Availability of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-authorised retailers’ voluntary commitments to encourage healthy dietary purchases using marketing-mix and choice-architecture strategies

Abstract

Objective:To examine public commitments for encouraging United States consumers to make healthy dietary purchases with their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits among of prevalent SNAP-authorised retailers.Setting:National SNAP-authorised retail landscape in addition to stores located in California and Virginia, two states targetted for a Partnership for a Healthier America pilot social marketing campaign.Participants:SNAP-authorised retailers with the most store locations in selected settings.Design:A review of retailers’ publicly available business information was conducted (November 2016–February 2017). Webpages and grey literature sources were accessed to identify corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports and commitments describing strategies to encourage healthy consumer purchases aligned with the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Evidence was organised using a marketing-mix and choice-architecture (MMCA) framework to characterise strategies used among eight possible types (i.e. place, profile, portion, pricing, promotion, priming, prompting and proximity).Results:Of the SNAP-authorised retailers (n 38) reviewed, more than half (n 20; 52·6 %) provided no information in the public domain relevant to the research objective. Few retailers (n 8; 21·1 %) had relevant CSR information; grey literature sources (n 52 articles across seventeen retailers) were more commonly identified. SNAP-authorised retailers in majority committed to increasing the number of healthy products available for purchase (profile).Conclusions:Substantial improvements are needed to enhance the capacity and commitments of SNAP-authorised retailers to use diverse strategies to promote healthy purchases among SNAP recipients. Future research could explore feasible approaches to improve dietary behaviours through sector changes via public–private partnerships, policy changes, or a combination of government regulatory and voluntary business actions.

Improving Healthy Food Choices in Low-Income Settings in the United States Using Behavioral Economic-Based Adaptations to Choice Architecture

“…However, more research is needed to determine the optimal design of interventions that leverage behavioral economics in retailers serving low-income consumers (8,20,32). Prior to implementing such interventions, researchers must identify approaches that can be appropriately translated to these populations to support healthy food choices, with feasibility, cost-effectiveness, cultural competency, and acceptability as key considerations (59,60). Also, given the demonstrated potential of behavioral economicsbased approaches to improve food choices, policy initiatives encouraging alterations to food environments, such as SNAPauthorized retailers, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at promoting healthy food choices is a promising avenue to address poor diet quality (18,19,61).…”

A rapid review of stocking and marketing practices used to sell sugar‐sweetened beverages in U.S. food stores

“…The year 2013 was chosen as a search parameter due to public policy and beverage industry campaigns that may have influenced SSB stocking and marketing practices in food stores 45 . In 2013, the Partnership for Healthier America launched the “Drink Up” campaign in coordination with industry partners to encourage U.S. consumers to purchase and consume more water (rather than SSB products) 46,47 .…”

“…The year 2013 was chosen as a search parameter due to public policy and beverage industry campaigns that may have influenced SSB stocking and marketing practices in food stores. 45 In 2013, the Partnership for Healthier America launched the "Drink Up" campaign in coordination with industry partners to encourage U.S. consumers to purchase and consume more water (rather than SSB products). 46,47 In 2015, the American Beverage Association alongside The Coca-Cola Company, Keurig Dr. Pepper, and PepsiCo launched the Balance Calories Initiative (BCI), 48,49 committing to responsible SSB product labeling and marketing practices.…”

“…58 Further, managers described BCI as not well aligned with business models because no incentives were provided to make changes. 57 There is a lack of research about how and to what extent industry commitments influence the consumer food environment, 45 and more research to define the role of self-regulatory and policy strategies to decrease consumer SSB consumption are required. Better evidence of how self-regulation initiatives influence stocking and marketing practices could prompt industry stakeholders to better align their practices with stated commitments (e.g., BCI recognizing product prominence as an indicator of marketing and adjusting appropriately to favor consumer loyalty).…”

“…The prominence of SSB not only poses a risk for obesity and NCD but also has implications for environmental sustainability. [40][41][42] The food industry, including beverage manufacturers, has focused on sustainability practices in social responsibility commitments, 42,45 often for the sustainable sourcing of product ingredients. 42 However, this language fails to acknowledge the impact of SSB ingredients and MMCA strategies used to push sales of SSB on human health outcomes.…”