To describe the diet costs of adults in the National Diet and Nutrition Study (NDNS) and explore patterns in costs according to sociodemographic indicators.

Cross-sectional diet diary information was matched to a database of food prices to assign a cost to each food or non-alcoholic beverage consumed. Daily diet costs were calculated, as well as costs per 10 MJ to improve comparability across differing energy requirements. Costs were compared between categories of sociodemographic variables and health behaviours. Multivariable regression assessed the effects of each variable on diet costs after adjustment.

The NDNS is a rolling dietary survey, recruiting a representative UK sample each year. The study features data from 2008–2010.

Adults aged 19 years or over were included. The sample consisted of 1014 participants.

The geometric mean daily diet cost was £2·89 (95 % CI £2·81, £2·96). Energy intake and daily diet cost were strongly associated. The mean energy-adjusted cost was £4·09 (95 % CI £4·01, £4·18) per 10 MJ. Energy-adjusted costs differed significantly between many subgroups, including by sex and household income. Multivariable regression found significant effects of sex, qualifications and occupation (costs per 10 MJ only), as well as equivalized household income, BMI and fruit and vegetable consumption on diet costs.

This is the first time that monetary costs have been applied to the diets of NDNS adults. The findings suggest that certain subgroups in the UK – for example those on lower incomes – consume diets of lower monetary value. Observed differences were mostly in the directions anticipated.

The National Diet and Nutrition Surveys (NDNS) are a series of government-funded surveys of food intake, nutrient intake and nutritional status of individuals, undertaken to support nutritional policy and risk assessment. This paper summarises a review that considered the extent to which NDNS met the needs of users and suggested options for the future. The Food Standards Agency has since progressed favoured options. This paper aims to help others wishing to obtain this type of information within their own populations.

A detailed questionnaire was used to probe use of data and gather opinions from users, producers and managers of the NDNS. It asked about general information needs from NDNS and changes that might be made. This was followed by a two-day workshop which included discussion of the main issues and the generation of 19 possible future options for consideration by the Agency.

Options to improve effectiveness included methods to prioritise breadth and depth of coverage and possible ways of improving response and compliance. Strategies to make surveys more efficient and timely, such as adopting a rolling programme, disaggregating survey components, integrating with other studies and improving data access, were also suggested. A rolling programme, in which data are collected continuously, was the favoured option to address some of the concerns and a strategy is now in place to achieve this.

There is widespread support for the NDNS from its users. There is no alternative source for such high-quality data on food and nutrient consumption and nutritional status and physical measurements in the same individuals. Useful information, such as the potential value of using a rolling programme from the outset, can be gained from this British experience by others wishing to measure food and nutrient intakes and status in their own populations.