Researchers tested whether putting fresh fruits and vegetables near the front entrance of supermarkets would help people buy and eat more of them. They studied 36 stores in England over six months, comparing stores that moved their produce sections to the entrance with stores that kept them in regular spots. While the change didn’t dramatically increase how many households bought fruits and vegetables, it did boost overall store sales of fresh produce significantly. The findings suggest that simple changes to where stores place healthy foods might help entire communities eat better, especially during challenging times like the pandemic.
The Quick Take
- What they studied: Does moving the fruit and vegetable section to the front entrance of supermarkets make people buy and eat more fresh produce?
- Who participated: Women aged 18-60 years who shopped regularly at 36 discount supermarkets in England. About 280 women shopped at stores with the new entrance produce displays, and 300 shopped at regular stores.
- Key finding: While individual household purchases didn’t change much, stores with produce at the entrance sold about 2,500 extra portions of fruits and vegetables per week. This suggests the placement change works better at the store level than changing individual shopping habits.
- What it means for you: Supermarket layout changes might help communities eat healthier without requiring people to change their shopping behavior. However, this is just one tool—it works best combined with other efforts to make healthy eating easier and more affordable.
The Research Details
This was a carefully designed experiment comparing two groups of supermarkets over six months. Researchers selected 36 stores from a discount supermarket chain in England and divided them into two equal groups: 18 stores moved their fruit and vegetable sections to prominent spots near the entrance, while 18 stores kept produce in traditional locations. The stores were matched carefully so they were similar in size, customer types, and neighborhood characteristics before the study began.
Researchers tracked what women customers bought using their loyalty cards and asked them about their eating habits and how much food their households wasted. They measured results at the beginning, after three months, and after six months. This approach allowed them to see both immediate effects and longer-term changes.
This study design is important because previous research on store layout changes was often too small or didn’t measure enough outcomes to draw solid conclusions. By tracking actual purchases, dietary quality, and food waste over six months in real supermarkets, this research provides stronger evidence about whether simple store changes can improve public health. The study was also conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and cost-of-living crisis, making it relevant to real-world conditions when people face budget pressures.
This study has several strengths: it involved real supermarkets and real customers rather than laboratory settings, it tracked actual purchasing behavior through loyalty cards, and it measured multiple outcomes including diet quality and food waste. However, researchers couldn’t randomly assign stores to different conditions, which means some unmeasured differences between stores might have affected results. The study also faced challenges recruiting participants during the pandemic, and the intervention only lasted six months, so longer-term effects remain unknown.
What the Results Show
The main finding was surprising: moving produce to the entrance didn’t significantly increase the percentage of households buying fruits and vegetables. At baseline, about the same proportion of households in both groups bought fresh produce. After three months, only 0.6% more households in intervention stores bought produce (not statistically significant). After six months, this increased to 3.3% more households, but this difference was still not statistically significant, meaning it could have happened by chance.
However, when researchers looked at total store sales rather than individual households, they found a much larger effect. Stores with produce at the entrance sold about 2,525 extra portions of fruits and vegetables per week immediately after the change was implemented. This is equivalent to an increase of about one-third of a standard deviation in sales—a meaningful amount. Interestingly, this effect was strongest right at the beginning and gradually decreased over the six-month period, suggesting the novelty of the new layout may have worn off.
The study also found that women shopping at intervention stores showed improvements in their overall diet quality scores, suggesting the placement change may have helped them eat better overall. These improvements were consistent across different education levels, meaning the intervention didn’t just help one group of people.
Researchers also measured household food waste and found that intervention stores showed some reduction in fruit and vegetable waste, though this wasn’t a primary focus. The dietary quality improvements for women were consistent and meaningful, suggesting that easier access to produce at store entrances may have encouraged healthier food choices beyond just purchasing. For children aged 2-6 years in participating households, there were also modest improvements in dietary quality, indicating that the intervention may have benefited entire families.
This study builds on earlier research showing that product placement affects purchasing behavior, but with much stronger evidence. Previous studies were often too small or didn’t measure real-world outcomes like actual dietary changes. This research confirms that store layout matters for public health, similar to findings from other countries, but also shows that the effect is more powerful at the store level than at the individual household level. The findings align with behavioral economics research showing that making healthy options more visible and accessible influences choices.
Several important limitations should be considered. First, researchers couldn’t randomly assign stores to different conditions, so some differences between stores might explain the results rather than the produce placement itself. Second, the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and a cost-of-living crisis when people were buying less fresh produce overall and had less money to spend, which may have reduced the intervention’s effectiveness. Third, the intervention only lasted six months, so we don’t know if the benefits would continue longer or if people would adapt to the new layout. Fourth, the study focused on women customers at discount supermarkets in England, so results may not apply to other groups or store types. Finally, the effect on individual household purchasing was modest and not statistically significant, which limits the practical impact on individual shoppers.
The Bottom Line
Based on this research, supermarket chains may want to consider moving fresh produce sections to prominent entrance locations as part of broader efforts to improve community nutrition. This change appears to boost overall store sales of healthy foods and may improve customers’ diet quality. However, this should be combined with other strategies like competitive pricing, nutrition education, and addressing food affordability. The evidence is moderate in strength—the store-level effects are clear, but individual household impacts are modest. People should not expect this single change to dramatically transform eating habits without other supporting efforts.
Supermarket managers and grocery chains should care about these findings because they show a simple layout change can increase healthy food sales. Public health officials and policymakers should care because it demonstrates that environmental changes can improve nutrition at the population level. Shoppers interested in eating healthier may benefit from seeking out stores with prominent produce sections, though this alone won’t solve nutrition challenges. People on tight budgets should note that store layout changes don’t address affordability, which remains a major barrier to buying fresh produce.
The study showed that store sales increased immediately when the produce section moved to the entrance, suggesting the effect happens quickly. However, the effect gradually decreased over six months, indicating that the novelty may wear off. For individual shoppers, dietary quality improvements appeared within the study period, but longer-term changes would require sustained exposure to the new layout combined with other supportive factors like affordability and nutrition knowledge.
Want to Apply This Research?
- Track daily servings of fruits and vegetables consumed, noting which store you shopped at and whether it had produce at the entrance. This helps you identify whether store layout influences your actual eating patterns and allows you to compare your intake across different shopping environments.
- When shopping, make produce your first stop by visiting the entrance section first, before other aisles. This mimics the intervention’s effect and may help you prioritize fruits and vegetables in your cart before spending budget on other items. Set a goal to fill half your cart with produce before moving to other sections.
- Track weekly fruit and vegetable purchases and consumption for 8-12 weeks while shopping at stores with entrance produce displays, then compare to weeks when shopping elsewhere. Monitor your grocery receipt percentages to see if produce purchases increase. Also track your diet quality by noting meals that include vegetables and fruits, looking for patterns related to store layout and shopping behavior.
This research suggests that supermarket produce placement may influence purchasing and dietary patterns, but individual results vary. Store layout changes are not a substitute for medical advice, dietary counseling, or treatment for nutrition-related health conditions. If you have specific dietary needs or health concerns, consult with a healthcare provider or registered dietitian. This study was conducted in discount supermarkets in England during the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis, so results may not apply to all store types, regions, or economic conditions. The modest effects on individual household purchasing suggest that produce placement works best as part of a comprehensive approach to improving nutrition that includes affordability, education, and access.
This research translation is published by Gram Research, the science division of Gram, an AI-powered nutrition tracking app.