Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Policy
journal homepage: [Link]/locate/foodpol

Customer awareness and perceptions of the high in fat, sugar, and salt
(HFSS) placement legislation and impacts on self-reported food purchasing
Alice R. Kininmonth a,b,* , Victoria L. Jenneson a,b, Francesca Pontin b,d, Jason C.G. Halford c,
Alexandra M. Johnstone e , Michelle A. Morris a,b , Alison Fildes c , the DIO Food Team
a
School of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds, United Kingdom
b
Leeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, United Kingdom
c
School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, United Kingdom
d
School of Geography, Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds, United Kingdom
e
The Rowett Institute, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Introduction: Legislation in England restricts the placement of high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) products in stores
High in fat sugar and salt and online. This is the first study to investigate shoppers’ perceptions, and self-reported purchasing behaviours
HFSS legislation following its implementation.
Consumers
Methods: A sample of 1968 adults, living in England, who were the primary shopper for the household completed
Purchasing
Supermarkets
online surveys, with oversampling of lower incomes (households earning less than £39,999 annually).
Food insecurity Results: Most purchased products from HFSS-dominated categories at least once/week (92.5 %). Shoppers with
children or those living with food insecurity reported purchasing HFSS-dominated products more frequently and
reported greater susceptibility to product placement and price-promotion strategies targeted by the current and
planned HFSS legislation. The majority of shoppers surveyed were not aware of the HFSS legislation (58.7%),
and most did not notice any changes to the shopping environment, either online (79.8%) or in-store (56.1%).
Most felt the legislation was a good first step (71.4). However, 90% felt affordability of healthier food was as or
more important than legislation of less healthy foods.
Conclusion: While shoppers supported the legislation’s potential to encourage healthier food choices, they
emphasised the importance of affordability. Households with children or those living with food insecurity are
particularly susceptible to retail promotional strategies. To support these shoppers, future legislation should also
consider promoting healthier foods to reduce dietary inequalities.

1. Introduction of food and drinks high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) (Department of
Health Social Care., 2023 ; Department of Health and Social Care, 2018).
The food environment, comprising physical, economic, political and In October 2022, legislation was introduced in England, restricting
sociocultural influences on food choice, contributes to poor diet and the placement of HFSS foods and non-alcoholic drinks in stores (i.e. at
rising rates of obesity (Food Standards Agency, 2022; Lee et al., 2019; entrance, aisle end, and checkouts) and their online equivalents
Swinburn et al., 1999; Swinburn et al., 2011; Vandenbroeck et al., (Department of Health Social Care., 2023). Under the legislation,
2007). As such, there have been calls to move away from individual- products falling into 13 categories can no longer be placed in prominent
focused interventions to whole-systems approaches addressing wider locations in-store or online. ‘In-scope’ products (also termed ‘specified
population-level factors (Vandenbroeck et al., 2007). The UK govern­ food’) comprise commonly consumed foods which contribute to excess
ment is one of the first to take such an approach. In 2007, the adver­ calorie intake (Department of Health Social Care., 2023). The original
tisement of less healthy foods and drinks was banned on children’s proposal included a ban on volume-based price promotions of HFSS
television and other digital media (Conway, 2024). In 2018, further products, such as multi-buys. However, citing rising cost of living, this
regulations were announced restricting the promotion and advertising portion of the legislation was delayed by the government in May 2022,

* Corresponding author at: School of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
E-mail address: [Link]@[Link] (A.R. Kininmonth).

[Link]
Received 16 May 2025; Received in revised form 18 July 2025; Accepted 6 August 2025
Available online 16 August 2025
0306-9192/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ([Link]
A.R. Kininmonth et al. Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

until October 2025. (Jenneson et al., 2024). The supermarket sales data will be used to
The HFSS legislation aims to reduce the prominence of less healthy evaluate changes in HFSS product sales following the implementation of
food and drink products within supermarkets to discourage impulse the legislation. However, store-level sales data cannot provide insight
purchasing, effectively directing customers towards healthier food into interpretations or perceptions of the legislation. This customer
choices through subtle changes to the food environment or ‘choice ar­ study, alongside our investigation into the retail sector’s response, are
chitecture’ (Harbers et al., 2020). This type of policy contrasts with important for understanding the context in which the policy was
other interventions, such as education, taxes or bans, by prompting implemented and how it was received by key stakeholders and con­
behaviour in largely non-conscious ways (Department of Health Social sumers. Although the legislation targeted the food environment, public
Care., 2023). The HFSS legislation prevents retailers from using product support for national health policy remains important. If the legislation is
placement ‘nudges’ to increase purchasing of in-scope less healthy food effective in reducing sales of less healthy foods, while going unnoticed
and drinks. Targeting choice architecture is an attractive policy tool (as intended), then policy makers, the retail sector and the general
because it offers a less prescriptive approach to legislation, by preserving public can be reassured that structural interventions targeting super­
an element of free choice (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009). Numerous studies market architecture have the potential to positively impact health
have explored environmentally targeted interventions within super­ without negatively affecting individuals.
markets, including ‘nudges’ to encourage healthier purchases, such as The HFSS legislation is the first to target product promotion in the
placing healthier foods in prominent locations, with promising results retail sector. Any public health legislation can be controversial, with
(Cameron et al., 2016). However, fewer studies have focussed on critics typically decrying paternalistic inhibition of free will and the
reducing the promotion of less healthy foods and the evidence regarding ‘nanny state’ (Smith et al., 2015). While a qualitative study of female
the effectiveness of such interventions on dietary outcomes is limited consumers (n = 35) conducted pre-implementation found some concern
(Cameron et al., 2016; Shaw et al., 2022). about government interference in free choice, most viewed the legisla­
The current UK food system promotes consumption of HFSS foods tion positively, expecting it to promote healthier food choices (Dhuria
through availability but also through affordability (Johnstone & Lonnie, et al., 2023). To date, no research has been conducted post-
2023). Healthier foods are estimated to be more than double the cost per implementation to explore customers’ awareness, understanding or
calorie compared to less healthy foods (The Food Foundation, 2025). perceptions of the HFSS legislation or its impact on self-reported pur­
Rates of food insecurity, which occurs when people do not have reliable chasing behaviours, particularly among those living with food insecu­
access to sufficient nutritious, affordable food, have risen sharply over rity. This study addresses this gap and aims to answer the following
recent years, disproportionally impacting those on low incomes, and research questions:
families with children (The Food Foundation, 2025). As a result, people
experiencing food insecurity often purchase cheap, energy-dense HFSS (1) How frequently do customers report purchasing of HFSS products
foods, which promote excess weight and widen existing health in­ following the introduction of the HFSS legislation? Does this vary
equalities (Johnstone & Lonnie, 2023). Experiencing barriers within the by customer demographics?
food environment, including barriers to food affordability and accessi­ (2) Does self-reported susceptibility to retailer strategies (product
bility (e.g. distance to food retailers or access to transport), have been placement and price promotions) for the sale of HFSS products
associated with greater food insecurity (Stone et al., 2025) and poorer vary based on customer demographic characteristics?
dietary quality in low-income populations (Wolfson et al., 2019). (3) Are customers aware of the HFSS legislation and changes to su­
Limited time to shop for and prepare nutritious food pose additional permarkets following the HFSS legislation? Does this vary by
barriers for households experiencing FI (Wolfson et al., 2019). In a customer demographics?
recent study exploring barriers to purchasing healthier foods, partici­ (4) To what extent are customers in favour of the HFSS legislation?
pants living with obesity and food insecurity were asked to rank the
helpfulness of multiple retailer-based interventions in supporting 2. Methods
healthier purchases. Discount and price-based promotions of healthy
foods were perceived as the most helpful both in-store and online, while This study was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework
location-based promotions were ranked much lower (Stone et al., 2025). (Fildes, 2024) and is available online at doi: 10.17605/[Link]/KTSZA.
Measures modifying food environments, such as the HFSS legisla­
tion, are considered more likely to reduce health inequalities than
measures targeting individual behaviour change. Interventions target­ 2.1. Participant sample
ing knowledge or behaviour at the level of the individual require the use
of personal resources (i.e. time, cognitive or financial resources) to A sample of 2000 adults, living in England, who identified as the
comply with the intervention aims and benefit from potential positive primary grocery shopper (defined as the main grocery shopper for the
health outcomes. Contrastingly, interventions focussed on the wider food the household eats), henceforth referred to as ‘shopper’, were
food environment (such as the HFSS legislation) require little or no recruited in June 2024 to take part in an online survey via the survey
personal resources from individuals for benefits to be achieved. Given recruitment company Prolific Academic, using quota sampling to ensure
personal resources are not equitable across the population, an in­ representation across a range of household incomes, with deliberate
dividual’s ability to act in accordance with targeted behaviour change oversampling of lower incomes (households earning less than £39,999),
interventions is likely to be influenced by range of social and economic to capture views from those more likely to be living with food insecurity.
factors (Garrott et al., 2024). Whereas the HFSS product placement To meet inclusion criteria, participants needed to reside in England, be
legislation, which places less reliance on inequitably distributed per­ the primary household grocery shopper and be 18–65 years old.
sonal resources, could be considered a progressive policy, less likely to Attention checks (n = 2) were built into the survey (e.g. “Please select
widen existing health inequalities. However, there is limited evidence ’strongly agree’ to show you are paying attention and are not a robot.”)
for differential impacts on health inequities from different types of and participants failing at least one attention check were excluded. A
obesity related policies (i.e. individually versus structurally targeted) reCAPTCHA was also used at the start of the study to protect against bots
(Olstad et al., 2016) and the perceived impact of the HFSS legislation and malicious programs. Ethical approval was obtained from the Uni­
among people living with food insecurity remains unknown. versity of Leeds School of Psychology Ethics Committee, PSCETHS-
This present study forms part of a wider evaluation of the impacts of 1005. All participants provided informed consent and were compen­
the HFSS product placement restrictions in England using supermarket sated for time spent completing the survey to the value of £11.28 per
sales data, alongside survey and interview data from key stakeholders hour.

