Most food retailers display foods in prominent locations as a marketing strategy (i.e. ‘placement promotions’). We examined the extent to which households with children change their food and beverage purchases in response to these promotions.

We analysed a novel dataset of all products promoted in two supermarkets from 2016 to 2017, including promotion dates and locations (e.g. aisle endcaps and front registers). We linked promotions to all purchases from the supermarkets from 2016 to 2017 by a cohort of households with children. We calculated the number of weekly promotions in each of thirteen food and beverage groups (e.g. bread; candy) and used fixed effects regressions to estimate associations between number of weekly promotions and households’ weekly food purchases, overall and by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation.

Two large supermarkets in Maine, USA.

Eight hundred and twenty-one households with children.

Most promotions (74 %) were for less healthy foods. The most promoted food groups were sweet and salty snacks (mean = 131·0 promotions/week), baked goods (mean = 68·2) and sugar-sweetened beverages (mean = 41·6). Households generally did not change their food group purchases during weeks when they were exposed to more promotions for those groups, except that a 1-sd increase in endcap candy promotions (about 1 promotion/week) was associated with $0·19/week (about 14·5 %) increase in candy purchases among SNAP nonparticipants (adjusted P < 0·001).

In-store placement promotions for food groups were generally not associated with purchases of promoted food groups, perhaps because exposure to unhealthy food marketing was consistently high. Substantial changes to in-store food marketing may be needed to promote healthier purchases.

Produce sold as plastic-wrapped packs of two to four individual items (i.e., produce micro-packs) that are low cost and placed at checkout may appeal to shoppers with budget constraints and provide a second chance to purchase items available elsewhere in the store. This study examined the impact of an intervention that placed produce micro-packs at checkout and promoted them in grocery stores across New Mexico, USA.

This quasi-experimental study placed produce micro-packs at checkout end-caps in thirteen stores (group 1), with eight stores serving as controls (group 2) from 1 July 2019 through 31 January 2020 (first phase). The intervention was extended to group 2 stores from 1 February 2020 through 30 June 2020 (second phase). Cashiers were directed to upsell the micro-packs to Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children recipients who had unspent cash value benefits for produce purchases.

Twenty-one grocery stores across New Mexico.

Twenty-one produce items sold as micro-packs in stores from July 2019 through June 2020.

A random effects model showed that the daily sales of micro-packs increased by 47 % during each intervention period. Group 2 stores had lower sales than group 1 stores during the first phase of the intervention. Once extended to group 2 stores, sales of micro-packs in those stores increased and sales in group 1 stores continued at the higher level.

Placing produce micro-packs at checkout may increase produce sales and support health promotion efforts by public and private stakeholders.

Current nutrition environment instruments are typically designed to measure a small number of healthy foods based on national trends. They lack the depth to accurately measure the unique dietary choices of subpopulations, such as Texas consumers whose food preferences are influenced by Hispanic/Latino culture. Thus the purposes of the present study were to: (i) develop a comprehensive observational tool to measure the availability of healthy foods from retail stores in Texas; and (ii) conduct a pilot test to examine the tool’s reliability, as well as differences in the availability of healthy foods in stores between high- and low-income neighbourhoods.

Grocery and convenience stores were assessed for availability of healthy foods. Reliability was calculated using percentage agreement, and differences in availability were examined using 2 (store type) × 2 (neighbourhood income) ANOVA.

One high-income and one low-income neighbourhood in Austin, Texas.

A sample of thirty-eight stores comprising twenty-five convenience stores and thirteen grocery stores.

The low-income neighbourhood had 324 % more convenience stores and 56 % fewer grocery stores than the high-income neighbourhood. High inter-rater (mean = 0·95) and test–retest reliability (mean = 0·92) and a significant interaction (P = 0·028) between store type and neighbourhood income were found.

The TxNEA-S tool includes 106 healthy food items, such as fruits, vegetables, dairy, proteins and grains. The tool is reliable and face validity is affirmed by the Texas Department of Health. Grocery stores have more healthy foods than convenience stores, and high-income grocery stores offer more healthy foods than low-income grocery stores.