The Surprising Reason for the Boom in Snack Sales
Americans are increasingly dining alone, and they’re opting for snacks rather than full meals, according to a new report from NPD group.
A key driver of the trend is the growing number of single-person households, since solo eaters are more likely to opt for snack foods for dinner. Nearly a quarter of all snack foods consumed last year were consumed at mealtime.
“Smaller household sizes and eating alone are among the growing factors with snacking,” NPD food and beverage industry analyst Darren Seifer said in a statement. “Food manufacturers should think about the unique needs of the solo consumer when developing products and packaging, and marketing messages should be crafted to be relevant to them and their snacking behaviors.”
Related: The 12 Hottest Food Trends for 2015
A separate report released by Nielsen last year found that more than half of global diners had selected snacks in the past 30 days to replace a lunch, 48 percent had snacked for breakfast and 41 percent had snacked for dinner.
When making their selection, single diners prefer single-serve packages and are increasingly turning to “better-for-you” snacks, like fresh fruit, breakfast bars, and yogurt, NPD found.
Food manufacturers are starting to adapt to the demand for healthier options. In June, General Mills said it would stop using artificial colors and flavors by 2016, and Kellogg Co. has vowed to do so by 2018.
Even as demand grows for healthier snacks, the most popular snacks in North Americans might make a nutritionist cringe. Nielsen found that the most popular snacks were chips, followed by chocolate and cheese.
Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:
- The $1 Trillion Question for the F-35: Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane?
- Hillary’s College Plan—Debt Free College Now, Tax Them When They Make Money
- You Won’t Believe What Some Job Seekers Are Putting on Their Resumes
Tax Refunds Rebound
Smaller refunds in the first few weeks of the current tax season were shaping up to be a political problem for Republicans, but new data from the IRS shows that the value of refund checks has snapped back and is now running 1.3 percent higher than last year. The average refund through February 23 last year was $3,103, while the average refund through February 22 of 2019 was $3,143 – a difference of $40. The chart below from J.P. Morgan shows how refunds performed over the last 3 years.
Number of the Day: $22 Trillion
The total national debt surpassed $22 trillion on Monday. Total public debt outstanding reached $22,012,840,891,685.32, to be exact. That figure is up by more than $1.3 trillion over the past 12 months and by more than $2 trillion since President Trump took office.
Chart of the Week: The Soaring Cost of Insulin
The cost of insulin used to treat Type 1 diabetes nearly doubled between 2012 and 2016, according to an analysis released this week by the Health Care Cost Institute. Researchers found that the average point-of-sale price increased “from $7.80 a day in 2012 to $15 a day in 2016 for someone using an average amount of insulin (60 units per day).” Annual spending per person on insulin rose from $2,864 to $5,705 over the five-year period. And by 2016, insulin costs accounted for nearly a third of all heath care spending for those with Type 1 diabetes (see the chart below), which rose from $12,467 in 2012 to $18,494.
Chart of the Day: Shutdown Hits Like a Hurricane
The partial government shutdown has hit the economy like a hurricane – and not just metaphorically. Analysts at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Tuesday that the shutdown has now cost the economy about $26 billion, close to the average cost of $27 billion per hurricane calculated by the Congressional Budget Office for storms striking the U.S. between 2000 and 2015. From an economic point of view, it’s basically “a self-imposed natural disaster,” CRFB said.
Chart of the Week: Lowering Medicare Drug Prices
The U.S. could save billions of dollars a year if Medicare were empowered to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies, according to a paper published by JAMA Internal Medicine earlier this week. Researchers compared the prices of the top 50 oral drugs in Medicare Part D to the prices for the same drugs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, which negotiates its own prices and uses a national formulary. They found that Medicare’s total spending was much higher than it would have been with VA pricing.
In 2016, for example, Medicare Part D spent $32.5 billion on the top 50 drugs but would have spent $18 billion if VA prices were in effect – or roughly 45 percent less. And the savings would likely be larger still, Axios’s Bob Herman said, since the study did not consider high-cost injectable drugs such as insulin.