2
A.R. Kininmonth et al. Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

2.2. Data collection measures 2.2.6. Susceptibility to price promotions

Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which price pro­
The full list of survey questions available in the published protocol motions affect their shopping decisions using the following response
for this study (Fildes, 2024). Throughout the survey, participants who options (1 = Much less likely to buy a product, 2 = Less likely to buy a
reported primarily shopping in-store were asked about in-store shopping product, 3 = No change, 4 = More likely to buy a product, 5 = Much
environments and behaviours, whereas those who reported undertaking more likely to buy a product). Participants were also asked to indicate
their main shopping online were asked about the online shopping the type of food products that they usually buy on price promotions.
environment.
2.2.7. Awareness of the HFSS legislation
2.2.1. Demographics Participants were asked to indicate if they had heard of the gov­
Participants were asked to provide demographic information ernment legislation introduced in October 2022, and to state which re­
including their age (in years), gender, ethnicity, number of adults and strictions they thought were included in the legislation, from a list of
children (including the age of the children) in their household, first 3–4 examples that included both genuine restrictions implemented as part of
characters of postcode, height and weight (to calculate Body Mass the legislation and restrictions not included in the 2022 legislation.
Index), country of residence, household income, employment status, if
they are the primary food shopper for their household, their primary 2.2.8. Awareness of changes to supermarkets following the HFSS legislation
supermarket used for food shopping, primary method used for food Participants were asked to indicate if they had noticed any changes
shopping (e.g. online or in store) and frequency of shopping. For ana­ in different aspects of their in-store or online supermarket shopping
lyses, households were dichotomised into those with no children and environments following the introduction of the HFSS legislation in
those with one or more child in the household. October 2022.

2.2.2. Food insecurity 2.2.9. Attitudes towards and perceived impact of HFSS legislation
Household food insecurity was assessed using the 18-item USDA To assess shoppers’ perceptions of the potential impact of the HFSS
Household Food Security Survey Module (USDA, 2012). This is an 18- legislation, participants were asked to state the extent to which they
item scale focussing on food accessibility to assess food security status, agree or disagree with five statements on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly
with adult and child specific questions. For analyses, all respondents Disagree to Strongly Agree). The statements were developed based on
who scored 0–2 were classified as food secure, and those scoring 3 + key themes from previous research (Dhuria et al., 2023; Muir et al.,
were classified as food insecure. 2023).
Participants were asked to report how they think the restriction on
2.2.3. Anthropometrics unhealthy foods affects their shopping habits using a 5-point Likert scale
Reported height and weight values were used to calculate BMI, (Much less likely to purchase unhealthy foods to Much more likely to
which was categorised as: underweight < 18.5 kg/m2, healthy weight purchase unhealthy foods).
18.5–24.9 kg/m2, overweight 25.0–29.9 kg/m2, obese > 30.0 kg/m2. They were also asked the extent to which they thought different
Biologically implausible BMIs, defined according to previous research organisations were responsible for supporting customers to buy
(weight < 30 or > 400 kg, height < 1.2 m or > 2.2 m, BMI < 14 or > 70 healthier foods and if they felt the legislation would help fight unhealthy
kg/m2), were recoded to missing. For analyses, participants were eating on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree)
dichotomised as those living with overweight or obesity (BMI ≥ 25) and and to rank in order of most to least who (individuals, supermarkets,
those without overweight or obesity (BMI < 25). manufacturers, or government) they feel has the biggest responsibility in
supporting customers to make healthier choices.
2.2.4. Purchasing of HFSS products
Participants were asked about their shopping habits, including how 2.3. Statistical analysis
frequently they purchased products in HFSS-dominated categories
(response options ranged from ‘never’ to ‘every day’). HFSS-dominated All analyses were undertaken in R version 4.4.1. Standardised betas
food categories were based on the 13 categories that are restricted as are reported to provide comparable effect sizes for all analyses. The
part of the HFSS legislation (Department of Health Social Care., 2023). alpha level was set at < 0.05. The statistical methods were preregistered
These are: soft drinks with added sugar, savoury snacks, breakfast ce­ on OSF (Fildes, 2024). We revised our statistical approach in two ways in
reals, confectionery, ice creams and ice lollies, cakes and cupcakes, response to reviewer feedback. First, we additionally adjusted for
sweet biscuits, morning goods, desserts and puddings, yoghurts, pizza, household size in the analysis examining frequency of purchasing.
potato-based products, ready meals. In this survey, these categories were Second, we used multivariable regressions adjusting for covariates
used as a proxy for HFSS status, as these categories commonly contain rather than bivariate unadjusted analysis to address the second research
HFSS products. However, it is important to note that not all products question. This approach reduces the number of statistical tests and ad­
within these food categories will be classified as HFSS based on the NPM justs for covariates.
score. When we refer to HFSS foods in the findings of this research, we
are referring to the HFSS-dominated food categories that were used a 2.3.1. RQ1: How frequently do customers report purchasing products in
proxy for HFSS status. HFSS-dominated categories following the introduction of the HFSS
Participants were also asked to report if the frequency of purchasing legislation? Does this vary by customer demographics?
has changed since the introduction of the HFSS legislation, and if they Descriptive statistics were used to examine the frequency of pur­
have found it more difficult to locate products in HFSS-dominated cat­ chasing each of the 13 HFSS-dominated product categories following the
egories when food shopping. introduction of the legislation. Following this, a series of multivariable
linear regressions examined associations between customer de­
2.2.5. Susceptibility to product placement mographics (Independent variables: food insecurity status, weight sta­
Participants were asked to state how likely they are to purchase tus, and households with children versus without) and the frequency of
products in prominent locations and which products they are likely to purchasing the HFSS-dominated product categories (dependent vari­
purchase in these locations (1 = Very unlikely to purchase, 5 = Very ables). Separate models were run for each of the 13 HFSS-dominated
likely to purchase). They were also asked to report the perceived impact product categories. Models were adjusted for gender, age, ethnicity
of product placement on their shopping behaviours. and household size.

3
A.R. Kininmonth et al. Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

2.3.2. RQ2: Does self-reported susceptibility to retailer strategies (product Table 1

placement and price promotions) for the sale of HFSS products vary based Characteristics of the customer survey sample (n = 1968).
on customer demographic characteristics? Characteristics Mean (SD) or N
A series of multivariable linear regressions examined associated be­ (%)
tween customer demographics (Independent variables: food insecurity Age 43.07 (13.7)
status, by weight status, in households with or without children) and
self-reported susceptibility to two types of retailer sales strategies: (a)
Gendera ​
product placement and (b) price promotions, of HFSS-dominated Male 806 (41.0)
product categories.). Female 1143 (58.0)
In another way / prefer not to say 19 (1.0)
2.3.3. RQ3: To what extent are customers aware of the HFSS legislation
and changes in supermarkets following the HFSS legislation implementation? Household composition ​
and does awareness vary by customer demographics? Household size 2.67 (1.3)
1 387 (19.7)
Descriptive statistics examined customers awareness of the HFSS
2 667 (33.9)
legislation and changes to supermarkets (both in-store and online) 3+ 914 (53.6)
following implementation. Multivariable logistic regressions then Number of adults in household 2.14 (1.7)
examined whether legislation awareness varies by customer de­ 1 489 (24.8)
2 1076 (54.7)
mographics. Models were adjusted for gender, age, and ethnicity.
3+ 403 (20.5)
Number of adults with children 684 (34.8)
2.3.4. RQ4: To what extent are customers in favour of the HFSS legislation?
Descriptive statistics examined the extent to which customers are in
Number of children in household ​
favour of the HFSS legislation, felt it supports healthier food choices and 0 1284 (65.2)
who they believe is responsible for supporting customers to make 1 313 (15.9)
healthier choices. 2 282 (14.3)
3+ 89 (4.6)

3. Results
Annual household income ​
209 (10.6)
In total, 2000 adults completed the online survey via Qualtrics < £13,000
£13,000–£18,999 194 (9.9)
(Qualtrics XM // The Leading Experience Management Software, n.d). £19,000–25,999 262 (13.3)
Those who failed at least one attention check (n = 32, 1.6 %), were £26,000–31,999 184 (9.3)
excluded, leaving an analysis sample of 1968. Of these, 34.8 % had at £32,000–47,999 297 (15.1)
least one child and 57.3 % were living with overweight or obesity. 24.2 £48,000–63,999 190 (9.7)
118 (6.0)
% reported experiencing food insecurity, higher than the 13.6 % UK
£64,000–£74,999
£75,000–£82,499 94 (4.8)
prevalence reported by the Food Foundation in June 2024 (The Food £82,500–£90,000 76 (3.9)
Foundation, 2023). All participants were the primary household shop­ £90,000–£100,000 86 (4.4)
per, with 72.9 % shopping in-store (Table 1). >£100,000 234 (11.9)

3.1. RQ1: Purchasing of HFSS products Ethnicityb ​

White 1680 (85.6)
Mixed 68 (3.5)
Fig. 1 summarises the frequency of purchasing products from HFSS-
Asian or Asian British 113 (5.8)
dominated categories. 92.5 % of participants reported purchasing Black or Black British 90 (4.6)
products from at least one of the HFSS-dominated categories once or Other ethnicity 12 (0.6)
more per week.
Participants experiencing food insecurity reported more frequently Employment ​
purchasing soft drinks, pizzas, potato-based products, and ready meals, Employed (full or part-time) 1016 (51.6)
but less frequently purchasing morning goods compared to food secure Not working (i.e. parental leave, long-term sick or disability, retired 781 (39.7)
or a carer)
participants. Participants with overweight or obesity reported greater
Unemployed 89 (4.5)
frequency of purchasing soft drinks, savoury snacks, ice creams and ice Full-time or part-time education 82 (4.2)
lollies, compared to those of a normal weight status. Participants with
children reported purchasing products in all HFSS-dominated categories Geographical region of residence ​
more frequently, except ready meals and desserts and puddings, North East of England 99 (5.0)
compared to those without children (Table 2). North West of England 276 (14.0)
West Midlands 211 (10.7)
East Midlands 187 (9.5)
3.2. RQ2: Susceptibility to product placement and price promotions
East of England 195 (9.9)
Yorkshire and the Humber 218 (11.1)
Households with children who shopped in-store reported being more London 260 (13.2)
likely to purchase products at the store entrance, checkout, and aisle South East of England 327 (16.6)
South West of England 194 (9.9)
end, compared to households without children. While those with chil­
dren who shopped online were more likely to purchase products
advertised on the advert banners e.g. pop-ups than those without chil­ Weight statusc ​
Underweight (<18.5 kg/m2) 51 (2.6)
dren (Table 3).
Normal weight (18.5–24.9 kg/m2) 772 (40.0)
There was no significant difference in susceptibility to location-based Living with overweight (25–29.9 kg/m2) 609 (31.5)
promotions in store for participants experiencing food insecurity versus Living with Obesity (>30 kg/m2) 499 (25.8)
food secure participants. Participants experiencing food insecurity
shopping online reported being more likely to purchase products on the
(continued on next page)
homepage, offers page and advert banners e.g. pop-ups (Table 3).

4
A.R. Kininmonth et al. Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

Table 1 (continued ) Participants with children reported being more likely to purchase
Characteristics Mean (SD) or N products on multi-buy and Buy One Get One Free offers (BOGOF) than
(%) those without children (Table 4). Participants experiencing food inse­
Healthy Start Vouchers ​
curity reported being more likely to purchase products on reduced price,
Do not receive 1922 (97.7) and everyday low-price promotions compared to food secure partici­
Receive 38 (1.9) pants (Table 4).
Prefer not to say 8 (0.4) There was no significant difference in susceptibility to location-based
promotions (either online or in-store) between participants living with
Household food insecurity ​ or without overweight or obesity (Table 3). However, those with over­
Food insecure 477 (24.2) weight or obesity reported greater susceptibility to multi-buy price
Food secure 1491 (75.8)
promotions (p = 0.015), with no difference for other promotions.

Primary supermarket ​
3.3. RQ3: Customers awareness
Asda 279 (14.2)
Tesco 485 (24.6)
Morrisons 125 (6.4) Most participants (58.7 %) were not aware of the HFSS legislation
Sainsbury’s 286 (14.5) and reported not noticing any changes in-store (56.1 %) or online (79.8
Co-operative 5 (0.3) %). Awareness of the HFSS legislation did not differ by household food
Waitrose 39 (2.0)
insecurity status (OR = 1.00; 95 % CI = 0.80–1.24), weight status (OR =
Ocado 42 (2.2)
Aldi 362 (18.4) 1.00; 95 % CI = 0.98–1.01), or between participants with children vs
Lidl 216 (11.0) those without children (OR = 1.05; 95 % CI = 0.86–1.27). However,
Iceland 22 (1.1) females were more likely to be aware of the HFSS legislation than males
Other (e.g. M&S, Booths, Farm foods, etc.) 24 (1.2)
(OR = 1.23; 95 % CI = 1.02–1.48, p = 0.028).
Does not do main shop at supermarket 82 (4.2)
Of those who reported being aware of the HFSS legislation (41.3 %;
n = 813), no-one correctly identified the complete list of restrictions.
Mode of shopping ​
Participants were most aware of in-store restrictions, particularly re­
In-store shopper 1434 (72.9)
Online shopper 534 (27.1) strictions of HFSS products at checkout areas (72.2 %), with lower
a
awareness of online restrictions (Table 5). Over two thirds of partici­
19 participants stated that identified ‘in another way’ or ‘Preferred not to
pants stated they found it easy or very easy to locate products in each of
say’ so were recoded to ‘missing’.
b the 13 HFSS categories despite the legislation (Table 6).
5 participants stated that they would ‘Prefer not to say’ so the ethnicity was
recoded to ‘missing’
c
Anthropometric data were missing for 37 participants (1.9 %).

