Tradeoffs Between Convenience, Cost, and Healthy Eating Index for Menus Varying in Ultraprocessed Foods

Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) comprise 65% of United States household food purchases and are considered more convenient and economical than minimally processed foods (MPFs). While evidence links UPF consumption to adverse health outcomes, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee determined that there is only limited evidence of an association with adiposity. Nevertheless, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans now recommend avoiding highly processed foods. Previous theoretical work has shown that a menu containing >80% of energy from UPFs can achieve a high Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2020, yet direct comparisons with ingredient-matched alternative menus are essential for understanding real-world trade-offs.

This study examined cost, convenience, diet quality, and shelf-stability in ingredient-matched theoretical menus varying in UPF content.

We compared three 7-d, ingredient-matched 2000-kcal menus varying in UPF content and convenience: 1) previously published high UPF menu (91% energy from UPFs); 2) MPF menu (19% UPFs); and 3) menu designed for convenience (CONV; 96% UPFs). Menus were analyzed for their HEI-2020, cost, shelf stability, and a meal inconvenience score. A weekly shopping simulation model estimated annual costs and waste for 4-person households.

The MPF menu had the highest HEI score (88/100), followed by UPF (85/100) and CONV (74/100) menus. Annual costs were highest for MPF ($22,571), followed by UPF ($20,163) and CONV ($20,130), with food waste representing 17%, 16%, and 6% of expenditures, respectively. MPF and UPF menus had similarly high mean inconvenience scores (5.89 and 4.31, respectively; P = 0.148), both significantly higher than CONV (1.91; both P ≤ 0.03). Stability analysis showed the CONV menu offered the longest shelf life.

The MPF menu has the highest diet quality but greatest food waste and preparation burden, while the convenience-optimized menu has lower waste and effort but compromise nutritional adequacy. These trade-offs warrant consideration in future investigations of dietary patterns.