Chi Ching Vivian Lam1, Katrine T Ejlerskov2, Martin White2, Jean Adams2. 1. 1Department of Public Health & Primary Care,Institute of Public Health,University of Cambridge,Cambridge,UK. 2. 2Centre for Diet & Activity Research,MRC Epidemiology Unit,University of Cambridge,Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science,Cambridge Biomedical Campus,CambridgeCB2 0QQ,UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if voluntary policies on supermarket checkout foods are associated with a difference in the healthfulness of foods displayed at, or near, supermarket checkout areas. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of foods at, or near, supermarket checkouts categorised as less healthy or not according to the Food Standards Agency's Nutrient Profiling Model. SETTING: One city in Eastern England (population about 125 000). SUBJECTS: All stores in nine supermarket groups open for business in June-July 2017 in the study city. Supermarket checkout food policies were categorised as clear and consistent, vague or inconsistent, or none. RESULTS: In thirty-three stores, 11 434 checkout food exposures were recorded, of which 8010 (70·1 %) were less healthy; and 2558 foods in areas near checkouts, of which 1769 (69·2 %) were less healthy. After adjusting for a marker of store size, the odds of a checkout food exposure being 'less healthy' was lower in stores with vague or inconsistent checkout policies (OR=0·63; 95 % CI 0·49, 0·80) and in stores with clear and consistent checkout policies (OR=0·33; 95 % CI 0·24, 0·45), compared with no policy. There was no difference in the odds of foods near, but not at, checkouts being less healthy according to checkout food policy. CONCLUSIONS: Supermarket checkout food policies were associated with lower odds of checkout foods but not foods near, but not at, checkouts being less healthy. Further research is required to explore impacts on purchasing and consumption.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if voluntary policies on supermarket checkout foods are associated with a difference in the healthfulness of foods displayed at, or near, supermarket checkout areas. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of foods at, or near, supermarket checkouts categorised as less healthy or not according to the Food Standards Agency's Nutrient Profiling Model. SETTING: One city in Eastern England (population about 125 000). SUBJECTS: All stores in nine supermarket groups open for business in June-July 2017 in the study city. Supermarket checkout food policies were categorised as clear and consistent, vague or inconsistent, or none. RESULTS: In thirty-three stores, 11 434 checkout food exposures were recorded, of which 8010 (70·1 %) were less healthy; and 2558 foods in areas near checkouts, of which 1769 (69·2 %) were less healthy. After adjusting for a marker of store size, the odds of a checkout food exposure being 'less healthy' was lower in stores with vague or inconsistent checkout policies (OR=0·63; 95 % CI 0·49, 0·80) and in stores with clear and consistent checkout policies (OR=0·33; 95 % CI 0·24, 0·45), compared with no policy. There was no difference in the odds of foods near, but not at, checkouts being less healthy according to checkout food policy. CONCLUSIONS: Supermarket checkout food policies were associated with lower odds of checkout foods but not foods near, but not at, checkouts being less healthy. Further research is required to explore impacts on purchasing and consumption.
Authors: Mary Alison Durand; Mark Petticrew; Lucy Goulding; Elizabeth Eastmure; Cecile Knai; Nicholas Mays Journal: Health Policy Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Lise L Winkler; Ulla Christensen; Charlotte Glümer; Paul Bloch; Bent E Mikkelsen; Brian Wansink; Ulla Toft Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Christina Vogel; Sarah Crozier; Daniel Penn-Newman; Kylie Ball; Graham Moon; Joanne Lord; Cyrus Cooper; Janis Baird Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Katrine T Ejlerskov; Stephen J Sharp; Martine Stead; Ashley J Adamson; Martin White; Jean Adams Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Marlijn Huitink; Maartje P Poelman; Jacob C Seidell; Milan Pleus; Tom Hofkamp; Carlijn Kuin; S Coosje Dijkstra Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Camila Aparecida Borges; Kamila Tiemann Gabe; Patricia Constante Jaime Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.390