Fig. 1. Frequency of purchasing of products within the 13 HFSS-dominated categories. Data .

Source: Qualtrics customer survey - data collected June 2024

5
A.R. Kininmonth et al. Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

Table 2
Associations between customer demographics and the frequency of purchasing products in HFSS-dominated categories.
Products in the 13 HFSS-dominated categories Customer demographics

Food insecure Living with overweight/obesity Has children

β (95 % CI) p-value β (95 % CI) p-value β (95 % CI) p-value

Soft drinks with added sugar 0.19 (0.07, 0.28) <0.001 0.14 (0.05, 0.23) 0.002 0.14 (0.05, 0.23) 0.022
Savoury snacks 0.08 (− 0.03, 0.18) 0.264 0.14 (0.05, 0.23) 0.002 0.19 (0.07, 0.31) 0.002
Breakfast cereal 0.10 (0.00, 0.21) 0.051 − 0.03 (− 0.12, 0.06) 0.484 0.31 (0.19, 0.43) <0.001
Confectionery − 0.02 (− 0.13, 0.09) 0.678 0.05 (− 0.04, 0.14) 0.295 0.21 (0.09, 0.33) <0.001
Ice-cream and ice lollies − 0.07 (− 0.17, 0.04) 0.228 0.14 (0.05, 0.23) 0.003 0.31 (0.19, 0.43) <0.001
Cakes 0.00 (− 0.12, 0.10) 0.073 − 0.01 (− 0.10, 0.08) 0.775 0.27 (0.15, 0.39) <0.001
Biscuits − 0.02 (− 0.13, 0.09) 0.706 − 0.04 (− 0.13, 0.05) 0.364 0.28 (0.16, 0.41) <0.001
Morning goods − 0.11 (− 0.22, − 0.01) 0.040 0.00 (− 0.10, 0.08) 0.860 0.30 (0.18, 0.42) <0.001
Desserts and puddings − 0.05 (− 0.16, 0.06 0.381 0.04 (− 0.06, 0.13) 0.443 0.11 (− 0.01, 0.23) 0.072
Yoghurts − 0.10 (− 0.21, 0.01) 0.064 − 0.01 (− 0.11, 0.08) 0.749 0.18 (0.06, 0.30) 0.003
Pizza 0.17 (0.06, 0.27) 0.001 0.08 (− 0.01, 0.17) 0.079 0.34 (0.22, 0.45) <0.001
Potato-based products 0.21 (0.11, 0.32) 0.001 0.17 (0.08, 0.26) 0.076 0.21 (0.09, 0.32) <0.001
Ready meals 0.24 (0.13, 0.35) <0.001 0.03 (− 0.06, 0.12) 0.516 0.03 (− 0.06, 0.12) 0.669

*Models are adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity and household size. Standardised betas that meet the alpha level < 0.05 are shown in bold.

Table 3 Table 4
Associations between customer demographics and the susceptibility to product Associations between customer demographics and the susceptibility to price
placement strategies. promotions.
Placement Customer demographics Price Customer demographics
location promotion
Food insecure Living with Has children Food insecure Living with Has children
strategies
overweight/obesity overweight/obesity

β (95 % p-value β (95 % p- β (95 % p-value β (95 % p-value β (95 % p- β (95 % p-

CI) CI) value CI) CI) CI) value CI) value

Entrance − 0.02 0.758 0.07 0.221 0.22 <0.001 Buy-One- 0.09 0.116 0.02 0.654 0.11 0.033
(− 0.15, (− 0.04, (0.11, Get-One- (− 0.02, (− 0.07, (0.01,
0.11) 0.17) 0.34) Free 0.20) 0.11) 0.20)
Aisle end 0.01 0.475 0.09 0.213 0.12 0.0476 (BOGOF)
(− 0.12, (− 0.02, (0.00, Everyday 0.30 <0.001 − 0.06 0.182 0.07 0.149
0.14) 0.20) 0.24) low price (0.20, (− 0.16, (− 0.03,
Checkout 0.08 0.231 0.07 0.202 0.14 0.179 0.41) 0.03) 0.17)
(− 0.05, (− 0.04, (0.02, Loyalty − 0.05 0.359 0.08 0.108 0.09 0.059
0.20) 0.18) 0.26) discount (− 0.16, (− 0.02, (0.00,
Homepage 0.38 <0.001 0.10 0.245 0.06 0.472 0.06) 0.17) 0.19)
(0.17, (− 0.07, (− 0.11, Multi-buy 0.08 0.159 0.11 0.015 0.13 0.008
0.59) 0.28) 0.24) (− 0.03, (0.02, (0.03,
Offers page 0.28 0.009 − 0.09 0.313 0.06 0.502 0.19) 0.21) 0.23)
(0.07, (− 0.27, (− 0.12, Reduced 0.20 <0.001 0.05 0.295 0.02 0.681
0.49) 0.09) 0.24) price (0.09, (− 0.04, (− 0.08,
Online 0.20 0.063 − 0.09 0.310 0.13 0.149 0.31) 0.14) 0.12)
checkout (− 0.01, (− 0.27, (− 0.05,
0.41) 0.09) 0.31) *Models are adjusted for age, gender, and ethnicity. Standardised betas that
Pop-up 0.25 0.017 0.07 0.441 0.27 0.003 meet the alpha level < 0.05 are shown in bold.
adverts (0.05, (− 0.11, (0.09,
0.46) 0.24) 0.44)
Product − 0.03 0.763 0.10 0.262 − 0.14 0.118 Table 5
pages (− 0.24, (− 0.08, (− 0.32, Knowledge of in-store and online placement-based restrictions for participants
0.18) 0.28) 0.04)
who stated they were aware of the legislation (41.3 %; N = 813).
*Models are adjusted for age, gender, and ethnicity. Standardised betas that Included in legislation?
meet the alpha level < 0.05 are shown in bold.
Restricting HFSS products being displayed…* Yes No

N (%) N (%)
3.4. RQ4: Customer perceptions
At the entrance 419 (51.5) 394 (48.5)
Most respondents agreed the legislation was a ‘good first step’ to At the checkouts 587 (72.2) 226 (27.8)
At the end of aisle 282 (34.7) 531 (65.3)
encourage healthier food choices (71.4 %). Most also felt the legislation Online product pages (searching/browsing) 76 (9.3) 737 (90.7)
was likely to have more impact on shoppers who did not plan their Online on the offers pages 156 (19.2) 657 (80.8)
shopping (70.8 %). When asked about their own shopping behaviours, Online on the homepage 157 (19.3) 656 (80.7)
only 23.7 % felt the legislation would make them less likely to purchase Online advert banners/pop-ups 236 (29.0) 577 (71.0)
Online during check-out process 319 (39.2) 494 (60.8)
less healthy foods and 73.1 % believed it would have no impact on their
own shopping habits. Nearly all (90 %) viewed affordability of healthier *Participants were asked ‘Which of the following restrictions do you think are
food was just as, or more important than the legislation of less healthy included in the legislation’ and provided a list which included genuine re­
foods. strictions imposed as part of the legislation, alongside restrictions which were
Most respondents agreed with the statement ‘It’s up to the individual not part of the legislation (e.g.’ Restricting colourful packaging’). Responses are
to eat healthily and its my choice whether or not to buy healthier or less only presented for restrictions that form part of the HFSS product placement
legislation.
healthy foods’ (71.0 %). However, the majority also agreed

