Consumer behaviour and experiences in a naturalistic online grocery store: implications for nutrition research

Grummon, Anna H.; Tucker, Anna Claire; Noe, Violet; Rummo, Pasquale E.; Prestemon, Carmen E.; Hall, Marissa G.; Jaacks, Lindsay M.; Lippuner, Veronica; Taillie, Lindsey Smith

doi:10.1017/jns.2023.21

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of these online stores provides a major advantage in that participants can choose from a wide assortment of real products in a setting that looks and feels like a real store. A recent validation study found that expenditures in the naturalistic online grocery store used in this study were moderately-to-strongly correlated with expenditures made in a real online grocery store and that 95% of participants reported making similar purchases in the naturalistic online store as they did in a real online store [ 44 ]. However, in this study, it is unclear the extent to which aspects of this experiment (e.g., the use of a prespecified shopping list, lack of financial transactions) may have altered purchasing behaviors and attenuated or amplified the impact of the policies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial

Taillie,

Bercholz,

Prestemon

et al. 2023

PLoS Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Policies to reduce red meat intake are important for mitigating climate change and improving public health. We tested the impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases in the United States. The main study question was, will taxes and warning labels reduce red meat purchases? Methods and findings We recruited 3,518 US adults to participate in a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store from October 18, 2021 to October 28, 2021. Participants were randomized to one of 4 conditions: control (no tax or warning labels, n = 887), warning labels (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat, n = 891), tax (products containing red meat were subject to a 30% price increase, n = 874), or combined warning labels + tax (n = 866). We used fractional probit and Poisson regression models to assess the co-primary outcomes, percent, and count of red meat purchases, and linear regression to assess the secondary outcomes of nutrients purchased. Most participants identified as women, consumed red meat 2 or more times per week, and reported doing all of their household’s grocery shopping. The warning, tax, and combined conditions led to lower percent of red meat–containing items purchased, with 39% (95% confidence interval (CI) [38%, 40%]) of control participants’ purchases containing red meat, compared to 36% (95% CI [35%, 37%], p = 0.001) of warning participants, 34% (95% CI [33%, 35%], p < 0.001) of tax participants, and 31% (95% CI [30%, 32%], p < 0.001) of combined participants. A similar pattern was observed for count of red meat items. Compared to the control, the combined condition reduced calories purchased (−312.0 kcals, 95% CI [−590.3 kcals, −33.6 kcals], p = 0.027), while the tax (−10.4 g, 95% CI [−18.2 g, −2.5 g], p = 0.01) and combined (−12.8 g, 95% CI [−20.7 g, −4.9 g], p = 0.001) conditions reduced saturated fat purchases; no condition affected sodium purchases. Warning labels decreased the perceived healthfulness and environmental sustainability of red meat, while taxes increased perceived cost. The main limitations were that the study differed in sociodemographic characteristics from the US population, and only about 30% to 40% of the US population shops for groceries online. Conclusions Warning labels and taxes reduced red meat purchases in a naturalistic online grocery store. Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT04716010.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial

Taillie,

Bercholz,

Prestemon

et al. 2023

PLoS Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Online retail nudges to help parents with lower‐income choose healthy beverages for their children: A randomized clinical trial

Rummo,

Seet,

Reimold

et al. 2024

Pediatric Obesity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryBackgroundNudges offer a promising tool to reduce sugary drink intake among children who are most at risk for diet‐related disease.ObjectiveTo examine the impact of online store nudges on purchases of sugary drinks for children in lower‐income households.MethodsCaregivers with lower‐income were recruited to an online shopping experiment and instructed to spend $10–$30 on three beverages for their child aged 1–5 years. Participants were randomized to navigate an online supermarket in its standard version (n = 1106) or a version with nudges (n = 1135), including a product placement nudge (i.e. placing healthy beverages in prominent positions) and a swap nudge (i.e. offering a swap of water, plain milk and/or 100% fruit juice upon selection of sugary drinks).ResultsOn average, participants purchased 1887 (SD = 2113) and 620 (SD = 1528) calories from sugary drinks per basket in the control and experimental conditions, respectively. Model‐based results indicate that those in the experimental condition purchased 1267 (95% CI: 1419, 1114) fewer calories from sugary drinks, and fewer grams of total sugar (β = −253.5 g (95% CI: −286.3, −220.6)) and added sugar (β = −287.8 g (95% CI: −323.1, −252.5)) purchased from sugary drinks.ConclusionNudges may be an effective, acceptable, scalable strategy for leading caregivers in lower‐income households to purchase fewer sugary drinks for their children.

show abstract

Effects of red meat taxes and warning labels on food groups selected in a randomized controlled trial

Willits-Smith,

Taillie,

Jaacks

et al. 2024

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background High consumption of red and processed meat contributes to both health and environmental harms. Warning labels and taxes for red meat reduce selection of red meat overall, but little is known about how these potential policies affect purchases of subcategories of red meat (e.g., processed versus unprocessed) or of non-red-meat foods (e.g., cheese, pulses) relevant to health and environmental outcomes. This study examined consumer responses to warning labels and taxes for red meat in a randomized controlled trial. Methods In October 2021, we recruited 3,518 US adults to complete a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four arms: control (no warning labels or tax), warning labels only (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat), tax only (prices of products containing red meat were increased 30%) or combined warning labels + tax. Participants selected items to hypothetically purchase, which we categorized into food groups based on the presence of animal- and plant-source ingredients (e.g., beef, eggs, pulses), meat processing level (e.g., processed pork versus unprocessed pork), and meat species (e.g., beef versus pork). We assessed the effects of the warning labels and tax on selections from each food group. Results Compared to control, all three interventions led participants to select fewer items with processed meat (driven by reductions in processed pork) and (for the tax and warning labels + tax interventions only) fewer items with unprocessed meat (driven by reductions in unprocessed beef). All three interventions also led participants to select more items containing cheese, while only the combined warning labels + tax intervention led participants to select more items containing processed poultry. Except for an increase in selection of pulses in the tax arm, the interventions did not affect selections of fish or seafood (processed or unprocessed), eggs, or plant-based items (pulses, nuts & seeds, tofu, meat mimics, grains & potatoes, vegetables). Conclusions Policies to reduce red meat consumption are also likely to affect consumption of other types of foods that are relevant to both health and environmental outcomes. Trial registration NCT04716010 on www.clinicaltrials.gov.

show abstract

Consumer behaviour and experiences in a naturalistic online grocery store: implications for nutrition research

Cited by 4 publications

References 15 publications

Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial

Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial

Online retail nudges to help parents with lower‐income choose healthy beverages for their children: A randomized clinical trial

Effects of red meat taxes and warning labels on food groups selected in a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About