To investigate to what extent promotions in Dutch supermarket sales flyers contribute to a healthy diet and whether there are differences between supermarket types.

A cross-sectional study investigating promotions on foods and beverages (n 7825) in supermarket sales flyers from thirteen Dutch supermarket chains (8-week period), including ten traditional, two discount and one organic supermarket chain(s). Promoted products were categorised by food group (e.g. bread), contribution to a healthy diet (yes/no), degree of processing (e.g. ultra-processed), promotion type (temporary reduction in price, volume-based promotions or advertised only) and percentage discount of price promotions. Differences between supermarket chains in the degree of healthiness and processing of products and the types of price promotions were investigated.

In total, 70·7 % of all promoted products in supermarket sales flyers did not contribute to a healthy diet and 56·6 % was ultra-processed. The average discount on less healthy products (28·7 %) was similar to that of healthy products (28·9 %). Less healthy products were more frequently promoted via volume-based promotions than healthy products (37·6 % v. 25·4 %, P < 0·001). Discount supermarket chains promoted less healthy (80·3 %) and ultra-processed (65·1 %) products more often than traditional supermarket chains (69·6 % and 56·6 %, respectively).

The majority of promoted products via supermarket sales flyers do not contribute to a healthy diet. As promotions are an important determinant of food purchasing decisions, supermarkets do not support healthy choices. Future studies should identify barriers that withhold supermarket chains from promoting more healthy foods in supermarket sales flyers.

Increasing prevalence of overweight and obese people in England has led policymakers to consider regulating the use of price promotions on foods high in fat, sugar and salt content. In January 2019, the government opened a consultation programme for a policy proposal that significantly restricts the use of price promotions that can induce consumers to buy higher volumes of unhealthy foods and beverages. These proposed policies are the first of their kind in public health and are believed to reduce excess purchasing and, therefore, overconsumption of unhealthy products. This study summarises evidence relating price promotions to the purchasing of food and drink for home consumption and places it in the context of the proposed policy.

Non-systematic review of quantitative analyses of price promotions in food and drink published in peer-reviewed journals and sighted by PubMed, ScienceDirect & EBSCOhost between 1980 and January 2018.

While the impact of price promotions on sales has been of interest to marketing academics for a long time with modelling studies showing that its use has increased food and drink sales by 12–43 %, it is only now being picked up in the public health sphere. However, existing evidence does not consider the effects of removing or restricting the use of price promotions across the food sector. In this commentary, we discuss existing evidence, how it deals with the complexity of shoppers’ behaviour in reacting to price promotions on foods and, importantly, what can be learned from it in this policy context.

The current evidence base supports the notion that price promotions increase purchasing of unhealthy food, and while the proposed restriction policy is yet to be evaluated for consumption and health effects, there is arguably sufficient evidence to proceed. This evidence is not restricted to volume-based promotions. Close monitoring and proper evaluation should follow to provide empirical evidence of its intended and unintended effects.

There are concerns that price promotions encourage unhealthy dietary choices. This review aims to answer the following research questions (RQ1) what is the prevalence of price promotions on foods in high-income settings, and (RQ2) are price promotions more likely to be found on unhealthy foods?

Systematic review of articles published in English, in peer-review journals, after 1 January 2000.

Included studies measured the prevalence of price promotions (i.e. percentage of foods carrying a price promotion out of the total number of foods available to purchase) in retail settings, in upper-mid to high-income countries.

‘Price promotion’ was defined as a consumer-facing temporary price reduction or discount available to all customers. The control group/comparator was the equivalent products without promotions. The primary outcome for this review was the prevalence of price promotions, and the secondary outcome was the difference between the proportions of price promotions on healthy and unhealthy foods.

Nine studies (239 344 observations) were included for the meta-analysis for RQ1, the prevalence of price promotions ranged from 6 % (95 % CI 2 %, 15 %) for energy-dense nutrient-poor foods to 15 % (95 % CI 9 %, 25 %) for cereals, grains, breads and other starchy carbohydrates. However, the I-squared statistic was 99 % suggesting a very high level of heterogeneity. Four studies were included for the analysis of RQ2, of which two supported the hypothesis that price promotions were more likely to be found on unhealthy foods.

The prevalence of price promotions is very context specific, and any proposed regulations should be supported by studies conducted within the proposed setting(s).