6
A.R. Kininmonth et al. Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

Table 6 following the introduction of the legislation, our findings revealed

Extent to which participants found it easy or difficult to locate products by the shoppers with children and those living with food insecurity self-report
13 HFSS-dominated categories, following the introduction of the legislation. purchasing products in HFSS-dominated categories more frequently and
Product categories Very Difficult Neutral Easy Very being more susceptible to the prominent product placement and price-
difficult easy promotion-based retailer strategies targeted by HFSS legislation. In
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) line with the legislation’s intended mechanism as a nudge strategy, the
majority of shoppers were unaware of the HFSS legislation, with most
Soft drinks with added 12 (0.6) 60 (3.0) 557 666 673
sugar (28.3) (33.8) (34.2) not noticing any changes to in-store or online shopping environments
Savoury snacks (e.g. 5 (0.3) 57 (2.9) 409 800 697 following implementation. When the legislation was explained, most
crisps, tortilla chips, (20.8) (40.7) (35.4) respondents were positive, agreeing it was a good step towards
Bombay mix) encouraging healthier food choices. However, the majority felt that
Breakfast cereal (e.g. 6 (0.3) 53 (2.7) 416 796 697
ready-to-eat breakfast (21.1) (40.4) (35.4)
affordability of healthier food was as or more important than restricting
cereals, granola, muesli, less healthy foods and called for greater promotion of fruits and
porridge) vegetables.
Confectionery (e.g. 9 (0.5) 63 (3.2) 378 823 695 Most shoppers in this survey reported regularly purchasing products
chocolate, sweets, etc) (19.2) (41.8) (35.3)
in HFSS-dominated categories, with higher purchasing frequencies re­
Ice-cream and ice lollies 6 (0.3) 42 (2.1) 432 775 713
(e.g. choc ices, ice (22.0) (39.4) (36.2) ported by participants experiencing food insecurity (soft drinks, pizzas,
creams and lollies, potato-based products, and ready meals); those living with overweight
frozen yoghurts, etc.) or obesity (soft drinks and savoury snacks) and participants with chil­
Cakes (e.g. sponge cakes, 4 (0.2) 60 (3.0) 508 776 620 dren (all HFSS-dominated product categories, except ready meals). More
cupcakes, brownies, (25.8) (39.4) (31.5)
doughnuts, etc.)
frequent purchases of HFSS-dominated products in these groups may be
Biscuits (including cereal 7 (0.4) 57 (2.9) 408 849 647 partly due to financial constraints, as these products are often more
bars, chocolate coated (20.7) (43.1) (32.9) affordable (lower price per calorie) (Goudie, 2023). Previous research
biscuits, shortbreads) has shown households with low incomes often deprioritise the ‘health­
Morning goods (e.g. 6 (0.3) 59 (3.0) 503 778 662
iness’ of food when making purchases due to the higher cost of healthier
croissants, sweet (25.6) (39.5) (31.6)
pastries, crumpets, foods (Puddephatt et al., 2020; Robinson et al., 2022; Stone et al., 2024).
pancakes, teacakes, However, it is also important to note that purchasing frequency does not
scones, etc.) necessarily directly correspond to the volume of foods purchased. In­
Desserts and puddings (e. 6 (0.3) 88 (4.5) 590 755 529 dividuals and families with lower incomes may shop more frequently
g. sweet pies, tarts, rice (30.0) (38.4) (26.9)
puddings, custards, etc)
due to budget constraints preventing larger bulk purchases, or the need
Yoghurts (including 9 (0.5) 62 (3.2) 382 814 701 to buy essentials (e.g. milk) more often due to household composition
flavoured, fat-free, (19.4) (41.4) (35.6) (Blow et al., 2012). Our findings support and extend previous research
probiotic, dairy-free, demonstrating that households with children are more responsive to the
etc.)
types of volume-based price promotions targeted by planned future
Pizza (including all 4 (0.2) 40 (2.0) 448 783 693
chilled and frozen (22.8) (39.8) (35.2) legislation, than households without children (Kopasker et al., 2022). In
pizzas) contrast, participants with food insecurity reported being more likely to
Potato-based products (e. 6 (0.3) 53 (2.7) 440 767 702 respond to non-volume-based promotions such as reduced-price prod­
g. fries, chips, wedges, (22.4) (39.0) (35.7) ucts or products on everyday low-price promotions compared to food
waffles, roast potatoes,
secure participants, indicating the new legislation may impact this
etc.)
Ready meals and meal 13 (0.7) 62 (3.2) 561 737 595 group less.
centres (e.g. prepared (28.5) (37.4) (30.2) Participants with children also reported being more likely to pur­
meals for heating in the chase products placed in store entrances, at aisle ends, and check-out
microwave or oven such
areas compared to those without children. This greater susceptibility
as Chinese, Indian,
pasta dishes, and may reflect ‘pester power’, whereby children try to influence their
battered or breaded parents to purchase specific products, often less healthy food or drink
products) products (Marshall et al., 2007). Pestering is thought to be triggered
during shopping trips when children see products they like and recog­
nise (Harris et al., 2010; Kraak & Story, 2015; Marshall et al., 2007;
supermarkets (66.7 %) and the government (77.2 %) had a re­
McDermott et al., 2006). Children’s requests may be initiated by
sponsibility to support customers to buy healthier foods. When asked to
prominent product locations, making shoppers with children more
rank who has the biggest responsibility, most felt individuals were pri­
susceptible to product placement strategies. However, participants with
marily responsible (75.2 %), followed by the government (12.8 %),
children who primarily shopped online also reported being more likely
manufacturers (8 %) and supermarkets (4.1 %).
to purchase products in response to online placement promotions (i.e.
When asked about the products they would like to see on price
advert banners and online checkout walks). As children are less likely to
promotion or in prominent locations, fruits and vegetables were most
be directly involved in online shopping purchases, this may reflect
popular (83.7 %), followed by dairy products (46.7 %) and yoghurts
children’s food and drink requests occurring outside shopping occa­
(42.7 %). Few participants favoured products typically categorised as
sions, or suggests the products typically advertised in these locations are
HFSS such as soft drinks (9.0 %), crisps (13.8 %) or biscuits (9.3 %)
simply more appealing to families with children. These findings high­
(Fig. 2). Over half (53.6 %) stated they would continue to purchase HFSS
light that families with children and people living with food insecurity
products if they were not on price promotion.
may be among those most impacted by the legislation if it is shown to be
effective in reducing shoppers’ purchases of HFSS products.
4. Discussion
Most customers were in favour of the legislation, however, an
overwhelming majority felt that the affordability of healthier foods was
This is the first study to explore awareness and perceptions of the
as, if not more, important than legislation targeting less healthy foods.
HFSS legislation, as well as self-reported impacts on purchasing of HFSS
This mirrors Stone et al’s (2025) finding that, among people living with
products, among supermarket shoppers in England. Eighteen months
obesity and varying levels of food insecurity, store interventions

7
A.R. Kininmonth et al. Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

100%

90%
83.7%

80%

70%

60%

50% 46.7%
42.7%

40%

30% 28.4%
24.1%

20% 18.1%
13.8% 13.4% 13.3% 13.2% 11.9% 10.6% 9.3% 9.0%
10% 7.4% 6.9% 6.4%

0%
Fruits Dairy Yoghurts Breakfast Non-food Morning Crisps & Pizza Potato- Alcohol Ready Confect- Biscuits Ice Cakes Desserts
& products cereals items goods savoury based meals ionery drinks creams &
Vegetables snacks products & meal w/ added & ice puddings
centres sugar lollies

