healthy food vs unhealthy food essay

• Arts & Humanities

Unhealthy vs. Healthy Food

30 Dec 2022

• Arts & Humanities

Format: APA

Academic level: College

Paper type: Essay (Any Type)

Downloads: 0

Unhealthy food is much more affordable and available than healthy food

Did you know that over 35 percent of adults and 20 percent of the children between 2 and 19 years old in the United States are either obese or overweight? The main reason for this alarming rate of obesity in contemporary society is the increased presence of junk foods. From a definitional perspective, junk foods refer to food products without substantial nutritional value to the users. Junk foods are packaged or pre-prepared. For example, the pre-prepared junk foods incorporate the cooked products before the consumers make substantial order; thus, burgers, pizzas, French fries, and tacos among others. Alternatively, packaged junk foods emanate from the companies in diverse tins, wrappers, or bottles such as the carbonated drinks, chocolate, candy, and pastries. In the fast-paced society, junk foods (unhealthy foods) have become popular because they are highly convenient, as well as cheaper in comparison to the healthy foods at the disposal of the consumers (Cecchini, Sassi, Lauer, Lee, Guajardo-Barron, & Chisholm, 2010). Notably, healthy food choices should be more affordable and available for all to help tackle the growing cases of obesity in modern society.

Because of fast food, as well as corporate farming implications, the food market is a mess. It is ideal for society to go back to the local food, as well as organics to promote healthy eating practices and activities in modern society. According to reality, junk food is a cheaper and convenient option for most Americans. Junk foods are highly available. With the presence of the fast-food chains at every corner in a town, more and more people in the fast-paced society focus on optimizing the convenient and cheaper junk foods because of their busy schedules and increased commitment to their jobs or work expectations. Other than just being widely available, junk foods or unhealthy foods taste good (Kern, Auchincloss, Stehr, Diez Roux, Moore, Kanter, & Robinson, 2017). Consumers do not spend time in preparing for the food as they can acquire them from the chains. Amid all these, there is a growing perception among the consumers that healthy foods are more expensive compared to junk foods. Researchers believe that eating healthy foods is highly expensive. It is about three times as expensive as consuming junk foods at fast food chains (Tam, Yassa, Parker, O'Connor, & Allman-Farinelli, 2017). In making it worse, the price gap between healthy and unhealthy foods is widening. The increased price difference between healthy and unhealthy foods is the main contributor to the growing cases of food insecurity, as well as increasing aspects of health inequalities, thus, the growing deterioration in the health outcomes of the population. One of the reasons for increasing food poverty is the high cost of healthy options. The cost of healthy food is a reflection of the sociological problem rather than just an individual’s choice.

Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.

Why is this a problem? Unhealthy foods are the main contributors to obesity in the context of the fast-paced society. Other than causing obesity, junk foods are elements of poor nutrition associated with high blood pressure. Junk foods also lead to high cholesterol, as well as heart disease and stroke among consumers. Food is an important component of the physical and mental health of the consumer; thus, the need to avoid consuming unhealthy foods or junk foods. Unhealthy foods also contribute to tooth decay, different types of cancer, and diabetes. These aspects contribute to the negative implications of the health outcomes within society. More and more people continue to spend more on healthcare costs rather than securing healthy foods, as well as ideal eating habits for their health. The society has more obese and overweight people because of the increased consumption of the convenient, widely available, tastier, and cheaper unhealthy foods compared to the consumption of the healthy foods, which consumers deem to the expensive.

How is it possible to address the issue? The answer is quite simple. The government should adopt and implement appropriate measures to make healthy food choices more affordable and available for all. In this aspect, consumers will have the chance to optimize education on nutrition while understanding the perception and need for healthy eating habits to consume the available healthy foods rather than go for the unhealthy foods or junk foods.

One of the ways of addressing this is to increase awareness through improved communication channels from the authoritative support agencies to increase the knowledge among the consumers on the consumption of healthy foods. In this aspect, education as an intervention approach is ideal in the improvement of the negative perceptions among the consumers on the affordability of healthy foods (Harrison, Lee, Findlay, Nicholls, Leonard, & Martin, 2010). There is also the improvement of access to the farm products as a win-win strategy for the consumers and producers.

