Point-of-Purchase Labels and Reward Cards Improve Sales of Healthy Foods in University Dining Halls
Publication: Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research
12 June 2018
Abstract
Purpose: To compare sales of Food Resources and Education for Student Health (FRESH) Approved versus non-FRESH Approved menu cycle items pre- and postimplementation of the FRESH program.
Methods: Sales data from 2011–2015 of FRESH Approved versus non-FRESH Approved menu items were analyzed. Fruit and milk items sold, net sales, and the cost of free fruit and milk redeemed through the FRESH Reward Card (FRC) program, were also analyzed.
Results: FRESH Approved items sold more often than non-FRESH Approved items in the latter 2 years (P = 0.01). Prices of FRESH Approved menu items were significantly lower than non-FRESH Approved items for all years (e.g., $1.52 ± $0.94 vs $2.21 ± $1.02 per serving in 2014–2015; P < 0.001). Across all FRESH implementation years, FRESH Approved menu items were found more often on the 6-week menu (P < 0.05). The number of fruit items sold increased from a baseline of 143 052 to 170 954, and net sales increased from $135 450 to $154 248 after 3 years of the FRC implementation.
Conclusions: FRESH Approved items were less expensive, available more often, and had higher sales. The FRC increased net fruit sales despite the cost of free fruit. Highlighting and reducing the cost of healthy foods are promising practices to improve campus food environments.
Résumé
Objectif. Comparer les ventes d’articles proposés au menu cyclique approuvés par Food Resources and Education for Student Health (FRESH) [ressources et éducation en matière d’alimentation pour la santé des étudiants] par rapport aux articles non approuvés avant et après la mise en œuvre du programme FRESH.
Méthodes. Les données sur les ventes de 2011 à 2015 d’articles du menu approuvés par FRESH et non approuvés par FRESH ont été analysées. Les fruits et le lait vendus, les ventes nettes, et le coût des fruits et du lait gratuits remis par l’entremise du programme de carte de récompenses FRESH (CRF) ont également été analysés.
Résultats. Les articles approuvés par FRESH ont été vendus plus souvent que les articles non approuvés par FRESH dans les deux dernières années (p = 0,01). Le prix des articles du menu approuvés par FRESH était beaucoup plus bas que celui des articles non approuvés par FRESH pour toutes les années (p. ex., 1,52 $ ± 0,94 $ par rapport à 2,21 $ ± 1,02 $ par portion en 2014-2015; p < 0,001). Parmi toutes les années où le programme FRESH était en œuvre, les articles du menu approuvés par FRESH se sont retrouvés plus souvent sur le menu de six semaines (p < 0,05). Le nombre de fruits vendus a augmenté, passant de 143 052 à 170 954, et les ventes nettes ont augmenté, passant de 135 450 $ à 154 248 $ après trois ans de mise en œuvre de la CRF.
Conclusions. Les articles approuvés par FRESH étaient moins chers, plus souvent disponibles et se vendaient mieux. La CRF a fait augmenter les ventes de fruits nettes malgré le coût des fruits gratuits. La mise en évidence des aliments sains et la réduction de leur coût sont des pratiques prometteuses pour améliorer les environnements alimentaires sur les campus.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Financial support: None to report.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
1
Peltzer K and Pengpid S. Correlates of healthy fruit and vegetable diet in students in low, middle and high income countries. Int J Public Health. 2015;60(1):79–90.
2
American College Health Association. American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Canadian Reference Group Executive Summary Spring 2016. Hanover, MD: American College Health Association; 2016 [cited 2017 June 1]. Available from: http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/NCHA-II%20SPRING%202016%20CANADIAN%20REFERENCE%20GROUP%20DATA%20REPORT.pdf.
3
Matthews JI, Zok AV, Quenneville EPM, and Dworatzek PDN. Development and implementation of FRESH—a post-secondary nutrition education program incorporating population strategies, experiential learning and intersectoral partnerships. Can J Public Health. 2014;105(4):306–11.
4
Thorndike AN, Riis J, Sonnenberg LM, and Levy DE. Traffic-light labels and choice architecture: promoting healthy food choices. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(2):143–9.
5
Pettigrew S, Pescud M, and Donovan RJ. Traffic light food labelling in schools and beyond. Health Educ J. 2011;71(6):746–53.
6
Babio N, Vicent P, López L, Benito A, Basulto J, and Salas-Salvadó J. Adolescents’ ability to select healthy food using two different front-of-pack food labels: a cross-over study. Public Health Nutr. 2014;17(6):1403–9.
7
Freedman MR and Connors R. Point-of-purchase nutrition information influences food-purchasing behaviors of college students: a pilot study. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2010;110:1222–6.
8
Skov LR, Lourenço S, Hansen GL, Mikkelsen BE, and Schofield C. Choice architecture as a means to change eating behaviour in self-service settings: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2013;14(3):187–96.
9
Hawley KL, Roberto CA, Bragg MA, Liu PJ, Schwartz MB, and Brownell KD. The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(3):430–39.
10
Valdivia Espino JN, Guerrero N, Rhoads N, Simon N, Escaron AL, Meinen A, et al. Community-based restaurant interventions to promote healthy eating: a systematic review. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:140455.
11
Health Canada. Eating well with Canada’s food guide. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada; 2007.
12
Arts J, Luz Fernandez M, and Lofgren IE. Coronary heart disease risk factors in college students. Adv Nutr. 2014;5:177–87.