Fig. 2. Proportion (%) of participants (N = 1968) stating the product categories that they would like to see in prominent locations or on price promotions. Data .
Source: Qualtrics customer survey - data collected June 2024

focussed on discounting healthier foods were ranked as most helpful to achieve health impacts. Media coverage around government HFSS
(Stone et al., 2025). Many people are struggling to achieve a healthy diet policy has often focussed on separate legislation targeting advertising
in the UK (Scott et al., 2018), with affordability identified as a key and price promotion restrictions, possibly because these policies are of
barrier, especially for young families and those on low incomes broader interest or easier to interpret. This might further explain why
(YouGov, 2023). The 2025 Broken Plate Report revealed healthier food despite over 40 % of the participants in the study stating they had heard
is more than twice as expensive per calorie than less healthy food (The of the HFSS legislation introduced in October 2022, none were able to
Food Foundation, 2025), with the poorest 5th of UK households needing accurately identify the specific restrictions involved.
to spend 45 % of their disposable income on food to meet UK dietary Most shoppers also stated they could easily locate HFSS products,
guidelines (Goudie, 2023). Recent figures from the Food Standards suggesting that the legislation has not impacted visibility or accessibility
Agency showed over half of consumers felt healthy foods were unaf­ of HFSS products for customers looking to purchase these items. Again,
fordable, and the only foods realistically available to them were less this is unsurprising as the legislation did not seek to hide HFSS products
healthy (Food Standards Agency, 2022). Previous research exploring from customers motivated to purchase them or remove free choice but
retailer ‘top ups’ of the NHS Healthy Start scheme, which provides aimed to reduce the prominence of pre-packaged products within 13
vouchers to pregnant women, and for young children under four from specified categories, that are deemed HFSS based on the NPM score. The
low-income households, revealed increases in the number of fruit and fact the implementation of the legislation went largely unnoticed may
vegetable portions purchased per customer (Thomas et al., 2023). This reassure both industry and policy makers that these types of structurally
highlights how targeted incentives have the potential to improve dietary targeted health policies need not negatively impact customers whilst
outcomes for vulnerable groups. If purchasing behaviour is primarily achieving positive impacts. The legislation did not specify the alterna­
driven by affordability, then policies targeting unconscious choices tive products that should be placed in prominent locations, therefore,
triggered by the location and promotion of less healthy foods will likely retailers could legitimately position less healthy products that fell
be insufficient to achieve meaningful dietary change without parallel outside of the scope of the legislation in prominent locations. For
legislation to improve the affordability and accessibility of healthy example, products such as in-store bakery items or ‘pick-and-mix’ loose
foods. sweets and confectionary fall outside of the scope of the legislation
The majority of shoppers surveyed were not aware of the HFSS because they are not ‘pre-packaged’ and despite its harmful health im­
legislation, and most did not notice any changes to the shopping envi­ pacts, alcohol is similarly excluded from the legislation (Kininmonth
ronment, either online or in-store. Legislation awareness did not differ et al., 2025). In line with this, a recent study of 3 UK supermarkets
by customer characteristics, other than gender. These findings align with revealed that 55 % of items promoted in prime locations were HFSS
previous research conducted by beverage manufacturer ‘Purity Soft products that were out-of-scope of the legislation (Hurst et al., 2025).
Drinks’ in 2023 which found 80 % of respondents were unaware of the Our findings may also reflect new strategies adopted by retailers to
legislation (Fortune, 2023). These findings are expected due to the promote HFSS items without violating the legislation, ensuring these
mechanism of intervention utilised by the HFSS legislation which aimed products remain visible to shoppers, such as the use of in-aisle pro­
to create subtle changes to the retail environment to discourage ‘impulse motions, free standing displays and digital advertisement for HFSS
purchasing’ of HFSS products. The HFSS legislation targeted the struc­ products displayed on aisle ends rather than the products themselves
tural retail environment and did not rely on individual behaviour (Kininmonth et al., 2025). These’loopholes’ have the potential to dilute
change, therefore, public health awareness campaigns were not required the impact of the legislation and may contribute to the lack of obvious

8
A.R. Kininmonth et al. Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

changes to the supermarket environment revealed in our findings. targeted impulse purchases made in store (or online), more frequent
Legislation mandating the prominent placement and promotion of shoppers will have experienced the biggest reduction in exposure to
healthy foods, rather than simply restricting the promotion of HFSS product placement promotions during shopping occasions and may
products, would help close existing legislative loopholes while sup­ arguably therefore experience greater impacts. Additionally, the HFSS-
porting people to achieve a healthier diet and potentially reduce dietary dominated food categories used in this survey were based on the 13
inequalities. restricted categories targeted by the HFSS legislation (Department of
Our finding that participants tended to believe the legislation would Health Social Care., 2023), but not all products within these categories
encourage healthier purchasing in other people but would have little will be classified as HFSS based on the NPM score (e.g. natural
impact on their own shopping habits, aligns with extensive previous unsweetened yoghurt). This may have resulted in an overestimation of
research suggesting people believe interventions will be more effective HFSS purchasing frequency which may not have been equal across the
in changing the behaviour of others than themselves (Bang et al., 2020; sample. There was a higher proportion of participants identifying as
Kroese et al., 2016; Van Gestel et al., 2018). Evidence also suggests white compared to national statistics suggesting findings may be less
people’s opinions about the acceptability of interventions are largely representative of non-white ethnicities (Office for National Statistics,
predicted by how effective they anticipate the intervention will be on 2022). Longitudinal studies using more comprehensive measures of di­
the behaviour of others (Bang et al., 2020), with support for policy in­ etary intake or objective retail transaction data are needed to evaluate
terventions found to be highest among those not engaging in the tar­ the impacts of the legislation including across diverse customer groups.
geted behaviour (Diepeveen et al., 2013).
Previous research suggesting people often attribute primary re­ 5. Conclusion
sponsibility for dietary choices to the individual (Dhuria et al., 2021;
The Health Foundation, 2019) was mirrored in our study, with the in­ In conclusion, there was overall support for the legislation and
dividual ranked above government, manufacturers, or supermarkets optimism regarding its potential to influence the dietary behaviours of
when it came to responsibility. This focus on personal accountability others, but not their own. Self-reported purchasing behaviour indicated
reflects much of the discourse around obesity and dietary health over specific customer groups, notably those with children or individuals
recent years. Government, industry and popular media narratives living with food insecurity, were more likely to purchase products in
(Herrick, 2009), along with the majority of public health policies and HFSS-dominated categories and may be disproportionately affected by
interventions (Public Health England, 2017), have focussed on targets the retail strategies targeted by the HFSS legislation. This indicates that
that place high agency on individual behaviour and overlook wider if the legislation is effective, it has the potential to contribute to a
environmental determinants that shape diet and health (Theis & White, reduction in HFSS purchasing most in food insecure families, potentially
2021). Encouragingly, most people in our survey also agreed the gov­ narrowing existing dietary inequalities. However, these customer
ernment and retailers had a responsibility to support customers to buy groups are also the most vulnerable to rising costs, underscoring the
healthier foods and that the legislation was a good first step. This is in need for further intervention. Given that affordability is a key deter­
line with previous research assessing perceived responsibility for food minant of food choices, future policy should not only enforce restrictions
policy internationally, finding strong support for governments taking of less healthy products but also increase the accessibility and afford­
primary responsibility for food policy and regulation, with contributions ability of healthier foods through targeted incentives, such as expansion
from the private sector (Pinho-Gomes et al., 2023). Furthermore, a of the Healthy Start scheme, and mandating promotion in prominent
recent report from the Food Farming & Countryside Commission simi­ locations. Such policy measures are particularly crucial in the context of
larly revealed widespread UK support for government intervention the ongoing cost-of-living crisis and the high prevalence of food inse­
across a range of food policy areas (Food Farming & Countryside curity to ensure legislation is both equitable and effective.
Commission, 2024).
This study represents the first characterisation of customers’ 6. Data and code availability
awareness and perceived impacts of legislation restricting HFSS product
locations in supermarkets. Strengths include the large and representa­ The authors confirm that data generated or analysed during this
tive sample across all regions in England, in particular the proportion of study, as well as the code used to analyse the data, are available from the
people on lower incomes or living with food insecurity. Nearly a quarter corresponding author upon reasonable request.
of participants in our survey were living with food insecurity which is
comparable to the 21 % reported by the Food and You 2 survey con­ CRediT authorship contribution statement
ducted in England, Wales and Northern Ireland between April and July
2024 (Moore et al., 2025). Just over a third of participants lived in Alice R. Kininmonth: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
households with children, which is also comparable to national statistics draft, Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation,
(Office for National Statistics, 2024), while over 57 % were living with Conceptualization. Victoria L. Jenneson: Writing – review & editing,
overweight or obesity, slightly below 2022–23 prevalence estimates of Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Francesca Pontin: Writing –
64 % (Office for Health Improvement & Disparities, 2024). This suggests review & editing, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
the findings are generalisable to the English population. A significant Jason C.G. Halford: Writing – review & editing. Alexandra M. John­
limitation of this study comes from its cross-sectional, self-report survey stone: Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. Michelle A.
design. Self-reported measures of purchasing behaviours are susceptible Morris: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Funding acquisition,
to reporting or recall biases and inaccuracies. Data were collected in Conceptualization. Alison Fildes: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
June 2024, and participants were retrospectively asked whether their original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition,
shopping habits had changed following the legislation’s introduction in Conceptualization.
October 2022, meaning these findings are subject to additional recall
bias. Also, purchasing behaviour prior to the implementation of legis­ Funding
lation was not measured making it difficult to draw firm conclusions.
The survey asked about purchasing frequency which cannot be inter­ This research was funded through the Transforming the UK Food
preted as a measure of total volume purchased. Although we adjusted for System for Healthy People and a Healthy Environment SPF Programme,
household size, findings related to differences in frequency of HFSS delivered by UKRI, in partnership with the Global Food Security Pro­
purchases may simply reflect broader variation in shopping patterns gramme, BBSRC, ESRC, MRC, NERC, Defra, DHSC, OHID, Innovate UK
between different demographic groups. However, given this legislation and FSA. Grant award BB/W018021/1, with additional support from

