Children’s Sensitivity to External Food Cues: How Distance to Serving Bowl Influences Children’s Consumption

Abstract

Overweight is increasing in children, leading to negative health consequences. Children also lack appropriate levels of important vitamins and nutrients in their diets. Environmental cues, such as food proximity, have been shown to influence consumption rates in adults. The present study has tested whether proximity to either a nutrient-dense or caloric-dense food would influence children's snack consumption in a day care setting. Children (N = 46, age range 3.4-11) consumed more of both nutrient- and energy-dense foods when they are sitting closer to the food than if they are sitting farther away from the food, above and beyond the effects of age. The data indicate that it may be possible to increase the consumption of nutrient-dense foods or decrease the consumption of energy-dense foods, respectively, by modifying the proximity of such foods within a child's environment.

Reducing discretionary food and beverage intake in early childhood: a systematic review within an ecological framework

“…Most studies were undertaken within the home setting (thirty-seven exposures/strategies out of fifty-five), primarily in observation studies (thirty-one out of thirty-seven). The majority of research within educational institutions has been from intervention studies; seven strategies (3,39,46,54) were identified compared with two exposures from observational studies (53) . A total of six exposures have been examined within the community setting, all from observational research (26,27,29,41,48,51) .…”

“…1). Over half of studies were based in the USA (n 18) (2,3,(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40) or Australia (n 6) (41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46) . Twenty-three were cross-sectional, observational studies (1,2,(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(41)(42)(43)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53) (see online supplementary material, Supplementary Table 1), with an average sample size of 563 (range 41 (31) -2074 (50) ).…”

“…Twenty-three were cross-sectional, observational studies (1,2,(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(41)(42)(43)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53) (see online supplementary material, Supplementary Table 1), with an average sample size of 563 (range 41 (31) -2074 (50) ). There were ten interventions (randomised controlled trials, n 8 (3,36,38,39,(44)(45)(46)54) ; case-control trial, n 1 (37) ; cohort study, n 1 (40) ; see online supplementary material, Supplementary Table 2), with an average sample size of 210 participants (range 29 (38) -560 (46) ). No studies rated high in methodological quality.…”

“…nutrition policy) and two included physical (e.g. food availability) strategies (3,39,46,54) . These strategies tended to focus on a smaller number of discretionary choices, such as snack foods, sweet snacks or confectionery (3,39,54) .…”

“…Consumers globally are exposed to an abundance of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods and beverages, which can be referred to as 'discretionary foods' or 'discretionary choices' (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) . Examples of such foods are sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, fried foods, pastries and cakes.…”