Jennifer L Harris1, Maia Hyary2, Marlene B Schwartz1. 1. 1 Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, University of Connecticut , Hartford, CT. 2. 2 Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University , Waltham, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2014, USDA established nutrition standards for snack foods sold in schools. Many manufacturers reformulated products to meet these Smart Snacks standards, but continue to advertise unhealthy versions of the same brands. Furthermore, Smart Snack packaging often looks similar to less nutritious versions sold outside of schools (look-alike products). This practice may confuse consumers about the nutritional quality of Smart Snacks and raise concerns about schools selling them. METHODS: An online experiment with 659 students (13-17 years) and 859 parents (children ages 10-13) was performed. Participants randomly viewed information about snacks sold at a hypothetical school, including (1) look-alike Smart Snacks; (2) existing store versions of the same brands; (3) repackaged Smart Snacks (highlighting differences versus unhealthy versions); or (4) consistent brands (i.e., Smart Snack versions also sold in stores). They then rated the individual snacks offered and the school selling them. RESULTS: As hypothesized, students and parents rated look-alike and store versions similarly in taste, healthfulness, and purchase intent, while considering repackaged Smart Snacks as healthier, but less tasty. Most participants also inaccurately believed they had seen look-alike products for sale in stores. Furthermore, they rated schools offering look-alike Smart Snacks and store versions as less concerned about students' health and well-being than schools in the other two conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The nutritional quality of snacks sold in schools has improved, but many Smart Snacks are virtually indistinguishable from less nutritious versions widely sold outside of schools. This practice likely benefits the brands, but may not improve children's overall diet and undermines schools' ability to teach good nutrition.
BACKGROUND: In 2014, USDA established nutrition standards for snack foods sold in schools. Many manufacturers reformulated products to meet these Smart Snacks standards, but continue to advertise unhealthy versions of the same brands. Furthermore, Smart Snack packaging often looks similar to less nutritious versions sold outside of schools (look-alike products). This practice may confuse consumers about the nutritional quality of Smart Snacks and raise concerns about schools selling them. METHODS: An online experiment with 659 students (13-17 years) and 859 parents (children ages 10-13) was performed. Participants randomly viewed information about snacks sold at a hypothetical school, including (1) look-alike Smart Snacks; (2) existing store versions of the same brands; (3) repackaged Smart Snacks (highlighting differences versus unhealthy versions); or (4) consistent brands (i.e., Smart Snack versions also sold in stores). They then rated the individual snacks offered and the school selling them. RESULTS: As hypothesized, students and parents rated look-alike and store versions similarly in taste, healthfulness, and purchase intent, while considering repackaged Smart Snacks as healthier, but less tasty. Most participants also inaccurately believed they had seen look-alike products for sale in stores. Furthermore, they rated schools offering look-alike Smart Snacks and store versions as less concerned about students' health and well-being than schools in the other two conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The nutritional quality of snacks sold in schools has improved, but many Smart Snacks are virtually indistinguishable from less nutritious versions widely sold outside of schools. This practice likely benefits the brands, but may not improve children's overall diet and undermines schools' ability to teach good nutrition.
Authors: Danielle C Ompad; Kyle M Snyder; Simon Sandh; Daniel Hagen; Kewanda J Collier; Emily Goldmann; Melody S Goodman; Andy S L Tan Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Mika Matsuzaki; Brisa N Sánchez; R David Rebanal; Joel Gittelsohn; Emma V Sanchez-Vaznaugh Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 11.069