The authorities should also achieve this by moving the markets to the consumer through eradication of the geographical barriers (Niebylski, Redburn, Duhaney, & Campbell, 2015). The approach will create room for the establishment of the distribution channels such as food hubs, which are accessible to more and more consumers. Over 20 million Americans tend to live in low-income towns, as well as rural neighborhoods, which are far away from the supermarkets. In such aspects, it is appropriate to consider taking the market to the people/consumers. Conclusively, in curbing the growing cases of obesity and other health issues emanating from increased consumption of tastier, convenient, cheaper, and widely available unhealthy foods, healthy food choices should be more affordable and available for all.

Cecchini, M., Sassi, F., Lauer, J. A., Lee, Y. Y., Guajardo-Barron, V., & Chisholm, D. (2010). Tackling of unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, and obesity: health effects and cost-effectiveness. The Lancet , 376 (9754), 1775-1784.

Harrison, M., Lee, A., Findlay, M., Nicholls, R., Leonard, D., & Martin, C. (2010). The increasing cost of healthy food. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health , 34 (2), 179-186.

Kern, D., Auchincloss, A., Stehr, M., Diez Roux, A., Moore, L., Kanter, G., & Robinson, L. (2017). Neighborhood prices of healthier and unhealthier foods and associations with diet quality: Evidence from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. International journal of environmental research and public health , 14 (11), 1394.

Niebylski, M. L., Redburn, K. A., Duhaney, T., & Campbell, N. R. (2015). Healthy food subsidies and unhealthy food taxation: A systematic review of the evidence. Nutrition , 31 (6), 787-795.

Tam, R., Yassa, B., Parker, H., O'Connor, H., & Allman-Farinelli, M. (2017). University students' on-campus food purchasing behaviors, preferences, and opinions on food availability. Nutrition , 37 , 7-13.

• The Rate of Return on Your Investment
• The Relationship Between Ethics and the Law

Select style:

StudyBounty. (2023, September 16). Unhealthy vs. Healthy Food . https://studybounty.com/unhealthy-vs-healthy-food-essay

Hire an expert to write you a 100% unique paper aligned to your needs.

Related essays

We post free essay examples for college on a regular basis. Stay in the know!

The Downfalls of Oedipus and Othello

Words: 1402

Why I Want To Become a Physician

The perception of death in the play "everyman".

Words: 1464

How to Reverse Chronic Pain in 5 Simple Steps

Words: 1075

“Boyz n the Hood” director and Auteur Theory paper

Free college and university education in the united kingdom, running out of time .

Entrust your assignment to proficient writers and receive TOP-quality paper before the deadline is over.

• All Medicines
• Order Online

Covid Essentials

• Personal & Home Essentials
• Business Essentials
• Mask, Gloves & Protective Equipment
• Travel Essentials
• Breathe Easy
• Surgical Accessories
• Measurements
• Orthopaedics

Diabetes Support

• Glucometers
• Sugar Substitutes
• Diabetes Management Supplements
• Diabetes Care Ayurveda
• Lancets & Test Strips
• Eye Glasses
• Reading Glasses
• Contact Lenses (EW)
• Weight Management
• Sports Supplements
• Smoking Cessation Support
• Vitamins And Supplements
• Family Nutrition
• Health Food And Drinks
• Ayurvedic Supplements

Health Conditions

• Women's Care
• Bone And Joint Pain
• Weight Care (EW)
• Stomach Care
• Mental Care
• De-Addiction
• Diabetic Care
• Cardiac Care
• Cold And Fever
• Immunity Care

Mom & Baby

• Feminine Hygiene
• Maternity Care
• Baby Bath Time
• Maternity Accessories

Personal Care

• Home & Health
• Senior Care
• Face Personal Care
• Hands & Feet
• Bath & Shower
• Personal Care Tools & Accessories
• Bathing Accessories

Sexual Wellness

• Massagers/Vibrators
• Sexual Health Supplements
• Sprays/Gels
• Respiratory Supplies
• Surgical Consumables
• Iv Infusion
• Surgical Instrument
• Urinary Care
• Wound Treatment
• Farm Animals
• Vitamin Store
• Derma Cosmetics
• Diabetes Center
• Hair Styling
• Hair Tools & Accessories
• Scalp Treatments
• Shop By Hair Type

Men's Grooming

• Face Makeup
• Make-Up Tools & Brushes
• Toys & Games
• Aromatherapy
• Face Skin Care
• Moisturizers
• Toners & Serums

Tools & Appliances

• Face/Skin Tools
• Hair Styling Tools
• Massage Tools
• Health Library
• PatientsAlike
• All About Cancers
• Corona Awareness

Junk Food Vs Healthy Food: Advantages, Disadvantages And Healthier Food Choices

Quick reads, content details.

