To evaluate a multifaceted supermarket intervention promoting healthier alternatives to commonly purchased foods.
Sales of 385 foods promoted between July and October, 2012 in the Eat Right–Live Well! intervention supermarket were compared with sales in a control supermarket.
Two supermarkets in geographically separate, low-income, urban neighborhoods.
One control and 1 intervention supermarket.
Product labeling, employee training, community outreach, and in-store promotions, including taste tests.
Main Outcome Measures
Number of items sold; absolute and percent differences in sales.
Difference-in-difference analyses compared absolute and percent changes between stores and over time within stores. Sub-analyses examined taste-tested items and specific food categories, and promoted items labeled with high fidelity.
Comparing pre- and postintervention periods, within-store difference-in-differences for promoted products in the intervention store (25,776 items; 23.1%) was more favorable than the control (9,429 items; 6.6%). The decrease in taste-tested items' sales was smaller in the intervention store (946 items; 5.5%) than the control store (14,666 items; 26.6%). Increased sales of foods labeled with high fidelity were greater in the intervention store (25,414 items; 28.0%) than the control store (7,306 items; 6.3%).
Conclusions and Implications
Store-based interventions, particularly high-fidelity labeling, can increase promoted food sales.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
SNEB Member LoginSNEB Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Login via the SNEB Website to access all journal content and features.
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Measuring the food environment and its effects on obesity in the United States: a systematic review of methods and results.J Commun Health. 2014; 40: 1-12
- Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: a review of food deserts literature.Health Place. 2010; 16: 876-884
- Concerning limitations of food-environment research: a narrative review and commentary framed around obesity and diet-related diseases in youth.J Acad Nutr Diet. 2014; 115: 205-212
- Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs.Am J Clin Nutr. 2004; 79: 6-16
- Supermarkets, other food stores, and obesity: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study.Am J Prev Med. 2006; 30: 333-339
- Racial/ethnic disparities in exercise and dietary behaviors of middle-aged and older adults.J Gen Intern Med. 2011; 26: 245-250
- Household income disparities in fruit and vegetable consumption by state and territory: results of the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012; 112: 2014-2021
- Strategies for increasing fruit and vegetable intake in grocery stores and communities: policy, pricing, and environmental change.Prev Med. 2004; 39: 75-80
Food Marketing Institute. Supermarket facts. http://www.fmi.org/research-resources/supermarket-facts. Accessed March 3, 2015.
- Nutrition interventions at point-of-sale to encourage healthier food purchasing: a systematic review.BMC Public Health. 2014; 14: 919
- Creating healthy food and eating environments: policy and environmental approaches.Annu Rev Public Health. 2008; 29: 253-272
- Process evaluation of a comprehensive supermarket intervention in a low-income Baltimore community.Health Promot Pract. 2015 Aug 21; ([Epub ahead of print]) (pii:1524839915599359)
- Supermarket and grocery store based interventions to promote healthful food choices and eating practices: a systematic review.Prev Chronic Dis. 2014; 11: E50
- Neighborhood Health Profile Reports.Baltimore City Health Dept, Baltimore, MDDecember 2014
- A framework for understanding grocery purchasing in a low-income urban environment.Qual Health Res. 2013; 23: 665-678
- Identifying consumer preferences for nutrition information on grocery store shelf labels.Food Policy. 2010; 35: 429-436
- Can information costs affect consumer choice? Nutritional labels in a supermarket experiment.Int J Ind Organ. 2013; 31: 153-163
- Is food marketing making us fat? A multi-disciplinary review.Found Trend Market. 2011; 5: 113-196
- A 2-phase labeling and choice architecture intervention to improve healthy food and beverage choices.Am J Public Health. 2012; 102: 527-533
- A Food Labeling Guide: Guidance for Industry.US Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD2009
- Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Promoting Healthier Choices.National Academies Press, Washington, DC2012
- 1% or less: a community-based nutrition campaign.Public Health Rep. 1998; 113: 410
- A corner store intervention in a low-income urban community is associated with increased availability and sales of some healthy foods.Public Health Nutr. 2009; 12: 2060-2067
- Health marketing in the supermarket: using prompting, product sampling, and price reduction to increase customer purchases of lower-fat items.Health Mark Q. 1997; 14: 85-99
- The shop smart for your heart grocery program.J Nutr Educ. 1987; 19: 225-228
- Point-of-purchase health information encourages customers to purchase vegetables: objective analysis by using a point-of-sales system.Environ Health Prev Med. 2011; 16: 239-246
- Nutrition education at the point of purchase: the foods for health project evaluated.Prev Med. 1986; 15: 60-73
- Measures of the food environment.Am J Prev Med. 2009; 36: S124-S133
- A pilot food store intervention in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.Pac Health Dialog. 2007; 14: 43-53
- An urban food store intervention positively affects food-related psychosocial variables and food behaviors.Health Educ Behav. 2009; 37: 390-402
- A food store intervention trial improves caregiver psychosocial factors and children's dietary intake in Hawaii.Obesity. 2010; 18: S84-S90
- Point-of-purchase nutrition information influences food-purchasing behaviors of college students: a pilot study.J Am Diet Assoc. 2011; 111: S42-S46
- Effect of a grocery store intervention on sales of nutritious foods to youth and their families.J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012; 112: 897-901
- “Eat for Health”: a supermarket intervention for nutrition and cancer risk reduction.Am J Public Health. 1994; 84: 72-76
- Nutrition shelf-labeling and consumer purchase behavior.J Nutr Educ. 1992; 24: 75-81
- Price discounts significantly enhance fruit and vegetable purchases when combined with nutrition education: a randomized controlled supermarket trial.Am J Clin Nutr. 2013; 97: 886-895
- Development of international criteria for a front of package food labelling system: the International Choices Programme.Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011; 65: 1190-1200
- Policy interventions to promote healthy eating: a review of what works, what does not, and what is promising.Food Nutr Bull. 2011; 32: 365-375
Published online: October 22, 2015
Accepted: September 17, 2015
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The authors' conflict of interest disclosures can be found online with this article on www.jneb.org.
© 2016 Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.