See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275889419
Selected Fruits and Vegetables: Comparison of Nutritional Value and
Affordability
Article  in  Czech Journal of Food Sciences · May 2015
DOI: 10.17221/353/2014-CJFS
CITATIONS
2
READS
958
6 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Study of trans-fatty acids and other fatty acids content in breast milk in the Czech Republic View project
EURRECA: European Micronutrient Recommendations Aligned Network of Excellence View project
Michaela Suchánková
Státní Zdravotní Ústav
3 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
Marcela Dofkova
Státní Zdravotní Ústav
18 PUBLICATIONS   251 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
Jiri Ruprich
Státní Zdravotní Ústav
197 PUBLICATIONS   1,904 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Michaela Suchánková on 05 May 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
242
Food Analysis, Food Quality and Nutrition Czech J. Food Sci., 33, 2015 (3): 242–246
doi: 10.17221/353/2014-CJFS
Selected Fruits and Vegetables: Comparison of Nutritional
Value and Affordability
Michaela SUCHÁNKOVÁ1
, Zlata KAPOUNOVÁ1
, Marcela DOFKOVÁ1
, Jiří RUPRICH1,2
,
Jitka BLAHOVÁ1
and Iva KOUŘILOVÁ2
1
Center for Health, Nutrition and Food, National Institute of Public Health, Brno,
Czech Republic; 2
Department of Milk Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene
and Ecology, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
Abstract
Suchánková M.., Kapounová Z., Dofková M., Ruprich J., Blahová J., Kouřilová I. (2015): Selected
fruits and vegetables: comparison of nutritional value and affordability. Czech J. Food Sci., 33: 242–246.
We compared subgroups of fruit and vegetables which provide the best nutritional value per unit cost. For this purpose,
nutrient adequacy score and nutrient density score, based on the content of vitamins A, C, E, folate, thiamine, riboflavin,
calcium, iron, potassium and magnesium, were calculated and subsequently complemented by food prices. The study was
focused on elderly people over 65 years. The nutrient density score for vegetables was found significantly higher than that for
fruit (P < 0.001), which implies that vegetables provide a higher amount of nutrients per energy unit. The highest nutrientto-price
ratio was observed for carrot, savoy cabbage, head cabbage, pepper, kohlrabi, green peas, and potatoes. Our results
can help consumers identify affordable nutrient-rich types of fruit and vegetables and maximise the nutrient-to-calorie ratio.
Keywords: dietary cost; elderly people; nutrient profile; nutrient score
Fruit and vegetables (F&V) provide essential components
of a balanced diet and are ranked as nutrientdense
foods. The term “nutrient-dense” indicates
that these foods provide nutrients (e.g. potassium,
magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin A, folate), dietary
fibre and other bioactive compounds with potentially
positive health effects and relatively few calories.
Low energy content of nutrient-dense food facilitates
maintaining a healthy weight (USDA 2010). A higher
consumption of F&V can be associated with a lower
risk of some chronic diseases (EFSA 2008), especially
cardiovascular diseases, including heart attack and
stroke. Some F&V may have a protective effect against
certain types of cancer (USDA 2010). The effect cannot
be easily explained on the basis of their nutrient
content. Intakes of F&V are low in many EU countries
(EFSA 2008). An increase of F&V consumption would
be appropriate especially for elderly people because
they are at greater risk for nutritional deficiencies as
compared with younger adults (Schröder et al. 2008).
Daily intake of 600 g of various F&V is recommended
by the Czech Nutrition Society, including heat-treated
vegetables (Dostálová et al. 2012). Estimated average
F&V consumption was 274 and 317 g/day for Czech
men and women over 60 years in 2004, respectively
(excluding potatoes) (Ruprich et al. 2006).
Besides taste and convenience, food cost is the most
consistently noted barrier to adequate consumption
of F&V (Darmon et al. 2005)., not only in higher
quantities but also in greater variety (Pearson et al.
2014). Fresh F&V (especially dark green vegetables)
are more likely to be consumed by groups of the
higher socio-economic status due to association with
relatively high price for energy unit unlike fats and
sweets (Cassady et al. 2007). On the other hand,
previous studies have shown that some vegetables
Supported by Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic – conceptual development of research organisation (National
Institute of Public Health – NIPH, Project No. 75010330).