Many of us love greasy and sugary foods and for those used to eating junk food - cheese, deep-fried, sweetness loaded delicacies are an obsession of sorts.

Thanks to globalization, various junk foods belonging to global cuisine have crept into your daily diet plan in the last couple of decades leading to an increase in the rate of childhood obesity and the risk of developing chronic diseases like cancer , diabetes , cardiovascular diseases etc.

If you ask, which one is better from the taste point of view, the battle between healthy food and junk food never ends. Mindful eaters might argue that nutritional food items are tastier too but when it comes to choosing between the two, junk food always win the race.

But why? Well, agree or disagree cravings are irresistible and unhealthy eating habits are actually a norm. We can kill our mid-day hunger pangs with an apple or a fistful of nuts, but most of us end nibbling upon a pile of French fries or pizza and even guzzle down fizzy drinks. It in fact, has become a mammoth task for these days parents in convincing their children to pick fresh veggies, fruits, nuts, salads, soups over these unhealthy and calorie loaded recipes.

What Is Junk Food?

Junk food is the best example of an unbalanced diet categorised by a huge proportion of simple carbs, refined sugar, salt, saturated fat and with very low nutritional value. These foods are processed to a great extent where they almost lose all of their vital nutrients, fibre and water content. Junk food may be quite convenient, readily available on the go, cheap whereas healthy food is best for maintaining weight, getting an adequate amount of essential nutrients and for keeping you in good state of health.

Also Read: Craving For Junk Food? Try These Healthy Swaps Loaded With Nutrition – Infographic

Junk Vs Healthy Food

Healthy food refers to a whole lot of fresh and natural products such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins and good fats that deliver your body with essential nutrients for carrying out several bodily processes, combat sickness and keep diseases at bay. Some of the healthy foods include apples, greens, carrots, oatmeal, whole grain, beans and legumes, fish, eggs, avocado, milk and milk products  and olive oil to mention a few.

While, junk food is a highly processed food that is made up of ‘empty’ calories foods loaded with full of saturated fat, sugar and devoid of nutrients which neither helps the body to nurture, focus and perform vital functions all through the day. It includes packaged food products like chips, cookies , cakes, pastry, candy soda, ice-cream and a list of fast food items on the restaurant menus like pizza, pasta, burgers and French fries.

Why Is Healthy Food Better Than Junk Food?

When you consume a diet that is packed with natural fresh produce, it facilitates to lower the risk of several chronic disorders like cancer, obesity, cardiovascular problems, diabetes and many more. Furthermore, healthy foods are mostly low on calories and contain huge amounts of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and dietary fibre   that are well-known for promoting total well-being.

Advantages Of Healthy Foods

Healthy foods like fruits and veggies or whole grain cereals  are a source of good dietary fibre. An adequate amount of fibre in the diet helps with delaying gastric emptying time, keep you satiated and prevent you from overeating. Fibre-rich foods also benefit to maintain the digestive system healthy and function effectively thereby lowering cholesterol and blood glucose level.

Also Read: 5 Healthy Food Choices To Start Your Day

Healthy foods are basically unprocessed, low on calories and do not miss out on vital nutrients. Consuming a wholesome meal comprising of whole-grain cereal, legume, low-fat dairy –paneer or curd , veggies and fruit meets your daily demands of nutrition.

Natural food produce is low on saturated fat, trans fat and calories which help you to manage weight.

Incorporating a rich array of healthful foods imbued with dense nutrient profile safeguard your heart, maintain lipid profile, control blood pressure and blood sugar levels, avert the risk of inflammation, boost metabolism, promote smooth digestion process, bolster immunity and keep diseases at bay .

Yes, healthy food not only provides you with needed essential nutrients but also delivers you with a spectrum of health incentives which hold a significant role in uplifting your overall physical, mental and emotional well-being.

The perks of healthy food and cons of junk food are quite clear, making mindful choices with your meals and snacks will let you to focus and concentrate well throughout the day. As the body’s needs are met by nutritionally loaded food choices it will keep you satiated and content. Moreover, this averts untimely snacking or binge eating.

When kids prefer healthy food it ensures them to be more productive and efficient with time and memorize things they have learned, rather than being sleepy and reading the same things over and over again.

