Deal or no deal? The prevalence and nutritional quality of price promotions among U.S. food and beverage purchases

Abstract

Objective This study examines trends in the prevalence of price promotions among packaged food and beverage purchases, differences in prevalence by household race/ethnicity or income, and the association between price promotions and the nutritional profile of purchases. Design This cross-sectional study utilizes a dataset of 90 million purchases from 38,744 (2008) to 45,042 (2012) US households in 2008–2012. Chi-square tests were used to examine whether the proportion of purchases with price promotions changed over time or differed by household race/ethnicity or income. T-tests were used to compare purchased products’ nutritional profiles. Results Prevalence of price promotions among packaged food and beverage purchases increased by 8% and 6%, respectively, from 2008 to 2012, with both reaching 34% by 2012. Higher-income households had greater proportions of purchases with price promotions than lower-income households. Asian households had the highest proportion of purchases with any price promotion, followed by non-Hispanic whites. While total price-promoted packaged food purchases had higher mean energy, total sugar, and saturated fat densities than purchases with no price promotions, absolute differences were small. Conclusions Prevalence of price promotions among US household purchases increased from 2008 to 2012 and was greater for higher-income households. No clear associations emerged between presence of price promotions and nutritional quality of purchases.

The frequency and magnitude of price‐promoted beverages available for sale in Australian supermarkets

“…The health implications of beverage price promotions depend on their influence on healthy and unhealthy beverage choices – a function of both the frequency and magnitude of price promotions on healthy and unhealthy beverages and consumer responses to such price promotions. While studies from the UK and US show that the impact of price promotions on purchasing behaviour is similar for healthy and less healthy foods, 18,19 comparable analyses are not available in the Australian context. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that ‘everyday low prices’ were not included as a price promotion in our study as we were interested in temporary (not ‘everyday’) price reductions.…”

Understanding the Intersection of Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Geographic Location: A Scoping Review of U.S. Consumer Food Purchasing

“…Thirty-four studies were included in this scoping review [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ]. Information on customer purchasing assessment methodologies used across studies is shown in ( Table 1 ).…”

“…Fifteen studies (44.1%) examined purchasing outcomes across racial and/or ethnic groups [ 27 , 29 , 30 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 ]. All studies examined purchasing among NHW, 14 examined purchasing among NHB, 14 studied purchasing among Hispanic, nine examined purchasing among non-Hispanic Other (or a different author definition that collapsed multiple racial/ethnic groups), and three investigated purchasing among Asian (using the author definition).…”

“…Several reviewed studies ( n = 15, 44.1%) presented purchasing findings by race/ethnicity [ 27 , 29 , 30 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 ]. Despite the large number of studies conducted to date, inconsistencies exist.…”

“…Most studies included in this review ( n = 19, 55.9%) examined SES differences in consumer food and/or beverage purchases [ 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 54 ]. These findings underscore that identifying purchasing patterns by SES continues to be a major priority in the field; included studies generally showed a lower likelihood of fruit, vegetable, and whole grain purchases and a higher likelihood for discretionary product purchases (i.e., salty snacks, sweets, and SSB) among consumers with lower incomes compared to higher incomes [ 58 ].…”