Fruit and vegetable ads linked to more consumption

MARKETING seems to play a role when it comes to getting people to eat more fruits and vegetables may be advertising, finds a new study in the American Journal of Health Promotion.

“It’s not huge, but it’s a measurable impact,” said study co-author Michel Faupel of the University of Arkansas.

Researchers wondered if there was any difference in fruit and vegetable consumption between states in the U.S. with agricultural marketing programmes and those without. Currently, dozens of states support advertising, packaging and in-store displays that promote fresh produce to consumers, many promoting locally grown fruits and vegetables.

The study examined the results of surveys held in 2000 and 2005 of 237,320 people in the U.S., asking participants about their eating habits. In states that adopted marketing campaigns during this time frame, the percentage of those who reported they ate at least five servings of fruits and vegetables per day—the recommended amount—grew from 24 to 26.5 per cent.

The most notable difference was in women: During a period of time when fresh produce consumption was decreasing nationally, consumption grew from 27.6% to 30.1% amongst those with the programmes.

Harry Kaiser, Ph.D., a professor of applied economics and management at Cornell University, said the study findings are similar to those of his own research into the value of produce marketing programs. “When we look at any sort of advertising of general commodities, they generally have a positive impact. But they’re pretty minor,” he said.

So are these programs cost-effective? Professor Kaiser thinks so, based on his studies of industry programs to promote the sales of things like walnuts, raisins, beef and milk. “From an industry standpoint,” he said, “you don’t have to have a humongous impact for it to be profitable.” (Health Behavior News Service)