Guadalupe X Ayala1, Heather D'Angelo2, Joel Gittelsohn3, Lucy Horton4, Kurt Ribisl2, Lesley Schmidt Sindberg5, Christina Olson1, Anna Kharmats6, Melissa N Laska5. 1. 1College of Health and Human Services,San Diego State University,San Diego,CA,USA. 2. 3Department of Health Behavior,Gillings School of Global Public Health,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,Chapel Hill,NC,USA. 3. 4Bloomberg School of Public Health,John Hopkins Global Center on Childhood Obesity,Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore,MD,USA. 4. 2Institute for Behavioral and Community Health,9245 Sky Park Court,Suite 220,San Diego,CA 92123,USA. 5. 5Division of Epidemiology and Community Health,School of Public Health,University of Minnesota,Minneapolis,MN,USA. 6. 7Bloomberg School of Public Health,Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore,MD,USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study examined food and beverage distributors' sourcing, placement and promotion of obesogenic (energy-dense, nutrient-poor) product categories from the perspective of small food store owners/managers. The obesogenic product categories of interest were savoury snacks, sugary beverages, sweet snacks, confectionery and frozen treats. Specifically, we examined how frequently distributors sourced these products, and the types of agreements and expectations they had for their placement and promotion. Differences were explored by store size and ethnicity. Fresh produce was used as a comparison when examining differences in frequency of sourcing only, with implications for healthy food access. DESIGN: Survey research involving in-person interviews. SETTING: Four urban areas in the USA: Baltimore, MD; Durham, NC; Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN; and San Diego, CA. SUBJECTS: Seventy-two small food store owners/managers, 65 % consent rate. RESULTS: Most distributors sourced obesogenic products weekly. Agreements to place products were predominantly informal (e.g. handshake) with sweet snack, confectionery and frozen treat distributors, and formal (e.g. contract) with savoury snack and sugary beverage distributors. Free-standing displays were the most common incentive provided by distributors and they expected some control over their placement and pricing. Free/discounted products and signage were also common incentives but slotting fees were not. Smaller stores and ethnic stores were less likely to receive various incentives, but among sweet snack distributors, they were more likely to control the price in ethnic v. non-ethnic stores. CONCLUSIONS: Obesogenic products are ubiquitous. Influencing what is made available to consumers in the retail food environment needs to consider the distributor.
OBJECTIVE: The present study examined food and beverage distributors' sourcing, placement and promotion of obesogenic (energy-dense, nutrient-poor) product categories from the perspective of small food store owners/managers. The obesogenic product categories of interest were savoury snacks, sugary beverages, sweet snacks, confectionery and frozen treats. Specifically, we examined how frequently distributors sourced these products, and the types of agreements and expectations they had for their placement and promotion. Differences were explored by store size and ethnicity. Fresh produce was used as a comparison when examining differences in frequency of sourcing only, with implications for healthy food access. DESIGN: Survey research involving in-person interviews. SETTING: Four urban areas in the USA: Baltimore, MD; Durham, NC; Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN; and San Diego, CA. SUBJECTS: Seventy-two small food store owners/managers, 65 % consent rate. RESULTS: Most distributors sourced obesogenic products weekly. Agreements to place products were predominantly informal (e.g. handshake) with sweet snack, confectionery and frozen treat distributors, and formal (e.g. contract) with savoury snack and sugary beverage distributors. Free-standing displays were the most common incentive provided by distributors and they expected some control over their placement and pricing. Free/discounted products and signage were also common incentives but slotting fees were not. Smaller stores and ethnic stores were less likely to receive various incentives, but among sweet snack distributors, they were more likely to control the price in ethnic v. non-ethnic stores. CONCLUSIONS: Obesogenic products are ubiquitous. Influencing what is made available to consumers in the retail food environment needs to consider the distributor.
Entities:
Keywords:
Distributors; Food stores; Interviews; Store owners/managers
Authors: Caitlin E Caspi; Megan R Winkler; Kathleen M Lenk; Lisa J Harnack; Darin J Erickson; Melissa N Laska Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Miranda R Blake; Gary Sacks; Christina Zorbas; Josephine Marshall; Liliana Orellana; Amy K Brown; Marj Moodie; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Jaithri Ananthapavan; Fabrice Etilé; Adrian J Cameron Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Bailey Houghtaling; Elena L Serrano; Vivica I Kraak; Samantha M Harden; George C Davis; Sarah A Misyak Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Jennifer Sanchez-Flack; Barbara Baquero; Shih-Fan Lin; George Belch; Julie L Pickrel; Cheryl A M Anderson; Elva Arredondo; Maria Elena Martinez; Joni Mayer; Ming Ji; John P Elder; Guadalupe X Ayala Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Amelie A Hecht; Crystal L Perez; Michele Polascek; Anne N Thorndike; Rebecca L Franckle; Alyssa J Moran Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Joel Gittelsohn; Christina M Kasprzak; Alex B Hill; Samantha M Sundermeir; Melissa N Laska; Rachael D Dombrowski; Julia DeAngelo; Angela Odoms-Young; Lucia A Leone Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 3.390