BACKGROUND: Reducing meat consumption could bring health and environmental benefits, but there is little research to date on effective interventions to achieve this. A non-randomised controlled intervention study was used to evaluate whether prominent positioning of meat-free products in the meat aisle was associated with a change in weekly mean sales of meat and meat-free products. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Weekly sales data were obtained from 108 stores: 20 intervention stores that moved a selection of 26 meat-free products into a newly created meat-free bay within the meat aisle and 88 matched control stores. The primary outcome analysis used a hierarchical negative binomial model to compare changes in weekly sales (units) of meat products sold in intervention versus control stores during the main intervention period (Phase I: February 2019 to April 2019). Interrupted time series analysis was also used to evaluate the effects of the Phase I intervention. Moreover, 8 of the 20 stores enhanced the intervention from August 2019 onwards (Phase II intervention) by adding a second bay of meat-free products into the meat aisle, which was evaluated following the same analytical methods. During the Phase I intervention, sales of meat products (units/store/week) decreased in intervention (approximately -6%) and control stores (-5%) without significant differences (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01 [95% CI 0.95-1.07]. Sales of meat-free products increased significantly more in the intervention (+31%) compared to the control stores (+6%; IRR 1.43 [95% CI 1.30-1.57]), mostly due to increased sales of meat-free burgers, mince, and sausages. Consistent results were observed in interrupted time series analyses where the effect of the Phase II intervention was significant in intervention versus control stores. CONCLUSIONS: Prominent positioning of meat-free products into the meat aisle in a supermarket was not effective in reducing sales of meat products, but successfully increased sales of meat-free alternatives in the longer term. A preregistered protocol (https://osf.io/qmz3a/) was completed and fully available before data analysis.
BACKGROUND: Reducing meat consumption could bring health and environmental benefits, but there is little research to date on effective interventions to achieve this. A non-randomised controlled intervention study was used to evaluate whether prominent positioning of meat-free products in the meat aisle was associated with a change in weekly mean sales of meat and meat-free products. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Weekly sales data were obtained from 108 stores: 20 intervention stores that moved a selection of 26 meat-free products into a newly created meat-free bay within the meat aisle and 88 matched control stores. The primary outcome analysis used a hierarchical negative binomial model to compare changes in weekly sales (units) of meat products sold in intervention versus control stores during the main intervention period (Phase I: February 2019 to April 2019). Interrupted time series analysis was also used to evaluate the effects of the Phase I intervention. Moreover, 8 of the 20 stores enhanced the intervention from August 2019 onwards (Phase II intervention) by adding a second bay of meat-free products into the meat aisle, which was evaluated following the same analytical methods. During the Phase I intervention, sales of meat products (units/store/week) decreased in intervention (approximately -6%) and control stores (-5%) without significant differences (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01 [95% CI 0.95-1.07]. Sales of meat-free products increased significantly more in the intervention (+31%) compared to the control stores (+6%; IRR 1.43 [95% CI 1.30-1.57]), mostly due to increased sales of meat-free burgers, mince, and sausages. Consistent results were observed in interrupted time series analyses where the effect of the Phase II intervention was significant in intervention versus control stores. CONCLUSIONS: Prominent positioning of meat-free products into the meat aisle in a supermarket was not effective in reducing sales of meat products, but successfully increased sales of meat-free alternatives in the longer term. A preregistered protocol (https://osf.io/qmz3a/) was completed and fully available before data analysis.
Authors: Annet C Hoek; Pieternel A Luning; Pascalle Weijzen; Wim Engels; Frans J Kok; Cees de Graaf Journal: Appetite Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Gareth J Hollands; Ian Shemilt; Theresa M Marteau; Susan A Jebb; Michael P Kelly; Ryota Nakamura; Marc Suhrcke; David Ogilvie Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-12-21 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Timothy J Key; Paul N Appleby; Kathryn E Bradbury; Michael Sweeting; Angela Wood; Ingegerd Johansson; Tilman Kühn; Marinka Steur; Elisabete Weiderpass; Maria Wennberg; Anne Mette Lund Würtz; Antonio Agudo; Jonas Andersson; Larraitz Arriola; Heiner Boeing; Jolanda M A Boer; Fabrice Bonnet; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Amanda J Cross; Ulrika Ericson; Guy Fagherazzi; Pietro Ferrari; Marc Gunter; José María Huerta; Verena Katzke; Kay-Tee Khaw; Vittorio Krogh; Carlo La Vecchia; Giuseppe Matullo; Conchi Moreno-Iribas; Androniki Naska; Lena Maria Nilsson; Anja Olsen; Kim Overvad; Domenico Palli; Salvatore Panico; Elena Molina-Portillo; J Ramón Quirós; Guri Skeie; Ivonne Sluijs; Emily Sonestedt; Magdalena Stepien; Anne Tjønneland; Antonia Trichopoulou; Rosario Tumino; Ioanna Tzoulaki; Yvonne T van der Schouw; W M Monique Verschuren; Emanuele di Angelantonio; Claudia Langenberg; Nita Forouhi; Nick Wareham; Adam Butterworth; Elio Riboli; John Danesh Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 29.690