BetterThe question is asked in every kitchen and answered with an opinion. The 2026 edition of the UN food security report answers it with a measurement, because this year it looks specifically at the cost of a healthy diet.
The answer is yes. And the interesting part is not the amount, it is where the money goes.
A healthy diet costs 4.28 PPP dollars per person per dayup from 2.94 in 2017. 2.69 billion people cannot afford it, and in Africa that is 66.6% of the population.
What drives the cost: animal source foods, fruits and vegetablesstarchy staples contribute little. And 70 to 75% of what consumers pay arises after the farm gate.
The definitionWhat is being measured
Before any figure means anything, the thing being priced has to be defined, and the FAO's definition is stricter and humbler than the phrase suggests.
The cost measured is “the average minimum expenditure required to obtain locally available foods that meet energy and most nutrient requirements”.
And according to the FAO and the WHO, a healthy diet is one that is adequate, balanced, diverse, and moderate.
Three words in that definition do a lot of work. Minimum: this is the cheapest way to get there, not a comfortable diet. Locally available: it is priced with what is actually on sale where the person lives. Most nutrient requirements: not all of them, the bar is deliberately set at what is reachable.
The numberThe figure, and its curve
Between 2.94 and 4.28 dollars, the rise since 2017 is around 46%that is our arithmetic on the two published figures, not a figure from the report. The highest regional level is in Latin America and the Caribbean, at 4.91 PPP dollars.
Two things moved in opposite directions, and both are true. The cost went up. And the number of people who cannot afford it went downfrom 2.97 billion (37.4%) in 2021 to 2.69 billion (32.7%) in 2025. Incomes rose faster than food prices for a large number of people. For 2.69 billion, they did not.
The compositionWhat is expensive on the plate
The report breaks the cost down by food group, and the result is exactly what an empty fridge at the end of the month already knows.
- Animal source foods, fruits and vegetables account for the largest share of the cost.
- Starchy staples contribute relatively little.
- In Africa, animal source foods are the largest contributor.
- In Latin America and the Caribbean, vegetables represent the largest share.
So the cheap part of the plate is the part that fills, and the expensive part is the part that nourishes. That single sentence explains, without any moral commentary, why cutting a food budget produces a diet that looks the way it does.
The surpriseThe 70 to 75% after the farm
Here is the finding that reframes the whole question, and it is the one thing in this report almost nobody has repeated.
“Food value chains are a major determinant of prices. Post-farmgate activities account for 70 to 75 per cent of what consumers pay, with up to 40 per cent of total costs arising in processing, logistics and wholesale.”
The FAO adds why it matters: improving efficiency in those segments is critical “particularly for lowering the cost of perishable, nutrient-rich foods”.
Three quarters of what you hand over at the till is not the food. It is everything that happened to the food between the field and the shelf, and that share falls hardest on the items that spoil, which are precisely the fruits, vegetables and animal products the same report identifies as the expensive part.
Which relocates the question. “Why does eating well cost more?” is usually answered with something about demand, or farming, or personal choices. The FAO answers it with refrigeration, transport and wholesale margins.
What followsWhat the FAO says to do, and its caveat
Its prescription follows directly from where it found the cost:
- Investments in infrastructure, research and development, irrigation and cold chains.
- Reforms in subsidies, trade facilitation and regulatory frameworks.
- Targeted interventions that boost productivity and reduce losses, which, the report notes, can improve nutrition, strengthen resilience and support climate goals at the same time.
And the caveat, in the FAO's own sentence. Costs remain a major constraint on achieving Zero Hunger, “although lowering such costs alone will not be sufficient to improve dietary quality and nutrition outcomes”.
Price is a real obstacle. Removing it would not, by itself, fix what people eat. Both halves are in the same paragraph, and dropping either one produces a different article than the one the report supports.
So the honest answer to the question in the title is: yes, 4.28 dollars a day at the cheapestand most of that is not the food.
QuestionsFrequently asked questions
What is a “healthy diet”, in the FAO's sense?
For the FAO and the WHO, a healthy diet is one that is “adequate, balanced, diverse, and moderate”. The cost they measure is “the average minimum expenditure required to obtain locally available foods that meet energy and most nutrient requirements”. It is a floor, not an ordinary shopping basket.
What exactly does it cost?
4.28 purchasing power parity dollars per person per day in 2025, up from 3.44 in 2021 and 2.94 in 2017. The highest level is recorded in Latin America and the Caribbean, at 4.91 dollars. Purchasing power parity is used precisely to make these amounts comparable across countries.
How many people cannot afford it?
2.69 billion in 2025, or 32.7% of humanity, down from 2.97 billion (37.4%) in 2021. But that average hides a gap: in Africa, 66.6% of the population cannot afford it, more than double the levels observed in Asia and in Latin America and the Caribbean.
What is expensive on the plate?
The FAO is precise: animal source foods, fruits and vegetables account for the largest share of the cost, while starchy staples contribute relatively little. The composition varies by region, in Africa, animal source foods weigh most; in Latin America and the Caribbean, vegetables do.
Why is fresh food so expensive?
Because most of the price is not set at the farm. The FAO writes that post-farmgate activities account for 70 to 75% of what consumers pay, and that up to 40% of total costs arise in processing, logistics and wholesale. It notes that efficiency in these segments is critical, particularly for lowering the cost of perishable, nutrient-rich foods.
Would lowering the price be enough?
No, and the FAO says so in the same section: costs remain a major constraint on achieving Zero Hunger, “although lowering such costs alone will not be sufficient to improve dietary quality and nutrition outcomes”. Price is a real obstacle, and it is not the only one.
Read nextRelated
Sources
About this article. General and educational information. The amounts are in purchasing power parity, a unit used to compare countries and which does not correspond to a price at a till. They are global and regional averages from the 2026 edition of the report, revised every year: they describe the cost of living in no particular country. This text is neither nutritional nor budgeting advice.
Spotted an error or an out-of-date figure? Write to us: we will correct it and re-date the article. Our texts are written with the help of artificial intelligence and checked against official sources before publication, but a figure or a definition can change without us catching it. If anything here does not match what an official body tells you, they are right.