243
Czech J. Food Sci., 33, 2015 (3): 242–246 Food Analysis, Food Quality and Nutrition
doi: 10.17221/353/2014-CJFS
are low-cost sources of several nutrients, such as
potassium, vitamin C and also fibre (Drewnowski
& Rehm 2013).
Nutrient profiling means categorising foods based
on their nutrient content. Models calculate the percentage
requirements for selected nutrients in foods
relative to the dietary energy that the foods provide
(Drewnowski 2009). Nutrient profiles can be
formulated specifically for food categories (EFSA
2008). The aim of this study was to establish nutrient
adequacy and nutrient density scores for F&V
commonly consumed in the Czech Republic and to
identify species which provide the best nutritional
value per unit cost. These could help consumers to
recognise affordable nutrient-rich F&V.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Our approach is based on evaluating the intake of
selected nutrients relative to the dietary reference
values (DRV) within a single food group. Selected
F&V were ranked according to their nutrient adequacy
score and nutrient density score. Nutrient
profiling methods were combined with food price
data in order to identify F&V which provide a substantial
amount of nutrients in relation to the price
and energy content.
Selected fruits and vegetables. Fruits (n = 28)
and vegetables (n = 28) commonly consumed in the
Czech Republic were included in the study (Ruprich
et al. 2006), regardless of the varieties. Excluded were
vegetables which are typically consumed in small
serving sizes (with the exception of garlic). Potatoes
were included in the vegetable group, although they
are typically assigned to the starchy tubers group.
Processed products like juices, canned fruit etc. were
excluded. Nutritional values in fresh state were used
for fruits. For vegetables that are not commonly
consumed in fresh state nutritional values for cooked
vegetables were used.
Selection of nutrients. Ten nutrients (vitamin A, C,
E, folate, thiamine, riboflavin, calcium, iron, potassium,
and magnesium) were selected according to
the interest in public health based on Czech food
consumption data (Ruprich et al. 2006).
Nutrient composition data. A compiled table of
nutritional values based on available data from various
countries was used. The preferred data were of
Czech (On-line Czech Food Composition Database
v. 3.12, http://www.czfcdb.cz), Slovak (VÚP SK) and
lastly German origin (Souci et al. 2008). Nutrient values
were provided per 100 g of food product, edible
portion (e.p.) adjusted for preparation and waste.
Food prices data. F&V prices were collected in
4 dominant food store chains in Brno: Tesco, Albert,
Kaufland, Globus (market share 13.4–25.4%) during
4 periods (February, May, July, and September) in
2013 (INCOMA GfK 2011). Retail prices, obtained in
CZK/kg or unit of food “as purchased“, were adjusted
for prices per 100 g e.p. The lowest price of a given
item in each retail shop, regardless of the variety,
was taken into account. The data were processed
as the mean of 4 values representing data obtained
from 4 retail shops for each time period individually.
Average price of 4 time periods was subsequently
calculated and used for graphical display.
Nutrient adequacy score (NAS) and nutrient
density score (NDS). Following the method described
by Darmon et al. (2005), NAS calculation was based
on the mean of percent DRV for 10 selected nutrients,
as provided by 100 g e.p. of food item: NAS =
[∑ (Nutrient1–10
/DRV1–10
) × 100]/10. Dividing the
Table 1. Twenty fruits and vegetables with the highest
nutrient adequacy score (NAS) and nutrient density
score (NDS)
Foods NAS Foods NDS
Spinach* 19.39 spinach* 24.55
Savoy cabbage* 18.33 savoy cabbage* 18.34
Broccoli* 16.86 pepper 15.29
Pepper 16.12 radishes 14.52
Kiwifruit 13.36 lettuce 13.02
Currant 13.05 broccoli* 11.55
Carrot* 12.47 head cabbage 11.20
Leek 12.39 carrot* 10.66
Kohlrabi 11.12 cauliflower* 10.21
Blueberries 10.93 kohlrabi 9.75
Parsley* 10.32 leek 9.12
Strawberries 9.93 cucumber 8.81
Cauliflower* 9.80 tomatoes 8.25
Green peas* 9.78 currant 8.16
Oranges 9.62 white radish 7.33
Mango 9.33 pumpkin* 7.18
Garlic 8.92 courgette* 7.16
Lemon 8.88 head cabbage* 6.69
Lettuce 8.46 pattypan* 6.32
Raspberries 8.29 blueberries 6.32
*cooked
244
Food Analysis, Food Quality and Nutrition Czech J. Food Sci., 33, 2015 (3): 242–246
doi: 10.17221/353/2014-CJFS
NAS by the energy density of the food yielded a base
for determination of nutrient density score (NDS):
NDS = (NAS/energy density) × 100. Energy density
was defined as the amount of available energy per
unit weight of food (in kJ/100 g e.p.). Dividing NAS
by the mean price per 100 g e.p. (in CZK) yielded a
nutrient-to-price ratio (N-P ratio): N-P ratio = NAS/
price. In order to avoid overestimation caused by the
fact that certain foods are excellent sources of a single
nutrient, present in a large amount, but do not contain
a wide range of key nutrients, the maximum percent
DRV of the given nutrients was capped at 100%.
