• The Too Good To Go app aims to help consumers save money and reduce food waste.
• I tried it for a week to see how much I could save.
• I found it was most useful for fresh produce, but the pastries weren't always great.

Everything is expensive right now. It's rare that I ever leave the grocery store having spent less than I wanted to.

I've heard of apps like Too Good To Go, which sell surplus food at a discount, but never gone much further than signing up.

To test it out, I spent a week in early December only buying food from the app. I wanted to see if it was a viable way of saving money, sticking to a budget, and learning to be a bit more flexible with my cooking.

I also want to be more mindful about the groceries I buy and, unfortunately, sometimes waste.

Too Good To Go's CEO, Mette Lykke, told me in a recent interview that the app now operates in 19 countries across North America, Europe, and Australia, and covers 170,000 stores.

Lykke said the company hopes to inspire people "to make that the first step in a journey toward having a more responsible relationship with food."

"If we look at the state of the planet and the climate crisis, then it's pretty clear that something needs to change," Lykke said.

It was fun trying out new places in my city, London. While the pastries I received were hit-and-miss, the fresh produce from local stores was a real highlight.

Monday

Monday was largely spent figuring out the platform. I found that its map feature was the best way to find local cafés and stores.

I saw that an expensive café on my local high street offered pastries, so I opted for that — £3.90 ($4.95) for a blueberry muffin, chocolate chip cookie, and slice of banana bread.

After the sugar rush I was still hungry, so I chose a bag of sandwiches and pastries from my local Costa Coffee for £3.50 ($4.44).

I got a slightly stale pan au raisin and two sandwiches — one seasonal turkey feast, and a BLT which my boyfriend took for lunch the next day.

In total, I spent £7.40 ($9.39) on items worth at least £22.90 ($29.08), so the week was off to a good start.

Tuesday

On Tuesday, I switched things up by trying out fresh produce from a couple of local stores. They offered "surprise bags" of groceries for £4 ($5.08) each.

While I was slightly overwhelmed with what to do with it all, it was an absolute hit with my boyfriend, who is always thrilled to be met with a culinary challenge.

One of the bags had Padron peppers, garlic, tomatoes, mushrooms, radishes, and beets. I also received three packets of pita bread, a sourdough baguette, a fruit bar, some buttermilk, and fresh herbs.

The multivitamin patches were a curveball, which I have to admit I didn't try.

In the other bag, I got a melon, some Greek yogurt, lettuce, butter, rainbow chard, and sausages.

The sausages went in the freezer, but almost everything else was used to make a pasta sauce, roasted peppers, sauteed mushrooms, buttermilk pancakes, and basil oil. The beets got pickled.

The only thing we ended up having to waste was the watercress, which was already looking past its best.

In total, I spent £8 ($10.16) on items worth at least £24 ($30.48).

Wednesday

Tuesday's groceries went further than expected, so I bought another pastry bag to satisfy my snackiness during the day.

I'm not convinced the sourdough loaf and pastel de nata (which I squashed) I got for £4.09 ($5.19) truly had a full sale value of £12 ($15.24), but they were both pretty good.

The server recommended putting the loaf in the freezer and toasting the slices, which was a great tip that lasted me the rest of the week.

Thursday

I knew I was out for dinner with friends on Thursday so I picked up some Starbucks pastries on the way. This was the biggest letdown of the experiment.

Throughout the week, I realized that several cafés don't offer anything until quite late in the day, by which time the food has been sitting out for hours. This makes sense from their perspective, but it does mean that some of the food isn't at its best.

But for £2.50 ($3.18), a muffin, cookie, cinnamon bun, and cheese stick is certainly better than nothing.

In total, I spent £2.50 ($3.18) on items worth at least £7.50 ($9.52).

Friday

I'd been eyeing up a nearby Bangladeshi restaurant all week, so knowing I had a night in alone on Friday, I went for the £4.09 ($5.19) curry bag they were offering.

I got a few bhajis, some chicken and rice, two veggie curries, more rice, some okra, and what I thought was probably cabbage.

It was all good and spicy, though the bhajis were slightly stale.

In total, I spent £4.09 ($5.19) on items worth at least £12 ($15.24).

The results

For the whole week, I spent £26.08 ($33.11) on £78.40 ($99.54) worth of food.

Not every bag felt like amazing value. But some, especially the grocery bags, were genuinely impressive.

The experience taught me a lot about how to be flexible. I'm now committed to focusing less on "use by" dates on food and sticking to the safety assessment Lykke taught me — "look, smell, taste, don't waste" — before throwing things out.

My advice for anyone downloading Too Good To Go is to use it with foresight. The app is great for saving money for those on a strict budget who are OK with some compromises.

Too Good To Go is available in huge stores in the UK (such as Asda) and the US (including Whole Foods), so there are plenty of places to try.

Lykke told me the nice thing about Too Good To Go is you don't have to give anything up, and she's right. From a quick scan of my area, there is bubble tea, ice cream, Turkish food, burgers, doughnuts, and more. You don't get to choose exactly what you want, but as long as you don't mind a bit of a surprise, it's worth a try,

"You actually get good food, it's a good deal, and you do something good," Lykke said. "It's win-win for businesses, for consumers, and for the planet."

• Ten of the 15 most expensive metros based on regional price parity data for 2023 were in California.
• Miami and New York were two non-California metros with higher prices than the national average.
• Some of the least expensive areas were in Arkansas.

The most expensive US metros are commonly found in California, while many of the least expensive ones can be found in the South.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently published regional price parity data for 2023. The figures for states and metros show how price levels of goods and services compare to the national average.

