A smartphone app that gives low-income families money specifically for buying fruits and vegetables at local markets in Chile showed strong results in a pilot study. According to Gram Research analysis, all 30 participating families used their benefits, spending 38% more on produce, with over half reporting improved family diets and increased fruit and vegetable consumption within the 8-week program.
A new smartphone app in Chile called Bolsillo Saludable gives low-income families money to buy fresh fruits and vegetables at local markets. According to Gram Research analysis, researchers tested this program with 30 families over 8 weeks and found that everyone used their benefits and loved the program. Families reported eating more fruits and vegetables, and vendors saw increased sales. The study shows this simple idea could help poor families eat healthier by making fresh produce more affordable through their phones.
Key Statistics
A 2026 feasibility study of 30 low-income families in Santiago, Chile found that 100% of participants used a fruit and vegetable subsidy app, with each family making at least one monthly purchase at local markets.
The Bolsillo Saludable pilot study demonstrated a 38% increase in mean fruit and vegetable expenditure among low-income families over an 8-week period using a smartphone app-based subsidy at open-air markets.
In the 2026 Chilean feasibility study, over 50% of beneficiary families perceived positive changes in their family diet, including increased fruit and vegetable consumption and improved dietary diversity.
Market vendors in the Bolsillo Saludable pilot reported increased sales and expanded variety of fruits and vegetables offered, with high satisfaction rates for the smartphone payment system and program design.
The Quick Take
- What they studied: Whether a smartphone app that gives money specifically for buying fruits and vegetables at open-air markets actually works and if people like using it
- Who participated: 30 low-income families in Santiago, Chile, plus 15 family members in discussion groups and 6 market vendors who participated in the 8-week pilot program
- Key finding: Every single family used their benefits at least once per month, families spent 38% more money on fruits and vegetables, and both families and vendors said they really liked the program
- What it means for you: If you’re struggling to afford fresh produce, targeted subsidies delivered through apps and local markets could make healthy eating more possible. However, this was a small test in Chile, so results may differ in other places and larger programs
The Research Details
Researchers ran a small test program for 8 weeks with 30 families in Santiago, Chile. Each family received monthly money that could only be spent on fruits and vegetables at local open-air markets (called Ferias Libres) using a smartphone app. The researchers collected information two ways: they talked to 15 family members and 6 market vendors in group discussions to understand what people thought about the program, and they tracked actual spending through the app and surveys before and after the program.
This mixed-method approach—combining what people said about their experience with actual numbers on how much they spent—gives a fuller picture than either method alone. The researchers looked at whether people actually used the benefits, whether they liked the program, and whether their fruit and vegetable eating actually increased.
This research approach matters because it tests a real-world solution to a real problem: poor families often can’t afford healthy food. By testing it on a small scale first before spending money on a big program, researchers can find problems and fix them. The combination of listening to what people actually experienced plus measuring real spending behavior provides strong evidence about whether the idea works in practice.
This is a feasibility study, which means it’s designed to test whether something can work before doing a larger study. The small sample size (30 families) means results are preliminary and shouldn’t be applied everywhere yet. The fact that all participants used their benefits and the researchers got detailed feedback from both families and vendors strengthens the findings. The study was registered in a clinical trials database, which shows transparency. However, without a comparison group of families who didn’t get the subsidy, we can’t be completely sure the changes were caused by the program rather than other factors.
What the Results Show
The program showed strong adoption—every single family used their benefits, with each family making at least one purchase per month. This is important because it shows the app and system actually worked and people wanted to use it.
Families reported spending 38% more money on fruits and vegetables compared to before the program started. This is a substantial increase that suggests the subsidy actually changed purchasing behavior. Families also reported eating more fruits and vegetables and having greater variety in their diets, which are signs of improved nutrition.
Both families and market vendors expressed high satisfaction with the program. Families appreciated that the money could only be used for healthy foods, and vendors liked the increased sales and ability to sell more varieties of produce. Participants felt the program fit naturally into their existing shopping habits at local markets.
Dietary diversity improved, meaning families ate a wider range of different fruits and vegetables rather than the same few items. Vendors reported selling more types of produce than before, suggesting the subsidy encouraged them to stock greater variety. Over half of beneficiary families noticed positive changes in their family’s diet. The restriction to fruits and vegetables only was seen as appropriate rather than limiting, which is important for program design.
