Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

uu.sePublications from Uppsala University
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Packaged foods purchased on price promotion in Australia
Univ New South Wales, George Inst Global Hlth, Fac Med, Sydney, NSW 2042, Australia.;George Inst Global Hlth, 1 King St, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia..
Univ New South Wales, George Inst Global Hlth, Fac Med, Sydney, NSW 2042, Australia..
Univ New South Wales, George Inst Global Hlth, Fac Med, Sydney, NSW 2042, Australia..
Univ New South Wales, George Inst Global Hlth, Fac Med, Sydney, NSW 2042, Australia..ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3921-1174
Show others and affiliations
2023 (English)In: Appetite, ISSN 0195-6663, E-ISSN 1095-8304, Vol. 180, article id 106352Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

We examined the prevalence and magnitude of price promotions among purchases of packaged foods and beverages in Australia, as well as the contribution of price-promoted foods and beverages to apparent energy intake. We utilized grocery purchase data from a nationally representative panel of 10 000 households in 2019 (NielsenIQ Homescan panel), combined with a food nutrition dataset (FoodSwitch). Nutritional quality was defined using the Australian and New Zealand Health Star Rating (HSR), where products with an HSR <3.5 were classified as 'less healthy' and products with an HSR >= 3.5 were classified as 'healthy'. Apparent energy intake was expressed as the total energy content of all purchased products per day per capita. Price promotions were claimed by panel members. Overall, four-in-ten packaged products (41%) were purchased on price promotion. Compared to 'healthy' products, 'less healthy' products were more frequently purchased on price promotion (33% vs 48%, respectively, p < 0.001), but had a similar mean magnitude of price discount (both 22%). Low socio-economic status (SES) households consumed 18% more energy from 'less healthy' packaged products on price promotion than high SES households (1141 vs 970 kJ/day/capita, p < 0.001). In conclusion, restricting price promotions for 'less healthy' packaged foods and beverages could potentially improve diet quality and dietary inequalities in Australia.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2023. Vol. 180, article id 106352
Keywords [en]
Price promotion, Public health, Nutrition
National Category
Nutrition and Dietetics Public Health, Global Health and Social Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-490554DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106352ISI: 000884425600001PubMedID: 36272544OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-490554DiVA, id: diva2:1718362
Available from: 2022-12-12 Created: 2022-12-12 Last updated: 2025-02-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records

Marklund, Matti

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Pettigrew, SimoneWu, Jason H. Y.Marklund, Matti
By organisation
Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism
In the same journal
Appetite
Nutrition and DieteticsPublic Health, Global Health and Social Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 16 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf