Dataset Information

Impact of increasing the relative availability of meat-free options on food selection: two natural field experiments and an online randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Increasing the availability of lower energy-density foods is a promising intervention to encourage healthier food purchasing but few studies have examined the effect of increasing availability of meat-free meals to promote more sustainable purchasing. We report three studies, all examining the impact of altering the availability of meat-free meals on meal selection.

Methods

Study 1 (a natural experiment in one university cafeteria) examined the impact of altering the ratio of meat-free meals (one meat-free and two meat, to two meat-free and one meat) on weekly sales of meals containing meat. Study 2 (a natural experiment in 18 worksite cafeterias) examined the impact on meat-free meal sales of a menu change designed to increase the availability of meat-free meals. Study 3 (an online study of 2205 UK-representative adults) compared meal selections when participants were randomised to ranges comprised of (a) one meat-free, three meat options; (b) two meat-free, two meat; or (c) three meat-free, one meat.

Results

Study 1 suggested a significant decrease in the proportion of sales of meat options when the availability of meat-free options increased (- 19.9 percentage points; 95%CIs:-25.2,-14.6), with no evidence of changes to meat-based meal sales in other university cafeterias during the same period. Findings from Study 2 were mixed: multilevel regressions found no evidence of an increase in meat-free meals following the menu change (2.3 percentage points; 95%CIs: - 1.3,5.9), while interrupted time-series analyses suggested sales did increase (2.3; 95%CIs: 0.4,4.2), but implementation of the planned change was limited. In Study 3 reducing meat-free options from 50 to 25% reduced participants' selection of meat-free options (odds ratio 0.35; 95%CIs: 0.26,0.46), while increasing meat-free options from 50 to 75% increased meat-free selections (odds ratio 2.43; 95%CIs: 1.94,3.04). There was no evidence effects were moderated by gender, socioeconomic status or usual meat consumption.

Conclusion

Increasing the availability of meat-free options is effective at reducing meat selection and purchasing for different ratios of meat to meat-free options. The magnitude of the effect is uncertain, but with no evidence of differences in response by demographic groups when directly tested.

Trial registration

Study 3: Open Science Framework; https://osf.io/ze9c6 ; 6/8/2020.

SUBMITTER: Pechey R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8801279 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEnvironmental cues shape behaviour, but few studies compare the impact of targeting healthier vs. less-healthy cues. One online study suggested greater impact on selection from increasing the number of less-healthy (vs. healthier) snacks. The current study aimed to: (1) extend the previous study by using physically-present snacks for immediate consumption; (2) explore responsiveness by socio-economic position; (3) investigate possible mediators (response inhibition, food appeal) of any socio-economic differences in selection.MethodsIn a between-subjects laboratory experiment UK adults (n = 417) were randomised according to their ID number (without blinding) to one of three ranges of options: Two healthier, two less-healthy ["Equal"] (n = 136); Six healthier, two less-healthy ["Increased Healthier"] (n = 143); Two healthier, six less-healthy ["Increased Less-Healthy"] (n = 138). Participants completed measures of response inhibition and food appeal, and selected a snack for immediate consumption from their allocated range. The primary outcome was selection of a healthier (over less-healthy) snack.ResultsThe odds of selecting a less-healthy snack were 2.9 times higher (95%CIs:1.7,5.1) in the Increased Less-Healthy condition compared to the Equal condition. The odds of selecting a healthier snack were 2.5 times higher (95%CIs:1.5,4.1) in the Increased Healthier (vs. Equal) condition. There was no significant difference in the size of these effects (- 0.2; 95%CIs:-1.1,0.7). Findings were inconclusive with regard to interactions by education, but the direction of effects was consistent with potentially larger impact of the Increased Healthier condition on selection for higher-educated participants, and potentially larger impact of the Increased Less-Healthy condition for less-educated participants.ConclusionsA greater impact from increasing the number of less-healthy (over healthier) foods was not replicated when selecting snacks for immediate consumption: both increased selections of the targeted foods with no evidence of a difference in effectiveness. The observed pattern of results suggested possible differential impact by education, albeit not statistically significant. If replicated in larger studies, this could suggest that removing less-healthy options has the potential to reduce health inequalities due to unhealthier diets. Conversely, adding healthier options could have the potential to increase these inequalities.Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN34626166 ; 11/06/2018; Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Increasing the availability of healthier food increases its selection and consumption. However, there is an absence of evidence related to alcohol. This study aimed to estimate the impact of increasing the absolute and relative availability of non-alcoholic compared to alcoholic drinks on selection. We also assessed whether effects were modified by cognitive resource. METHODS:UK adult weekly alcohol consumers (n?=?808) were recruited to an online experiment with a hypothetical drink selection task. Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions, in a 4 (availability) ×?2 (cognitive resource) factorial design. The four availability conditions were: i. Reference 1 (two non-alcoholic, two alcoholic drinks); ii. Reference 2 (four non-alcoholic, four alcoholic drinks); iii. Increased non-alcoholic drinks (six non-alcoholic, two alcoholic drinks); iv. Increased alcoholic drinks (two non-alcoholic, six alcoholic drinks). The two cognitive resource conditions were: a. Low (high time pressure); b. High (low time pressure). Logistic regression was used to assess selection of a non-alcoholic drink. RESULTS:49% of participants selected a non-alcoholic drink in the Increased non-alcoholic drinks condition, compared to 36% in Reference 1, 39% in Reference 2, and 26% in the Increased alcoholic drinks condition. Non-alcoholic drink selection was similar between Reference 1 and 2 when the total number of drinks increased (absolute availability) but the proportion of non-alcoholic compared to alcoholic drinks (relative availability) was unchanged (OR?=?1.15, 95% CI 0.77, 1.73). In contrast, the odds of selecting a non-alcoholic drink were 71% higher when both absolute and relative availability of non-alcoholic compared to alcoholic drinks was increased from Reference 1 to the Increased non-alcoholic drinks condition (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.15, 2.54), and 48% higher when increased from Reference 2 to the Increased non-alcoholic drinks condition (OR: 1.48, 95% CI 0.99, 2.19). There was no evidence of an effect of cognitive resource. CONCLUSIONS:Greater availability of non-alcoholic drinks, compared to alcoholic drinks, increased their online selection, an effect that may be larger when changing their relative availability, i.e., increasing the proportion of non-alcoholic drinks. Naturalistic studies are needed to determine the impact of availability interventions on reducing alcohol purchasing and consumption.

Project description:Increasing the availability of lower-energy foods increases their selection. The current studies examine the extent to which this effect could be mediated by social norms - assessed by perceived popularity of foods - which may be implied by their relative availability. Study 1 (Online): 2340 UK adults estimated the perceived popularity of products. Participants were randomised to see photos of cafeteria shelves varying in the availability of lower-energy options (1/4 lower-energy; 1/2 lower-energy; 3/4 lower-energy) and fullness of shelves (fuller; emptier). Study 2 (Laboratory): 139 English adults were asked to select a snack. Participants were randomised to select from trays varying in the availability of the lower-energy option (1/3 lower-energy; 2/3 lower-energy) and fullness of tray (fuller; emptier). In Study 1, evidence for an interaction was found, such that when shelves were fuller, a higher proportion of lower-energy options led to greater perceived popularity of lower-energy products (1/4 lower-energy: 40.9% (95%CIs: 40.1,41.8); 3/4 lower-energy: 47.2% (46.3,48.0)), whereas when shelves were emptier, a higher proportion of lower-energy options led to lower perceived popularity (1/4 lower-energy: 48.4% (47.5,49.2); 3/4 lower-energy: 39.2% (38.3,40.0)). In Study 2, when the tray was fuller, participants were more likely - albeit non-significantly - to select a lower-energy snack when 2/3 of the available snacks were lower-energy (35.7% (18.5,52.9)) than when 1/3 were lower-energy (15.4% (4.2,26.5)). For emptier trays, lower-energy selections decreased as the relative availability of lower-energy snacks increased (1/3 lower-energy snacks: 36.0% (17.9,54.1); 2/3 lower-energy snacks: 27.8% (13.9,41.7)). These studies provide novel evidence that social norms may mediate the impact of availability on food selection. In addition, they suggest that the effect of availability may be moderated by display layout through its impact on perceived product popularity.