Dietary reference values (DRV). DACH-reference
values (SPV 2011), often used also in the Czech
Republic, were applied for the NAS calculation in a
population group under investigation: elderly people
over 65 years.
Statistical analyses. All analyses were performed
using the Statistica v. 12 software (Statsoft Inc.,
Tulsa, USA). Differences in NAS, NDS, and N-P
ratio between groups were established using t-test
(with the Welch correction) after log transformation.
Scatterplots and Pearson correlation coefficient were
used to show a relation between NAS and NDS and
between NAS and price. An α-level of 0.05 was used
to determine statistical significance.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Our results showed that the nutritive value can vary
widely within the F&V group. The best nutritional
value based on the calculation of NAS (per 100 g e.p.)
is provided by the following F&V types: spinach, savoy
cabbage, broccoli, pepper, kiwifruit, berries, carrot,
leek, kohlrabi, parsley, etc. (Table 1). However, the
calculation based on 100 kJ (NDS) better reflects
the nutrient density of foods, defined as the ratio
of nutrients to energy density (Drewnowski 2009).
When comparing the use of NDS and NAS, a difference
between these two values (NDS–NAS) of
individual items is significantly higher for vegetables
than for fruit (P < 0.001), especially for the following
items: radishes, cucumber, lettuce, and Chinese
cabbage. It is caused by the high nutrient content
in relation to low energy density. Nevertheless, NAS
and NDS were positively correlated (r = 0.7574).
The vegetable group was found to have higher
NAS (P = 0.05) and especially significantly higher
NDS (P < 0.001) compared to the fruit group. In
order to ensure a high supply of nutrients and a low
energy intake, consumption of vegetables should be
recommended before fruit.
Foods which are characterised by a high nutritional
value are not necessarily the best cost-effective option
(Drewnowski 2010). Within the food group,
subgroups can also differ widely in terms of cost per
MJ. Dried fruits seem less expensive as a source of
energy than fresh F&V but their nutrient densities
are also lower (Maillot et al. 2007). As published
by Cassady et al. (2007), in the USA the highest
average price per serving was observed for fruits and
dark green vegetables. The subgroups with the lowest
price per serving were oranges and starchy vegetables.
Drewnowski (2010) found that in the USA the highest
scoring foods were citrus fruits and juices followed
by potatoes. More recently, white potatoes, beans,
carrots, and some dark green vegetables were identified
as both affordable and nutrient-dense. Of the
vegetables with the highest affordability scores, white
potatoes and carrots had the highest frequency of use
in the USA (Drewnowski & Rehm 2013). According
to our results, the N‑P ratio was significantly higher
for vegetables than for fruits (P < 0.001). Figure 1
shows F&V with a higher N‑P ratio than the others.
As shown in Figure 2, in the area with high NAS
and relatively low price (quadrant I – divided according
to medians) are located the following items:
savoy cabbage, pepper, carrot, kohlrabi, parsley,
cauliflower, green peas (frozen), orange, Chinese
cabbage, tomatoes, courgette, banana, grapefruit,
and tangerine. High price and relatively low NAS
6.75
5.33 4.90 5.68
5.24
4.02
3.26
4.27
4.66
2.78 5.38
6.99
4.54
2.15
3.50
2.38
5.34
3.45
3.38
3.28
3.13
5.36
3.27
2.37
3.15
2.42
3.05 3.18
6.56
2.96 3.02
2.57
2.29
2.74
2.65
2.61
3.48
2.38
2.62
February May June September
N-Pratio
watermelon
courgette*
tomatoes
cauliflower*
celeriac*
red beet*
potatoes*
pepper
orange
onion*
kohlrabi
kiwifruit
Figure 1. Ten fruits and vegetables with the highest
nutrient-to-price ratio (N-P ratio) for given months in
2013 (*cooked)
245
Czech J. Food Sci., 33, 2015 (3): 242–246 Food Analysis, Food Quality and Nutrition
doi: 10.17221/353/2014-CJFS
(quadrant IV) were observed for blueberry, olive,
fig, cherry, etc.