The metro area of Seattle had a regional price parity for goods and services of around 113 in 2023. That means prices were 13% more expensive than the national average, making it one of the metros with the highest regional price parities.

"Whether you are considering a job offer in a more expensive city, looking for an affordable place to retire, or are just curious about how price levels compare between different parts of the country, our regional price parities can help," Vipin Arora, the director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, said in a post.

California was 12.6% more expensive than the national average in 2023, making it the state with the highest regional price parity.

Several Golden State metros had the highest regional price parities among the over 380 metro areas in the US. San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles was roughly 11% more expensive than the national average, and prices in San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley were 18% higher than the average.

It's also especially pricey in the Seattle, New York, Miami, Boston, and Honolulu metro areas, rounding out the non-Californian metros with the highest regional price parities in 2023.

Pine Bluff, Arkansas, was around 20% less expensive than the national average, making it the metro with the lowest regional price parity in 2023. Arkansas had the lowest regional price parity among states last year.

Several other metros in Arkansas were among the least expensive areas in the US. Most of the 15 metros with the lowest cost of living were in the South.

• New regional price parity data showed the varying cost of living in the US.
• California and Washington, DC, had the highest cost of living, largely driven by housing costs.
• Most of the states with the lowest relative cost of living were around the middle of the country.

Many states have a lower cost of living than the national average, but the West Coast and Northeast are still pricey.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis published new regional price parity data on Thursday that showed how expensive it is to live in different areas of the US.

"Regional price parities measure the differences in price levels across states for a given year and are expressed as a percentage of the overall national price level," BEA said in a news release.

The new 2023 data showed 16 states and Washington, DC, had more expensive goods and services than the national average. The states with the lowest cost of living were mainly around the middle of the country, including some states in the South.

The following map shows overall regional price parities, where a value over 100 means it was above the national average. Hawaii's figure of 108.6 means goods and services were about 9% more expensive than the average.

California had the highest relative cost of living; the state is 12.6% more expensive than the average. California metros also made up the majority of the top 10 that had the highest all-items regional price parities in 2023. The metro area of San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley had the highest at 118.2, meaning it was almost 20% more expensive than the national average.

Washington, DC, had an ever-so-slightly higher figure than California in 2022 but fell short of California's in 2023. DC was 10.8% more expensive than the average. New Jersey ranked right below DC.

Relatively high housing costs contributed to the overall high regional price parities in those two states and DC. BEA said rents are usually "the main driver in differences in RPPs." DC, California, and New Jersey had the highest regional price parities for rents.

Arkansas continued to have the lowest regional price parity and was 13.5% less expensive than the national average in 2023. Alabama, West Virginia, and South Dakota were among the 10 states that were at least 10% less expensive than the national average.

• Pamela Shields, 67, unretired to supplement her Social Security income with part-time jobs.
• Many older Americans say monthly Social Security checks aren't enough to pay their bills.
• An analysis found that about 13% of retired baby boomers on LinkedIn returned to work in 2023.

Pamela Shields is one of many older Americans who "unretired" because she couldn't live solely off her Social Security checks.

The 67-year-old splits her time between caring for older neighbors and working the night shift at her local grocery store. It can be exhausting, but she feels like it's her only option to pay the bills.

"I really want to be retired and not have to do all this stuff to make a living," Shields told Business Insider. "But I don't see myself doing that."

Shields lives in Fort Worth, Texas, on her $1,470 monthly Social Security payments. She supplements that income with the roughly $600 she earns each month from her grocery and caregiving jobs. Between them, she often works seven days a week.

Shields hoped she'd be done working at this point in her life. She had a long career in customer service and human resources, and she built a 401(k) account with some retirement savings. But after two divorces and unexpected medical expenses, she's doing her best to keep her family and herself financially afloat.

Shields' experience underscores a larger American retirement crisis. Business Insider talked with more than 50 baby boomers who primarily rely on their monthly Social Security checks to get by, and many said that wasn't enough to cover essentials. One in five adults 50 and over surveyed by AARP and the University of Chicago's NORC research firm in January said they didn't have retirement savings. Those who do have savings worry they'll outlive what's in the bank.

With financial woes in their golden years, some older Americans have returned to work. LinkedIn's Economic Graph said it found that about 13% of baby boomers on the platform returned to the workforce, or "unretired," in 2023, a five-year high.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Social Security isn't enough for some to live on

Shields wanted to work until she was 67 but ended up retiring at 59 after injuries from a car accident prevented her from working.

She unretired when she realized her monthly Social Security payments wouldn't be enough to support herself or her family. Medical bills and delays in receiving her disability payments also led her to drain her 401(k).

Shields said she sometimes has to sit down during her shifts at the grocery store "because my feet hurt so bad."

Working two part-time jobs is how Shields can put food on the table. She's been a single mom for over a decade, and while her three children are adults, Shields said she still provides them with some financial support. One of her daughters lives with her because of health issues.

Shields shoulders many of her family's expenses on her own. She said that Medicare covered most of her healthcare needs but that housing costs, utility payments, and cellphone bills stretch her tight budget. She also chips in on her grandson's marching-band fees and helps with one of her children's grocery bills when she's able. "I try to help as much as I can," she said.

Shields isn't sure when she'll be able to fully retire. She said she didn't expect her retirement expenses to be so high and didn't save enough money to offset the unexpected costs of medical care, her divorces, and parenting. She advises others to learn about finances early in life and give their children a strong financial education.

"Life has dealt this hand to me," she said. "I'm not really happy about it, but I'm doing the best I can."

Have you had to return to work after retirement? Are you comfortable sharing your experience with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].