit and
vegetable general consumption for everyone are 5 servings of fruits and
vegetables a day, with 2 servings as fruit and 3 as vegetables (Table 1) (USDA
& USDHHS 1996; Young and Kantor 1999). Because some fruits and vegetables are higher
in the nutrients and phytochemicals that appear to
reduce the risk of cancer, minimum recommendations for specific subgroups were
expanded on by the Cancer Prevention and Nutrition Services (CPNS) unit of the
California Department of Health Services (CDHS), based on a wide body of
literature (see, for example, World Cancer Research Fund, 1997).
|
Table 1. Fruit and Vegetable Recommendations |
|||||
|
|
|
5-a-day |
5-a-day cancer prevention |
7-a-day |
7-a-day cancer prevention |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fruit |
2 |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
Citrus/berry/melon |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
Any fruit |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vegetable |
3 |
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
Starchy |
|
0.5 |
|
0.5 |
|
|
Salad Greens |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
Cruciferous |
|
0.5 |
|
0.5 |
|
|
Tomato |
|
0.3 |
|
0.3 |
|
|
Dark Green and |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
Any vegetable |
|
0 |
|
0.7 |
The more specific 5-a-day
cancer prevention recommendations for fruit are at least 1 serving from the
citrus/berry/melon group and at least 1 additional serving of any fruit. For
vegetables, the recommendations are at least 1 serving of dark colored (dark
green and deep orange) vegetables, 1 serving of salad, 0.5 servings of a
starchy vegetable, at least 0.5 servings of cruciferous vegetables, and 0.3
servings of tomato (Table 1). These
recommendations put the consumption of vegetables slightly higher than the 3 a
day minimum.
While the minimum target for
the general population is 5 servings of fruits and vegetables a day, the USDA’s
minimum recommendations for most men and active women are 3 fruit servings and
4 vegetable servings a day (McNamara et al. 1999; USDA & USDHH 2000) (Table
1). The more specific cancer-prevention
recommendations for fruit are at least 1 serving from the citrus/berry/melon
group and at least 2 additional servings of any fruit. For vegetables, the
recommendations are at least 1 serving of dark colored (dark green and deep
orange) vegetables, 1 serving of salad, 0.5 servings of a starchy vegetable, at
least 0.5 servings of cruciferous vegetables, 0.3 servings of tomato, and 0.7
additional servings of any vegetable (CPNS 2002) (Table 1).
Despite the known benefits,
many people do not eat the recommended levels of fruits and vegetables. National surveys indicate that, on average,
adults consume 3.9 servings a day, excluding potatoes consumed as french fries or chips (McNamara et al. 1999; Tippett and Cleveland 1999). In some cases, the gap between average and
recommended consumption is quite large.
For instance, McNamara et al. (1999) estimate that adult per capita
consumption of dark vegetables would need to increase by over 300 percent to
meet the 1 serving a day recommendation.
People in households that
earn less than $15,000 a year average even fewer servings per day than do people
in higher income households. Based on
the California Survey of Dietary Practices (CSDP), average consumption for
low-income consumers is 1.850 servings a day for fruit and 1.874 a day for
vegetables (Table 2). Higher income
consumers eat slightly more fruits and vegetables. Average consumption by high-income consumers
is 1.875 servings of fruit a day and 2.191 servings of vegetables (Table
2). Fruit consumption would need to
increase by 62 percent for low-income consumers and by 60 percent for high-income
consumers to achieve the 3-a-day recommendation. Vegetable consumption would need to increase
by 134 percent for low-income consumers, but just under 100 percent for
high-income consumers, for these groups to reach the recommended 4-a-day target.
|
Table 2. Current Servings per Day Consumed in |
||||
|
|
|
Lower Income |
Higher Income |
Difference |
|
Food Category |
(<15,000) |
(≥15,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fruit |
|
1.850 |
1.870 |
0.019 |
|
|
Citrus/berry/melon |
0.741 |
0.758 |
0.017 |
|
|
Other Fruit |
1.109 |
1.112 |
0.003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vegetable |
1.874 |
2.191 |
0.317 |
|
|
|
Starchy |
0.227 |
0.261 |
0.035 |
|
|
Salad |
0.406 |
0.540 |
|