9
A.R. Kininmonth et al. Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

IGD (the Institute of Grocery Distribution) through their Social Impact Harris, J.L., Schwartz, M.B., Brownell, K.D., 2010. Marketing foods to children and
adolescents: licensed characters and other promotions on packaged foods in the
programmes on healthy and sustainable diets. The FIO Food (Food
supermarket. Public Health Nutr. 13 (3), 409–417. [Link]
Insecurity in people living with Obesity) and DIO Food additional S1368980009991339.
funding stream (Diet and Health Inequalities); these projects comprise 7 Herrick, C., 2009. Shifting blame/selling health: corporate social responsibility in the age
work packages, delivered by the partner institutions within the of obesity. Sociol. Health Illn. 31 (1), 51–65. [Link]
9566.2008.01121.X.
consortium. Hurst, E., Moore, S.G., Wallis, L.W., 2025. Prevalence of high fat sugar salt products,
labeling characteristics, and categories of foods sold within in-store restricted areas:
a survey in 3 UK Supermarkets after the 2022 implementation of the food
Declaration of competing interest (promotion and placement) regulations. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 9 (1), 104509. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2024.104509.
Jenneson, V., Kininmonth, A., Pontin, F., Fildes, A., Morris, M., 2024. DIO Food (HFSS).
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [Link]
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Johnstone, A., Lonnie, M., 2023. The cost-of-living crisis is feeding the paradox of obesity
and food insecurities in the UK. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) 31 (6), 1461–1462.
the work reported in this paper. [Link]
Kininmonth, A. R., Stone, R. A., Jenneson, V., Ennis, E., Naisbitt, R., Johnstone, A.,
Morris, M. A., & Fildes, A. (2025). “It was a force for good but...”: An exploration of
Acknowledgement stakeholders perspectives of the High in Fat, Sugar and Salt (HFSS) legislation in
England . OSF. [Link]
This project is delivered by researchers at the University of Leeds, in Kopasker, D., Ejebu, O.Z., Norwood, P., Ludbrook, A., 2022. Longitudinal study of the
effects of price and promotion incentives on purchases of unhealthy foods: evidence
collaboration with UK Grocery Retail Partners. We acknowledge the
for restricting food promotions. BMJ Nutr. Prev. Health 5 (1), 62–71. [Link]
wider support of the DIO Food project team, led by Professor Alexandra org/10.1136/BMJNPH-2021-000323.
Johnstone at the Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, and the Kraak, V.I., Story, M., 2015. Influence of food companies’ brand mascots and
entertainment companies’ cartoon media characters on children’s diet and health: a
partner institutions within the FIO Food and DIO Food consortium. We
systematic review and research needs. Obes. Rev. 16 (2), 107–126. [Link]
also acknowledge Emily Ennis for her input into the design of the 10.1111/OBR.12237.
research. We acknowledge IGD for their support with project coordi­ Kroese, F.M., Marchiori, D.R., De Ridder, D.T.D., 2016. Nudging healthy food choices: a
nation and additional funding. field experiment at the train station. J. Public Health 38 (2), e133–e137. [Link]
org/10.1093/PUBMED/FDV096.
Lee, A., Cardel, M., Donahoo, W.T., 2019. Social and environmental factors influencing
References obesity. Endotext. [Link]
Marshall, D., O’Donohoe, S., Kline, S., 2007. Families, food, and pester power: beyond
the blame game? J. Consum. Behav. 6 (4), 164–181. [Link]
Bang, H.M.I.N., Shu, S.B., Weber, E.U., 2020. The role of perceived effectiveness on the
CB.217.
acceptability of choice architecture. Behavioural Public Policy 4 (1), 50–70. https://
McDermott, L., O’Sullivan, T., Stead, M., Hastings, G., 2006. International food
[Link]/10.1017/BPP.2018.1.
advertising, pester power and its effects. Int. J. Advert. 25 (4), 513–539. [Link]
Blow, L., Leicester, A., Payne, J., 2012. Do the poor pay more? An Investigation of British
org/10.1080/02650487.2006.11072986.
Grocery Purchase Prices. [Link]
Moore, A., Heard, H., Murray, L., Shillitoe, R., Clifford, R., Mensah, D. D., & Jenkins, M.
Cameron, A.J., Charlton, E., Ngan, W.W., Sacks, G., 2016. A Systematic review of the
(2025). Food and You 2: Wave 9. doi: 10.46756/[Link].TLG343.
effectiveness of supermarket-based interventions involving product, promotion, or
Muir, S., Dhuria, P., Roe, E., Lawrence, W., Baird, J., Vogel, C., 2023. UK government’s
place on the healthiness of consumer purchases. Curr. Nutr. Rep. 5 (3), 129–138.
new placement legislation is a ‘good first step’: a rapid qualitative analysis of
[Link]
consumer, business, enforcement and health stakeholder perspectives. BMC Med. 21
Conway, L. (2024). Advertising ban to children.
(1), 1–14. [Link]
Department of Health & Social Care. (2023). Restricting promotions of products high in fat,
Office for Health Improvement & Disparities. (2024). Obesity Profile: short statistical
sugar or salt by location and by volume price: implementation guidance.
commentary May 2024. [Link]
Department of Health and Social Care. (2018). Childhood obesity: a plan for action, chapter
e-obesity-profile-on-fingertips/obesity-profile-short-statistical-commen
2. [Link]
tary-may-2024#main-findings.
on-chapter-2.
Office for National Statistics. (2022). Ethnic group, England and Wales: Census 2021.
Dhuria, P., Lawrence, W., Crozier, S., Cooper, C., Baird, J., Vogel, C., 2021. Women’s
Census 2021. [Link]
perceptions of factors influencing their food shopping choices and how supermarkets
entity/ethnicity/bulletins/ethnicgroupenglandandwales/census2021.
can support them to make healthier choices. BMC Public Health 21 (1), 1–12.
Office for National Statistics. (2024). Families and households in the UK: 2023. https://
[Link]
[Link]/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/fami
Dhuria, P., Muir, S., Lawrence, W., Roe, E., Crozier, S., Cooper, C., Baird, J., Vogel, C.,
lies/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2023.
2023. Women consumers’ views on legislation to restrict prominent placement and
Olstad, D.L., Teychenne, M., Minaker, L.M., Taber, D.R., Raine, K.D., Nykiforuk, C.I.J.,
multibuy promotions of high fat, sugar, and salt products in england: a qualitative
Ball, K., 2016. Can policy ameliorate socioeconomic inequities in obesity and
perspective. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 12 (1), 7597. [Link]
obesity-related behaviours? A systematic review of the impact of universal policies
IJHPM.2023.7597.
on adults and children. Obes. Rev. 17 (12), 1198–1217. [Link]
Diepeveen, S., Ling, T., Suhrcke, M., Roland, M., Marteau, T.M., 2013. Public
OBR.12457.
acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a
Pinho-Gomes, A.C., Booth, L., Pettigrew, S., 2023. Public perceptions of responsibility for
systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health 13 (1), 1–11. https://
recommended food policies in seven countries. Eur. J. Pub. Health 33 (2), 299–304.
[Link]/10.1186/1471-2458-13-756/TABLES/2.
[Link]
Fildes, A. *, Kininmonth, A. *, Ennis, E., Jenneson, V., & Morris, M. (2024). Protocol: A
Public Health England. (2017). New Change4Life campaign encourages parents to ‘Be Food
mixed methods evaluation of Retailer and Customer responses to the implementation
Smart’. [Link]
of the High Fat, Sugar and Salt (HFSS) product placement restrictions legislation in
ges-parents-to-be-food-smart.
England. In OSF. [Link]
Puddephatt, J.A., Keenan, G.S., Fielden, A., Reaves, D.L., Halford, J.C.G., Hardman, C.A.,
Food Farming & Countryside Commission. (2024). Changing the Conversation.
2020. ‘Eating to survive’: a qualitative analysis of factors influencing food choice and
Food Standards Agency. (2022). Chapter 1: The nation’s plate, our diet and food choices
eating behaviour in a food-insecure population. Appetite 147, 104547. [Link]
today | Food Standards Agency. In Food Standards Agency. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2019.104547.
uk/our-work/chapter-1-the-nations-plate-our-diet-and-food-choices-today.
Qualtrics XM // The Leading Experience Management Software. (n.d.). Retrieved 25 January
Fortune, A. (2023). More than 80% of consumers unaware of HFSS legislation | Features and
2025, from [Link]
analysis | Convenience Store. [Link]
_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=UKI-EN|SRC|BRD|Qualtrics
more-than-80-of-consumers-unaware-of-hfss-legislation/[Link].
Pure|EXACT&campaignid=18929419113&utm_content=&adgroupi
Garrott, K., Ogilvie, D., Panter, J., Petticrew, M., Sowden, A., Jones, C.P., Foubister, C.,
d=141970574285&utm_keyword=qualtrics&utm_term=qualtrics&matchtyp
Lawlor, E.R., Ikeda, E., Patterson, R., van Tulleken, D., Armstrong-Moore, R.,
e=e&device=c&placement=&network=g&creative=635228579269&gad_sour
Vethanayakam, G., Bo, L., White, M., Adams, J., 2024. Development and application
ce=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAtNK8BhBBEiwA8wVt91IAuw2FG32emhKZ3WmtplKr
of the Demands for Population Health Interventions (Depth). In: Framework for
AMgZjelUjIPlPciMoEO3MbhRDs5gKRoCubEQAvD_BwE.
Categorising the Agentic Demands of Population Health Interventions. BMC Global
Robinson, E., Jones, A., Marty, L., 2022. The role of health-based food choice motives in
and Public Health. [Link]
explaining the relationship between lower socioeconomic position and higher BMI in
Goudie, S. (2023). The Broken Plate 2023: The State of the Nation’s Food System.
UK and US adults. Int. J. Obes. (Lond) 46 (10), 1818–1824. [Link]
Harbers, M.C., Beulens, J.W.J., Rutters, F., De Boer, F., Gillebaart, M., Sluijs, I., Van Der
10.1038/s41366-022-01190-4.
Schouw, Y.T., 2020. The effects of nudges on purchases, food choice, and energy
Scott, C., Sutherland, J., & Taylor, A. (2018). Affordability of the UK’s Eatwell Guide. https
intake or content of purchases in real-life food purchasing environments: a
://[Link]/sites/default/files/2021-10/Affordability-of-the-Eatwell-
systematic review and evidence synthesis. Nutr. J. 19 (1), 1–27. [Link]
Guide_Final_Web-[Link].
10.1186/S12937-020-00623-Y/FIGURES/6.

