To examine the association between red and processed meat consumption and total food expenditures in US households and explore whether households could reduce food costs by substituting these meats with other protein sources such as poultry, seafood, eggs and plant proteins.

Cross-sectional study using data from the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS). Using adult male equivalents (AME) for standardisation, we categorised red and processed meat purchases into quintiles. We used generalised linear models to explore the association between red or processed meat consumption and food expenditures and the cost effect of substituting meat with other proteins.

United States.

Data from 4739 households with valid acquisition information from FoodAPS, a stratified multistage probability sample of US households.

Higher red and processed meat consumption were both significantly associated with higher total weekly food expenditures, particularly among households with low income. Substituting red or processed meat with poultry, eggs or plant proteins did not significantly affect overall food expenditures, whereas replacing meat with seafood, especially varieties high in n-3 fatty acids, led to increased costs.

Reducing red and processed meat consumption could offer savings for households, particularly those with low income. Although substitutions with seafood high in n-3 could increase expenses, alternative protein sources like poultry and plant proteins may serve as cost-neutral replacements. Public health strategies should emphasise dietary shifts’ economic, health and environmental benefits and aim to make nutritious yet affordable protein sources more accessible.

To systematically review the potential impact of reducing the set of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-eligible foods (e.g. not allowing purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages with SNAP benefits) on expenditures for restricted foods.

The impact on food expenditures of a $US 1 reduction in available SNAP benefits can be used to estimate the impact of restrictions on SNAP-eligible foods. An electronic search of EconPapers, AgEcon Search, EconLit, WorldCat, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, PubMed and NALDC, and a snowball search were conducted to obtain a sample of studies up to March 2015 that estimate the impacts of SNAP and other income on household food expenditures. The studies were classified according to study population, study design and whether they attempted to correct for major study design biases.

Estimates were extracted from fifty-nine published and unpublished studies.

US households.

Fifty-nine studies were found, yielding 123 estimates of the impact of SNAP benefits on food expenditures and 117 estimates of the difference in impacts between SNAP benefits and other income. Studies correcting for or mitigating study design biases had less estimate variation. Estimates indicate that expenditures on the restricted item would decrease by $US 1·6 to $US 4·8 if $US 10 of SNAP benefits would have otherwise been spent, with a median overall impact of $US 3.

The present literature suggests that restrictions on SNAP-eligible items may result in a small but potentially meaningful decrease in SNAP expenditures for restricted items. Further research is needed to evaluate whether this would translate into improvements in diet quality.