Healthy food marketing and purchases of fruits and vegetables in large grocery stores

Abstract

Healthy food marketing in the retail environment can be an important driver of fruit and vegetable purchases. In Los Angeles County, the Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention (NEOP) program utilized this strategy to promote healthy eating among low-income families that shop at large retail chain stores. The present study assessed whether self-reported exposure to large retail NEOP interventions, including seeing at least one store visual, watching an in-store cooking demonstration, and/or seeing at least one program advertisement, were associated with increased fruit and vegetable purchases. During fall 2014, the Division of Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention in the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health partnered with Samuels Center to conduct store patron intercept surveys at six large food retail stores participating in NEOP across Los Angeles County. Of 1050 participants who completed the survey, almost a quarter (25.0%) reported seeing at least one visual throughout the store and 9.2% watched a cooking demonstration. Seeing at least one visual and watching a cooking demonstration were not significantly associated with percent dollars spent on fruits and vegetables each week. Among participants who reported being exposed to at least one store visual, those enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reported spending 6% more on fruits and vegetables than those who were not enrolled ( p = 0.046). Although the NEOP store interventions did not individually increase store purchases, their educational value may still influence patron food selection, especially if coupled to the monetary resources of SNAP for those who are enrolled.

Improving Consumption and Purchases of Healthier Foods in Retail Environments: A Systematic Review

“…Promotion was the most commonly utilized marketing P and was the focus of 23 studies. Overall, 1 study had mixed effects (positive + negative) [ 16 ], 5 had mixed effects (positive + null) [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ], 8 had mixed effects (positive + null + negative) [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ], 1 had negative effects [ 30 ], 2 had null effects [ 31 , 32 ], and 13 had positive effects [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ], (see Table 2 ).…”

“…Twenty-three studies used a promotion strategy [ 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ] as the sole intervention approach. Ten promotion interventions had positive effects [ 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ], four reported mixed effects (positive + null) [ 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 ], six reported mixed effects (positive + null + negative) [ 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ], two reported null effects [ 31 , 32 ], and one reported negative effects [ 30 ].…”

“…Pre-experimental study designs reflected the majority of single-component intervention studies employing promotion [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Five implemented shelf labels [ 19 , 21 , 27 , 28 , 41 ], two used mass media social marketing campaigns [ 32 , 45 ], two implemented podcasts [ 20 , 42 ], one used taste tests [ 43 ], and one used a smartphone app [ 44 ].…”

Food availability and advertising within food outlets around primary healthcare services in Brazil

“…Third, to improve PAS effectiveness, actions aiming to improve the retail food environment around these services are also needed. Reducing UPF food advertising inside large-chain supermarkets and local grocery stores, convenience stores or bakeries and substituting it for F&V advertising such as in-store coupons or specials, in-store tastings/recipe demonstrations, and displaying labels or signs on shelves that highlight healthier options are some examples of marketing strategies that attract consumers (34,35) .…”

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education in Los Angeles County: Lessons and observations from the field, 2013–2016

“…In the second of the three (fifth article in the collection), Sutton et al (2019a) discover that healthy food marketing (e.g., program advertising and in-store cooking demonstrations) in large grocery stores was not significantly associated with percent dollars spent on fruits and vegetables each week. These results were likely the byproduct of limited and/or differential exposure to the intervention, which varied across the six participating stores in the study.…”