10
A.R. Kininmonth et al. Food Policy 135 (2025) 102941

Shaw, S.C., Ntani, G., Baird, J., Vogel, C.A., 2022. A systematic review of the influences The Food Foundation. (2023). Food Insecurity Tracking - Round 13. The Food Foundation.
of food store product placement on dietary-related outcomes. Nutr. Rev. 78 (12), [Link]
1030–1045. [Link] /Round-13.
Smith, K., Stewart, E., Donnelly, P., McKendrick, B., 2015. Influencing policy with The Food Foundation. (2025). The Broken Plate 2025: The State of the Nation’s Food
research—public health advocacy and health inequalities. Health Inequalities System. [Link]
265–281. [Link] The Health Foundation. (2019). Public opinion on the determinants of and responsibility for
Stone, R.A., Brown, A., Douglas, F., Green, M.A., Hunter, E., Lonnie, M., Johnstone, A.M., health: Findings from questions commissioned by the Health Foundation in the British
Hardman, C.A., 2024. The impact of the cost of living crisis and food insecurity on Social Attitutes Survey 2017. [Link]
food purchasing behaviours and food preparation practices in people living with s/public-opinion-on-the-determinants-of-and-responsibility-for-health.
obesity. Appetite 196, 107255. [Link] Theis, D.R.Z., White, M., 2021. Is obesity policy in england fit for purpose? Analysis of
Stone, R.A., Christiansen, P., Johnstone, A.M., Brown, A., Douglas, F., Hardman, C.A., Government strategies and policies, 1992–2020. Milbank Q. 99 (1), 126–170.
2025. Understanding the barriers to purchasing healthier, more environmentally [Link]
sustainable food for people living with obesity and varying experiences of food Thomas, M., Moore, J.B., Onuselogu, D.A., Dalton, A., Rains, T., Lowry, E., Sritharan, N.,
insecurity in the UK. Food Policy 131, 102798. [Link] Morris, M.A., 2023. Supermarket top-up of healthy Start vouchers increases fruit and
FOODPOL.2025.102798. vegetable purchases in low-income households. Nutr. Bull. 48 (3), 353–364. https://
Swinburn, B.A., Sacks, G., Hall, K.D., McPherson, K., Finegood, D.T., Moodie, M.L., [Link]/10.1111/NBU.12627.
Gortmaker, S.L., 2011. The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and USDA. (2012). U.S. Adult Food Security Survey Module: Three-Stage Design, with Screeners.
local environments. Lancet 378, 804–814. [Link] Van Gestel, L.C., Kroese, F.M., De Ridder, D.T.D., 2018. Nudging at the checkout counter
60813-1. – a longitudinal study of the effect of a food repositioning nudge on healthy food
Swinburn, B., Egger, G., Raza, F., 1999. Dissecting obesogenic environments: the choice. Psychol. Health 33 (6), 800–809. [Link]
development and application of a framework for identifying and prioritizing 08870446.2017.1416116.
environmental interventions for obesity. Prev. Med. 29 (6 I), 563–570. [Link] Vandenbroeck, P., Goossens, J., Clemens, M., 2007. Tackling obesities: future choices –
org/10.1006/PMED.1999.0585. building the obesity system map. Foresight.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. (2009). NUDGE: Improving decisions about health, Wealth Wolfson, J.A., Ramsing, R., Richardson, C.R., Palmer, A., 2019. Barriers to healthy food
and Happiness. In Penguin. Penguin. access: associations with household income and cooking behavior. Prev. Med. Rep.
13, 298–305. [Link]
YouGov. (2023). Trolley trends - full report and policy discussion.

11