This study has some limitations which are worth noting.
NAS and subsequent calculations were limited to
10 selected vitamins and minerals. The results may vary
if different nutrients are used. Other substances, which
can also be important constituents, were not included,
e.g. phytochemicals like polyphenols, carotenoids or
trace elements. This is due to a lack of compositional
data and DRV. If dietary fibre or other bioactive substances
are also included, some F&V will presumably
obtain a higher score (Pennington et al. 2007).
In this study, unweighted score was used; each
nutrient was assigned the same importance. However,
key nutrients can be assigned higher weights
based on their bioavailability or distribution in the
food supply. Some nutrients are widely distributed
whereas others are limited to certain food sources
(Drewnowski & Fulgoni 2008).
Furthermore, food prices are not based on national
data. Collection of the data was limited to shops located
in Brno. On the other hand, selected shops represent
the dominant food chains in the Czech Republic. It is
also necessary to mention the fact that not all F&V
are acceptable for all individuals. More frequent constraints
can be expected for elderly people.
CONCLUSION
The intent of nutrient scoring was to evaluate the
intake of selected nutrients from F&V relative to DRV.
Nutrient-profiling systems, when complemented by
food-price data, may assist consumers in identifying
foods that are both affordable and nutrient-rich. Improving
the diet quality is not necessarily associated
with increased diet costs.
Our results indicate that in the Czech Republic
carrot, savoy cabbage, head cabbage, pepper, kohlrabi,
peas and potatoes provide the best nutritional
value with respect to the price (focused on elderly
people over 65 years). Statistical comparison of NDS
between fruit and vegetables confirmed that vegetables
provide a higher amount of studied nutrients
per energy unit (P < 0.001). This is important for
prevention of micronutrient deficiency, especially
22
2
26
4
55
6
7
8
9
10
11
44
17
13
15
5
1240
18
20
3
46 39
24
25
16
27
28
31
37
32
48
35
36
21
34
33
29
38
41
42
43
19
14
23
47
1
49
50
51
54
45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Nutrientadequacyscore–NAS(per100g)
Average price (in CZK per 100 g e.p.)
Vegetables (V)
Fruit (F)
I II
III IV
Figure 2. Relation between NAS and average price (in CZK)
1 – potatoes*, 2 – broccoli*, 3 – celeriac*, 4 – onion*, 5 – courgette*, 6 – garlic, 7 – green beans (pods)*, 8 – savoy cabbage*,
9 – kohlrabi, 10 – sweetcorn*, 11 – cauliflower*, 12 – aubergine*, 13 – green peas*, 14 – carrot*, 15 – cucumber, 16 – pepper,
17 – pattypan*, 18 – parsley*, 19 – leek, 20 – tomatoes, 21 – radish, 22 – white radish, 23 – red beet*, 24 – lettuce,
25 – spinach*, 26 – pumpkin*, 27 – head cabbage*, 28 – Chinese cabbage, 29 – pineapple, 30 – gooseberry, 31 – banana,
32 – blueberry, 33 – peach, 34 – lemon, 35 – date, 36 – fig, 37 – grapefruit, 38 – grape, 39 – pear, 40 – apple, 41 – strawberry,
42 – kiwifruit, 43 – raspberry, 44 – tangerine, 45 – mango, 46 – watermelon, 47 – apricot, 48 – nectarine, 49 – olive,
50 – blackberry, 51 – orange, 52 – currant, 53 – greengage, 54 – cherry, 55 – plum, 56 – sour cherry (*cooked); missing
numbers indicate the unavailability of items on the market
246
Food Analysis, Food Quality and Nutrition Czech J. Food Sci., 33, 2015 (3): 242–246
doi: 10.17221/353/2014-CJFS
for elderly people. Elderly people should consume
the nutrient-dense foods to a larger extent due to a
decline of energy intake depending on age. Similarly,
the nutrient density approach can be applied to
weight control (Drewnowski et al. 2005). Nevertheless,
not all affordable nutrient dense F&V are a
part of mainstream eating habits (Drewnowski &
Rehm 2013). For future research, we plan to conduct
a survey among elderly people in order to provide
information which types of F&V are not acceptable
for people over 65 years.
