Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 3;17(23):9026.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17239026.

The Healthiness of Food and Beverages on Price Promotion at Promotional Displays: A Cross-Sectional Audit of Australian Supermarkets

Lily Grigsby-Duffy  1 , Sally Schultz  1 , Liliana Orellana  2 , Ella Robinson  1 , Adrian J Cameron  1 , Josephine Marshall  1 , Kathryn Backholer  1 , Gary Sacks  1
Affiliations

The Healthiness of Food and Beverages on Price Promotion at Promotional Displays: A Cross-Sectional Audit of Australian Supermarkets

Lily Grigsby-Duffy et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Supermarket environments can strongly influence purchasing decisions. Price promotions are recognised as a particularly persuasive tactic, but the healthiness of price promotions in prominent in-store locations is understudied. This study compared the prevalence and magnitude of price promotions on healthy and unhealthy food and beverages (foods) displayed at prominent in-store locations within Australian supermarkets, including analyses by supermarket group and area-level socio-economic position. A cross-sectional in-store audit of price promotions on foods at key display areas was undertaken in 104 randomly selected stores from major Australian supermarket groups (Woolworths, Coles, Aldi and independents) in Victoria, Australia. Of the display space dedicated to foods with price promotions, three of the four supermarket groups had a greater proportion of display space devoted to unhealthy (compared to healthy) foods at each promotional location measured (end of aisles: 66%; island bins: 53%; checkouts: 88%). Aldi offered very few price promotions. Few measures varied by area-level socio-economic position. This study demonstrated that price promotions at prominent in-store locations in Australian supermarkets favoured unhealthy foods. Marketing of this nature is likely to encourage the purchase of unhealthy foods, highlighting the need for retailers and policy-makers to consider addressing in-store pricing and placement strategies to encourage healthier food environments.

Keywords: food environment; food policy; health equity; nutrition; price promotion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

G.S., A.J.C. and L.O. are academic partners on a healthy supermarket intervention trial that includes Australian local government and supermarket retail (IGA) collaborators. G.S. led a study to benchmark the policies and commitments of food companies related to obesity prevention and nutrition. L.G.-D., S.S., E.R., J.M. and K.B. have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean proportion (%) of price-promoted food and beverage display space dedicated to unhealthy products† at each in-store supermarket location, by supermarket group in 2019. Figure depicts results of linear models that included supermarket group, SEP and interaction supermarket group by SEP. Aldi was not included in the linear model or overall mean % for end-of-aisle or checkout displays due to there being insufficient numbers of price promotions in those location. † Foods were classified as healthy based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics Discretionary Food List.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean magnitude of discount on food and beverage price promotions classified as healthy and unhealthy† at prominent in-store supermarket locations, by supermarket group in 2019. Figure depicts results of linear models that included supermarket group, SEP and interaction supermarket group by SEP. Aldi was not included in the linear model or overall mean % for end-of-aisle due to there being insufficient numbers of price promotions in those location. † Foods were classified as healthy or unhealthy based on the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the Australian Bureau of Statistics Discretionary Food List.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Stanaway J.D., Afshin A., Gakidou E., Lim S.S., Abate D., Abate K.H., Abbafati C., Abbasi N., Abbastabar H., Abd-Allah F., et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392:1923–1994. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32225-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Backholer K., Spencer E., Gearon E., Magliano D.J., McNaughton S.A., Shaw J.E., Peeters A. The association between socio-economic position and diet quality in Australian adults. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19:477–485. doi: 10.1017/S1368980015001470. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stringhini S., Carmeli C., Jokela M., Avendaño M., Muennig P., Guida F., Ricceri F., d’Errico A., Barros H., Bochud M., et al. Socioeconomic status and the 25 × 25 risk factors as determinants of premature mortality: A multicohort study and meta-analysis of 1·7 million men and women. Lancet. 2017;389:1229–1237. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32380-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Devaux M., Sassi F. Social inequalities in obesity and overweight in 11 OECD countries. Eur. J. Public Health. 2013;23:464–469. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr058. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marmot M., Atkinson T., Bell J., Black C., Broadfoot P., Cumberlege J., Diamond I., Gilmore I., Ham C., Meacher M., et al. Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post-2010. IHE; London, UK: 2010. The Marmot review: Fair society, healthy lives.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources