Removing sweets from checkouts linked to dramatic fall in unhealthy snack purchases

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Policies aimed at removing sweets and crisps from checkouts could lead to a dramatic reduction to the amount of unhealthy food purchased to eat 'on the go' and a significant reduction in that purchased to take home, suggests new research led by the University of Cambridge.

The study, published in the journal PLOS Medicine, found that 17% fewer small packages of sugary confectionary, chocolate and potato crisps were bought and taken home from supermarkets immediately after introducing a checkout . Even more dramatically, 76% fewer purchases were bought and eaten 'on-the-go' from supermarkets with checkout food policies compared to those without.

Large chains such as Tesco, Asda and Sainsbury's have captured the majority of the grocery market and play a major role in shaping food preferences and purchasing behaviour.

Retail practices such as product displays, positioning, promotions and pricing can all influence consumers' choices in stores.

Supermarket checkouts provide a unique location for prompting purchases as all customers have to pass through them to pay and may spend considerable time in queues; however, the majority of food at supermarket checkouts could be considered unhealthy. Over the last decade, many UK supermarket groups have made voluntary commitments to remove or limit unhealthy foods at the tills or to provide healthier options.

"Many snacks picked up at the checkout may be unplanned, impulse buys—and the options tend to be confectionary, chocolate or crisps," says Dr. Jean Adams from the Centre for Diet and Activity Research at the University of Cambridge. "Several supermarkets have now introduced policies to remove these items from their checkouts, and we wanted to know if this had any impact on people's purchasing choices."

To examine the effect that the introduction of checkout food policies in major supermarket chains has had on shoppers' purchasing habits, Dr. Adams led a team of researchers at the universities of Cambridge, Stirling and Newcastle who analysed data from the Kantar Worldpanel's Consumer panel for food, beverages and household products. Six out of the nine major supermarkets introduced checkout food policies between 2013 and 2017. (The researchers anonymised the information to avoid 'naming and shaming' companies.)

Firstly, the team looked at how purchases of less healthy common checkout foods brought home changed following the implementation of checkout policies. They used data from over 30,000 UK households from 12 months before to 12 months after implementation.

The researchers found that implementation of a checkout food policy was associated with an immediate 17% reduction in purchases. After a year, shoppers were still purchasing over 15% fewer of the items compared to when no policy was in place.

Next, they looked at data from 7,500 shoppers who recorded food bought and eaten 'on-the-go' during 2016-17 from supermarkets with and without checkout food policies. On-the-go purchases are often impulsive and can be the result of children pestering their parents. The researchers found that shoppers made 76% fewer annual purchases of less healthy common checkout foods from supermarkets with checkout food policies compared to those without.

As the study was not a randomised control trial, it was not possible to say definitely that the changes in purchasing behaviour were due to the checkout food policies. Stores that chose to have checkout food policies may have been different from those that did not. Or shoppers may have changed to purchasing larger packages from the same stores, or similar products from stores that aren't supermarkets.

"Our findings suggest that by removing sweets and crisps from the checkout, supermarkets can have a positive influence on the types of purchases their shoppers make," says Dr. Katrine Ejlerskov, the study's first author. "This would be a relatively simple intervention with the potential to encourage healthier eating. Many of these purchases may have been impulse buys, so if the shopper doesn't pick up a chocolate bar at the till, it may be one less chocolate bar that they consume."

"It may seem obvious that removing unhealthy food options from the checkout would reduce the amount that people buy, but it is evidence such as this that helps build the case for government interventions to improve unhealthy behaviours," adds Dr. Adams.

"One such intervention might be to introduce nutritional standards for checkout food as suggested in the Government's recent Childhood Obesity Plan. Such a government-led policy might prove attractive to supermarkets as it would provide a level playing field across the sector."

Explore further

Supermarkets exposing children to high calorific junk food at the checkout

More information: Ejlerskov KT, Sharp SJ, Stead M, Adamson AJ, White M, Adams J (2018) Supermarket policies on less-healthy food at checkouts: Natural experimental evaluation using interrupted time series analyses of purchases. PLoS Med 15(12): e1002712.
Journal information: PLoS Medicine

Citation: Removing sweets from checkouts linked to dramatic fall in unhealthy snack purchases (2018, December 18) retrieved 15 October 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 18, 2018
If it's unethical to influence buyers by placing unhealthy items next to the cash register, and ethical to reverse this practice - what about advertisements in general?

There are two kinds of advertising. One that informs consumers about the availability of products, and the second that attempts to influence consumer choice and create needs or impulses, like the candy placed next to the till. The consumers, in need of information, choose to view the first kind, while the second is pushed on them at great expense and at the expense of the consumers' privacy as well, without demand, and also made to pay for the expense of the adverts thus rendered through the cost of the products they're buying.

Then there's also a third kind, which meshes with the second, which is advertising to eclipse your competition - buying the media to keep one brand visible above else. Again, the same principle applies: the consumers pay the cost at the profit of a bunch of useless people.

Dec 18, 2018
Well duh. That is why they are there. To induce the mindless herd of consumers so that the rich may get richer.

Dec 19, 2018
...........Here we have it AGAIN. The ''wise''' ''scientists'' telling US, the ostensibly mindless, how to behave. I wish the government would get out of my bedroom, my home, my business, and my ability to select and decide for myself what I eat and how I live! THIS is the problem with Government being involved in healthcare. It make them THINK they have the right to dictate to us because they are paying more for healthcare. Instead of EDUCATING people these same people revel in the ignorance of the populace so they can exercise control over us.
Beware the politician bearing gifts.

Dec 19, 2018
The ''wise''' ''scientists'' telling US, the ostensibly mindless, how to behave.

Against the "wise" corporation market researchers who are trying to do the same in the opposite direction.

You're already being manipulated. In this particular case the two manipulators simply happen to cancel each other out.

Dec 19, 2018
I don't see why a for-profit business should act as some kind of nutrition advisor. After all, that logic carried to the extreme would eliminate whole sections of the stores. Most of the cereal aisle is poison, all of the pop aisle, the cookie and cracker aisle, the chip aisle, all poison. Certainly the refrigerated processed meats and cheese aisle is unhealthy, if not flat out unfit to eat.

In the meantime, they are not about to replace Snickers with unsweetened apple chips. They'd make less money. The responsibility to control what's stuffed into one's mouth sits with the consumer, not the stores.

Dec 19, 2018
The responsibility to control what's stuffed into one's mouth sits with the consumer, not the stores.

Indeed, so why should they try to influence your choice either way through any sort of deliberate product placement or advertising?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more