Although the presented results indicate F&V which
are both nutrient-dense and more affordable than
others, a high priority is placed on maintaining diversity
in consumed F&V. Various types can provide
many chemical substances of diverse origin with
beneficial health effects (EFSA 2008).
References
Cassady D., Jetter K.M., Culp J. (2007): Is price a barrier
to eating more fruits and vegetables for low-income
families? Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
107: 1909–1915.
Darmon N., Darmon M., Maillot M., Drewnowski A. (2005):
A nutrient density standard for vegetables and fruits:
nutrients per calorie and nutrients per unit cost. Journal
of the American Dietetic Association, 105: 1881–1887.
Dostálová J., Dlouhý P., Tláskal P. (2012): Výživová doporučení
pro obyvatelstvo České republiky. Výživa a potraviny,
67(3): 80–82.
Drewnowski A. (2005): Concept of a nutritious food: toward
a nutrient density score. The American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 82: 721–732.
Drewnowski A. (2009): Defining nutrient density: development
and validation of the nutrient rich foods index. Journal
of the American College of Nutrition, 28: 421–426.
Drewnowski A. (2010): The Nutrient Rich Foods Index
helps identify healthy affordable foods. The American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91: 1095–1101.
Drewnowski A., Fulgoni V. (2008): Nutrient profiling of
foods: creating a nutrient-rich food index. Nutrition
Reviews, 66: 23–39.
Drewnowski A., Rehm C.D. (2013): Vegetable cost metrics
show that potatoes and beans provide most nutrients per
penny. PLoS One, 8: e63277.
EFSA (2008): The setting of nutrient profiles for foods
bearing nutrition and health claims pursuant to article 4
of the regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. The EFSA Journal,
644: 1–44.
Incoma GfK (2011): TOP 10. Zboží & Prodej.
Jakubíková M., Dofková M., Ruprich J. (2011). Fruit and
vegetable intake in the Czech child population. Public
Health Nutrition, 14: 1047–1054.
Maillot M., Darmon N., Darmon M., Lafay L., Drewnowski
A. (2007): Nutrient-dense food groups have high energy
costs: an econometric approach to nutrient profiling. The
Journal of Nutrition, 137: 1815–1820.
Pearson A.L., Winter P.R., Mcbreen B., Stewart G., Roets R.,
Nutsford D., Bowie C., Donnellan N., Wilson N. (2014):
Obtaining fruit and vegetables for the lowest prices: pricing
survey of different outlets and geographical analysis
of competition effects. PLoS One, 20: e89775.
Pennington J., Kandiah J., Nicklas T., Pitman S., Stitzel K.
(2007): Practise paper of the American Dietetic Association:
nutrient density: meeting nutrient goals within
calorie needs. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
107: 860–869.
Ruprich J., Dofková M., Řehůřková I., Slaměníková E., Resová
D. (2006): Individuální spotřeba potravin – národní
studie SISP04. CHPŘ SZÚ v Praze. Available at http://
czvp.szu.cz/spotrebapotravin.htm
Schröder H., Vila J., Marrugat J., Covas M.I. (2008): Low
energy density diets are associated with favorable nutrient
intake profile and adequacy in free-living elderly men
and women. The Journal of Nutrition, 138: 1476–1481.
Souci S.W., Fachmann W., Kraut H. (2008): Food Composition
and Nutrition Tables. 7th
revised and completed Ed.
Stuttgart, MedPharm Scientific Publishers.
SPV (2011): Referenční hodnoty pro příjem živin. Praha,
Společnost pro výživu .
USDA & HHS (2010): Dietary Guidelines for Americans
2010. Available at www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/Di-
etaryGuidelines/2010/PolicyDoc/PolicyDoc.pdf
VÚP SK (2008–2013): Kompilovaná online databáza nutričního
zloženia potravin, Verzia: June 2009. Výskumný
ústav potravinársky, Bratislava. Available at http://www.
pbd-online.sk
Received: 2014–07–03
Accepted after corrections: 2014–11–27
Corresponding author:
Ing. Mgr. Michaela Suchánková, Státní zdravotní ústav, Centrum zdraví, výživy a potravin, Palackého 3a,
612 42 Brno, Česká republika, E-mail: suchankova@chpr.szu.cz
View publication statsView publication stats