This study builds on growing evidence that subsidies can increase healthy food purchases among low-income families. Previous research has shown similar programs work in other countries, but this is one of the first to test the approach in Chile and through a smartphone app at local markets. The high adoption rate (100%) is notably strong compared to some other subsidy programs that struggle with participation. The focus on local markets rather than supermarkets is unique and appears to work well for this population.
The study was small (30 families) and only lasted 8 weeks, so we don’t know if people would keep using it long-term or if results would be the same in other cities or countries. There was no comparison group of families who didn’t get the subsidy, so we can’t be completely certain the dietary changes were caused by the program. The study relied partly on what people reported about their eating, which can be less accurate than measured food intake. Operational challenges like limited vendor participation and invoicing problems were identified but not fully solved, which could affect a larger program.
The Bottom Line
If you’re a low-income family struggling to afford fresh produce, this type of program could help you eat healthier by making fruits and vegetables more affordable. The evidence from this pilot is promising (confidence level: moderate—it’s a small study but shows strong results). For policymakers, the findings suggest this approach is worth scaling up, but operational issues need to be fixed first, particularly getting more vendors to participate and simplifying the payment system.
Low-income families who want to eat healthier but struggle with produce costs should care about this. Public health officials and policymakers in Chile and similar countries should pay attention because this could be a practical way to improve nutrition in vulnerable populations. Market vendors and small grocers should care because the program could increase their sales. People who design nutrition assistance programs should consider this model. However, this is still preliminary evidence, so large-scale decisions should wait for bigger studies.
In this 8-week pilot, families reported noticing dietary changes relatively quickly, with over half perceiving improvements during the program. However, long-term benefits for health (like weight loss or disease prevention) would take months to years to appear. If you started using such a program, you might notice eating more fruits and vegetables within weeks, but measurable health improvements would take longer.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does giving poor families money for vegetables actually make them eat healthier?
Research shows that when low-income families receive subsidies specifically for fruits and vegetables, they spend significantly more on produce—38% more in this Chilean study—and report eating more variety of healthy foods. However, long-term health improvements take time to measure.
How do smartphone subsidy programs for food work in practice?
The Bolsillo Saludable app gives families monthly benefits that can only be spent on fruits and vegetables at local open-air markets. Families use the app to pay at participating vendors, making it easy to track spending and ensure money goes to healthy foods. All 30 families in the pilot used their benefits regularly.
What challenges do food subsidy programs face when scaling up?
The Chilean pilot identified three main barriers: getting enough market vendors to participate in the program, limited variety of produce available, and invoicing difficulties. Solving these operational problems is essential before expanding the program to more families and cities.
Can this type of program work in other countries besides Chile?
The study suggests it could work in similar settings with local open-air markets and smartphone access, but this was only tested in one Chilean city with 30 families. Larger studies in different countries and communities are needed to confirm whether results would be similar elsewhere.
How long do families need to use the program to see dietary changes?
In the 8-week pilot, over half of families reported noticing increased fruit and vegetable consumption and dietary improvements. However, measurable health benefits like weight loss or disease prevention would require months to years of sustained healthy eating.
Want to Apply This Research?
- Track weekly fruit and vegetable spending and servings consumed. Set a goal to increase produce purchases by 20-30% and log daily servings of fruits and vegetables to see if the subsidy is actually changing eating habits
- Use the app to set weekly shopping lists focused on seasonal fruits and vegetables available at your local market. Plan meals around what’s on sale that week to maximize your subsidy benefits and build the habit of shopping for produce first
- Check your app weekly to review spending patterns and compare month-to-month trends. Take photos of meals to visually track whether produce is appearing more often on your family’s table. Monthly, review dietary diversity by counting how many different fruits and vegetables you purchased
This research is a small feasibility pilot study (30 families, 8 weeks) conducted in Santiago, Chile, and should not be considered definitive evidence for all populations or settings. Results are preliminary and promising but require larger, longer studies before widespread implementation. This study does not provide medical advice. If you have specific dietary concerns or health conditions, consult with a healthcare provider or registered dietitian. The findings suggest the program’s potential but do not guarantee similar results in other locations, populations, or timeframes. Individual results may vary based on local market availability, vendor participation, and personal circumstances.
This research translation is published by Gram Research, the science division of Gram, an AI-powered nutrition tracking app.