Stefanie Vandevijvere1, Iris Van Dam2,3. 1. Sciensano (Scientific Institute of Public Health), J.Wytsmanstraat 14, 1050, Brussel, Belgium. stefanie.vandevijvere@sciensano.be. 2. Sciensano (Scientific Institute of Public Health), J.Wytsmanstraat 14, 1050, Brussel, Belgium. 3. INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique), Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine the proportion of healthier and less healthy food promotions in circulars of major Belgian supermarket chains. METHODS: Food promotions were collected from all circulars over 1 year from the five largest Belgian supermarket chains. Foods promoted were classified according to the World Health Organization Europe nutrient profile model categories and the level and purpose of processing as per the NOVA classification. In addition, promotional characters (i.e. cartoons, licensed characters, celebrities) and premium offers within the promotions were analysed. RESULTS: In total, 15,271 food promotions were analyzed. The most frequently promoted foods in circulars were processed meat, poultry and fish (11.8%); fresh and frozen fruit, vegetables and legumes (9.5%); soft drinks and sweetened beverages (9.0%); fresh and frozen meat, poultry, fish and eggs (8.6%); cakes, sweet biscuits and pastries (8.1%); ready-made and convenience foods (8.0%); chocolate and sugar confectionery; energy bars and sweet toppings (7.7%) and cheeses (5.7%). About 52.2% of food promotions across all circulars were for ultra-processed foods, with considerable variation across chains (42.9-61.6%). Promotional characters and premium offers were found within 5.3 and 19.5% of promotions respectively. For all chains, circular covers were healthier compared to entire circulars, with a lower proportion of ultra-processed foods and a higher proportion of fresh fruit and vegetables promoted. CONCLUSIONS: Food promotions in circulars were most frequently for ultra-processed foods, with considerable variation across chains. Circular covers were healthier than entire circulars. Policies to reduce less healthy food promotions could contribute to improving the healthiness of supermarket food purchases.
BACKGROUND: To examine the proportion of healthier and less healthy food promotions in circulars of major Belgian supermarket chains. METHODS: Food promotions were collected from all circulars over 1 year from the five largest Belgian supermarket chains. Foods promoted were classified according to the World Health Organization Europe nutrient profile model categories and the level and purpose of processing as per the NOVA classification. In addition, promotional characters (i.e. cartoons, licensed characters, celebrities) and premium offers within the promotions were analysed. RESULTS: In total, 15,271 food promotions were analyzed. The most frequently promoted foods in circulars were processed meat, poultry and fish (11.8%); fresh and frozen fruit, vegetables and legumes (9.5%); soft drinks and sweetened beverages (9.0%); fresh and frozen meat, poultry, fish and eggs (8.6%); cakes, sweet biscuits and pastries (8.1%); ready-made and convenience foods (8.0%); chocolate and sugar confectionery; energy bars and sweet toppings (7.7%) and cheeses (5.7%). About 52.2% of food promotions across all circulars were for ultra-processed foods, with considerable variation across chains (42.9-61.6%). Promotional characters and premium offers were found within 5.3 and 19.5% of promotions respectively. For all chains, circular covers were healthier compared to entire circulars, with a lower proportion of ultra-processed foods and a higher proportion of fresh fruit and vegetables promoted. CONCLUSIONS: Food promotions in circulars were most frequently for ultra-processed foods, with considerable variation across chains. Circular covers were healthier than entire circulars. Policies to reduce less healthy food promotions could contribute to improving the healthiness of supermarket food purchases.
Authors: Devorah Riesenberg; Kathryn Backholer; Christina Zorbas; Gary Sacks; Anna Paix; Josephine Marshall; Miranda R Blake; Rebecca Bennett; Anna Peeters; Adrian J Cameron Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Carlos A Monteiro; Geoffrey Cannon; Renata B Levy; Jean-Claude Moubarac; Maria Lc Louzada; Fernanda Rauber; Neha Khandpur; Gustavo Cediel; Daniela Neri; Euridice Martinez-Steele; Larissa G Baraldi; Patricia C Jaime Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Bridget Kelly; Stefanie Vandevijvere; SeeHoe Ng; Jean Adams; Lorena Allemandi; Liliana Bahena-Espina; Simon Barquera; Emma Boyland; Paul Calleja; Isabel Cristina Carmona-Garcés; Luciana Castronuovo; Daniel Cauchi; Teresa Correa; Camila Corvalán; Emma Lucia Cosenza-Quintana; Carlos Fernández-Escobar; Laura I González-Zapata; Jason Halford; Nongnuch Jaichuen; Melissa L Jensen; Tilakavati Karupaiah; Asha Kaur; María F Kroker-Lobos; Zandile Mchiza; Krista Miklavec; Whadi-Ah Parker; Monique Potvin Kent; Igor Pravst; Manuel Ramírez-Zea; Sascha Reiff; Marcela Reyes; Miguel Ángel Royo-Bordonada; Putthipanya Rueangsom; Peter Scarborough; Maria Victoria Tiscornia; Lizbeth Tolentino-Mayo; Jillian Wate; Martin White; Irina Zamora-Corrales; Lingxia Zeng; Boyd Swinburn Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: Lukar E Thornton; Adrian J Cameron; Sarah A McNaughton; Wilma E Waterlander; Marita Sodergren; Chalida Svastisalee; Laurence Blanchard; Angela D Liese; Sarah Battersby; Mary-Ann Carter; Judy Sheeshka; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Sandy Sherman; Gill Cowburn; Charlie Foster; David A Crawford Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 6.457