Healthy-eating advice often sounds universal. Buy more fruits and vegetables. Choose whole grains. Add lean proteins and dairy products. Cook more meals at home.
But the cost of following that advice can change substantially depending on where a family shops.
A new study found wide geographic differences in the estimated cost of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Thrifty Food Plan, a model grocery basket designed to represent a nutritious diet prepared at home on a limited budget. The plan also helps determine maximum benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP.
Researchers found that geography accounted for nearly 90% of the variation in the plan’s estimated cost. Seasonal changes explained much of the remaining difference.
The findings, published in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, do not show what a family should expect to spend at the grocery store today. Researchers used food-price data from 2012 to 2018 and applied the USDA’s 2021 Thrifty Food Plan market basket. The study also examined a model diet, not the actual purchases made by individual households. Researchers analyzed prices across four census regions and 10 major metropolitan areas.
Still, the analysis highlights an important limitation of one-size-fits-all nutrition advice: A grocery budget that appears workable on paper may stretch much further in one community than another.
The Northeast consistently had the highest estimated weekly costs. The Midwest and South had the lowest. Among the metropolitan areas studied, New York, Boston and Los Angeles ranked among the most expensive. Detroit and Houston were among the least expensive.
Costs also shifted throughout the year. The modeled grocery basket was generally most expensive during winter and least expensive during fall.
Several common food categories contributed heavily to the differences, including whole fruit, vegetables, whole-grain staples, poultry, eggs and dairy products. Whole fruit prices were consistently higher in the Northeast and peaked during winter.
“These findings show that the affordability of a healthy diet can differ dramatically depending on where families live,” said Parke Wilde, a professor at the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University and the study’s corresponding author. “Because SNAP benefits are largely based on national average food prices, regional differences may affect whether households can realistically afford nutritious foods.”
The Thrifty Food Plan is not a shopping list that every household is expected to follow precisely. It is a model developed by USDA to estimate the cost of an affordable diet that meets nutrition recommendations while accounting for common eating patterns and practical considerations.
The plan matters beyond academic research because its cost helps shape SNAP benefits. USDA uses the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan each June as the basis for benefit allotments for the next federal fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. Those costs are adjusted for inflation.
But maximum SNAP allotments for the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., generally rely on a shared benchmark. They do not routinely reflect differences in grocery prices between Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles or a smaller community in the Midwest. Alaska and Hawaii receive separate adjustments.
Actual SNAP benefits also depend on household circumstances, including income and family size. Not every household receives the maximum amount.
The new study does not calculate what benefits should be or determine the best policy solution. It also does not measure whether families can find the modeled foods at nearby stores, whether they have transportation or whether they have enough time, equipment and energy to prepare meals from scratch.
Those limitations matter. Affordability is about more than the price printed on a shelf.
A lower-cost ingredient is not truly accessible if it requires a long drive to reach the store. A model meal may not be realistic for a parent working multiple jobs or a household without reliable kitchen equipment. Food preferences, cultural traditions and local availability also shape what people can reasonably buy and prepare.
The study focuses on prices, but it adds to a broader point: Nutrition guidance works better when it acknowledges the conditions in which people make food choices.
Season can matter too. A family may find fresh berries affordable during summer but expensive in winter. Frozen or canned produce may be more practical at certain times of year. A flexible shopping plan can help, but it cannot erase broader regional differences.
The findings arrive as the rules surrounding the Thrifty Food Plan are changing. A 2025 federal law preserved annual inflation adjustments but limited future reevaluations from increasing the plan’s inflation-adjusted cost. The next reevaluation may occur no earlier than Oct. 1, 2027.
The new study does not evaluate that law. But it underscores a question that will remain important as policymakers consider nutrition assistance: How well can a national benchmark account for the real cost of eating well in very different communities?
Advice to eat more fruit, vegetables and whole grains may be sound. But making those choices easier requires more than repeating the recommendation. It also means paying attention to the price, availability and practicality of the foods families are being encouraged to put on the table.
The study received support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Farvue Foundation.