13
Akaichi F, Nayga RM, and Gil JM. Effect of price-discount distribution in multi-unit price promotions on consumers’ willingness to pay, sales value, and retailers’ revenue: effect of price discount distribution. Agribusiness. 2015;31(1):14–32.
14
McComb S, Jones C, Smith A, Collins W, and Pope B. Designing incentives to change behaviors: examining college student intent toward healthy diets. West J Nurs Res. 2016;38(9):1094–113.
15
Cioffi CE, Levitsky DA, Pacanowski CR, and Bertz F. A nudge in a healthy direction. The effect of nutrition labels on food purchasing behaviors in university dining facilities. Appetite. 2015;92:7–14.
16
Matthews JI, Doerr L, and Dworatzek PDN. University students intend to eat better but lack coping self-efficacy and knowledge of dietary recommendations. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016;48(1):12–19.e1.
17
Wilson CK, Matthews JI, Seabrook JA, and Dworatzek PDN. Self-reported food skills of university students. Appetite. 2017;108:270–6.
18
Dawson J, Dwyer JJ, Evers S, and Sheeshka J. Eat smart! Workplace Cafeteria Program evaluation of the nutrition component. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2006;67(2):85–90.
19
Hospitality Services at Western. [Internet]. FRESH—Food Resources & Education for Student Health—Nutrition information services at Western University. A FRESH Face at Western; London, Ontario 2015 [cited 2015 June 23]. Available from: http://nutrition.uwo.ca/fresh.cfm.
20
James A, Adams-Huet B, and Shah M. Menu labels displaying the kilocalorie content or the exercise equivalent: effects on energy ordered and consumed in young adults. Am J Health Promot. 2015;29(5):294–302.
21
Méjean C, Macouillard P, Péneau S, Hercberg S, and Castetbon K. Perception of front-of-pack labels according to social characteristics, nutritional knowledge and food purchasing habits. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(3):392–402.
22
Residence at Western. [Internet]. Welcome Home!—Residence at Western University; 2015 [cited 2015 June 23]. Available from: https://residence.uwo.ca/applying/fees_and_payment_plans/index.html.
23
Martinez OD, Roberto CA, Kim JH, Schwartz MB, and Brownell KD. A survey of undergraduate student perceptions and use of nutrition information labels in a university dining hall. Health Educ J. 2012;72(3):319–25.
24
Roy R, Kelly B, Rangan A, and Allman-Farinelli M. Food environment interventions to improve the dietary behavior of young adults in tertiary education settings: a systematic literature review. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(10):1647–81.e1.
25
Gruner J and Ohri-Vachaspati P. Food and beverage selection patterns among menu label user and nonusers: results from a cross-sectional study. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(6):929–36.
26
Steenhuis IHM, Waterlander WE, and de Mul A. Consumer food choices: the role of price and pricing strategies. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14(12):2220–6.
27
Garcia AC, Sykes L, Matthews J, Martin N, and Leipert B. Perceived facilitators of and barriers to healthful eating among university students. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2010;71(2):e28–33.
28
Bevan A, Hartwell H, Hemingway A, and Proenca R. An exploration of the fruit and vegetable “foodscape” in a university setting for staff: a preliminary study. British Food J. 2015;117(1):37–49.
29
Schuit AJ, de Boer MR, Steenhuis IHM, Waterlander WE, and Seidell JC. Price discounts significantly enhance fruit and vegetable purchases when combined with nutrition education: a randomized controlled supermarket trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97(4):886–95.
30
Betty AL. Using financial incentives to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in the UK. Nutrition Bulletin. 2013;38(4):414–20.
31
Phipps E, Braitman L, Stites S, Singletary S, Wallace S, Hunt L, et al. Impact of a rewards-based incentive program on promoting fruit and vegetable purchases. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(1):166–72.
32
Lowe B. Consumer perceptions of extra free product promotions and discounts: the moderating role of perceived performance risk. J Product & Brand Management. 2010;19(7):496–503.
33
Peterson S, Duncan DP, Null DB, Roth SL, and Gill L. Positive changes in perceptions and selections of healthful foods by college students after a short-term point-of-selection intervention at a dining hall. J Am Coll Health. 2010;58(5):425–31.
34
Shive SE and Neyman Morris M. Evaluation of the Energize Your Life! Social marketing campaign pilot study to increase fruit intake among community college students. J Am Coll Health. 2006;55(1):33–40.
35
Hawe P and Potvin L. What is population health intervention research? Can J Public Health. 2009;100(1):I8–14.
36
Pelletier DL, Porter CM, Aarons GA, Wuehler SE, and Neufeld LM. Expanding the frontiers of population nutrition research: new questions, new methods, and new approaches. Adv Nutr. 2013;4(1):92–114.
Supplementary Material
File (cjdpr-2018-009 suppl info.pdf)
- Download
- 345.49 KB
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research
Volume 79 • Number 3 • September 2018
Pages: 92 - 98
History
Version of record online: 12 June 2018
Copyright
© 2018.
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Catherine R.BidenMScFN, RD, June I.MatthewsPhD, PHEc, RD, Natalie A.LaframboiseMScFN, RD, AnneZokHBSc, Paula D. N.DworatzekPhD, PHEc, RD, and Jamie A.SeabrookPhD. 2018. Point-of-Purchase Labels and Reward Cards Improve Sales of Healthy Foods in University Dining Halls. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research.
79(3): 92-98. https://doi.org/10.3148/cjdpr-2018-009
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
1. The Healthfulness of Eateries at the University of Waterloo: A Comparison across 2 Time Points
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Subscribe
Click on the button below to subscribe to Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research