High fibre foods release energy slowly, whereas sugar laden foods offer you a sudden burst of energy. You may be tempted to reach for that pack of chocolates around afternoons but choose an apple with peanut butter or banana or carrot sticks with yoghurt for conferring you with sustained energy needed to accomplish your day task.

Also Read: 5 Successful Healthy Eating Habits To Practice - Infographic

Junk food can result in long-term damage, going for unhealthy food stuffs like French fries, pizza, pastries and candy can increase your risk of developing depression, obesity, heart disease and cancer.

Difference Between Healthy Food vs Junk Food

Junk food tends to be high on fat, unrefined carbohydrates and added sugars, all of which up their energy density or caloric values. Consuming plenty of energy-dense foods increases your risk of obesity and other metabolic disorders. On the other hand, healthy foods are low in energy and fat content and high on nutrients, thus a diet low in calories help you lose weight  and maintain good health status.

One of the key variants between junk and healthy food is the amount and type of saturated and unsaturated fats they contain. Unsaturated fatty oils are healthier options like olive oil, sunflower oil , sesame oil etc., these oils contain the right proportion of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids which are healthier for the heart and also maintain the lipid profile. While junk foods are loaded with a high amount of saturated fats and trans fat like butter, lard, palm oil and dalda are unhealthy and harm health.

Junk or fast foods are those items with empty calories, which means they only offer you a high amount of calories without providing you with needed vital nutrients. Studies have also disclosed that people who consume fast foods on a regular basis have lower micronutrient intake and may have a nutritional deficiency. Choosing wholesome foods will assure you with an increase in the nutrients per calorie making it feasible to meet the recommended dose of macro and micronutrients.

Well, fast food can be a cheaper option than adopting a healthy eating habit, however, you can still plan a nutritious meal plan by including low-cost locally available fresh natural produce that will save your money compared to convenience foods. Furthermore, the merits of eating healthy food go way beyond in maintaining your overall health, where the cost factor is often neglected when health is your top priority.

Addictive Qualities

Junk food is considered to have addictive qualities as they are revolved around sugar and fat. Sugar is known to kindle the brain reward pathways, sugar, when combined with fat, becomes hard to resist. Studies observe that the blend of sugar and fat is mostly linked with addictive symptoms like withdrawal or loss of self-control over food. Well, regular or even intermittent intake of junk foods has the potential to drive the habit formation in the brain which can increase your cravings leading to overconsumption of junk food and with time results in weight gain.

Simple Ways To Eat Less Junk Food

There are a number of ways one can gradually reduce the intake of junk food. First and foremost, never stock up in your homes which can easily take away the temptation.

Secondly, stay alert and be mindful of eating chips or other snacks directly from the pack, instead, portion a small quantity into a bowl and relish. Share junk food with friends or eat with other people who will help you to slow down and enjoy good conversation and your nachos.

Staying healthy while eating junk food is possible when you have it moderation, the key mantra is don’t overdo it.

Junk food tastes delicious but not satiating, it’s packed with empty calories. Hence if you are hungry steer clear of the readily available junk foods and wait uncomplainingly for something wholesome.

If you want to eat junk food, then ensure to stay active and do include some physical activity into your routine. A brisk walk post-dinner or quick cardio can help you to stay active and keep things in balance. On the other hand, if you don’t want to move your body, then reconsider the junk food you wish to eat.

Consider junk food the exception, rather than the norm. Focus on eating a healthy diet all through the week and have a cheat day   during the weekend, where you can treat yourself with favourite candy or fries, and you don’t have to feel guilty about it.

Likewise, swap your junk food with healthier choices which includes

Fruits: apples, bananas , oranges, and berries

Vegetables: Leafy greens, sweet potato, carrots, broccoli, and cauliflower

Whole Grains: Cereals, oats, brown rice, quinoa , and wheat

Seeds and Nuts: Almonds, walnuts, flaxseeds and sunflower seeds

Legumes: Beans, peas, and lentils

Lean Protein Sources: Fish, eggs and poultry

Dairy: Curd, yogurt, cheese, and fermented dairy products like kefir

Healthy Fats: Olive oil, nut butter, avocados, and coconut

Healthy Beverages: Water, green tea, and herbal teas

Fitting Fast Food Into A Healthy Diet

A well-balanced meal plan comprises of about half fruits and vegetables, while other half consists of whole-grain cereals and legumes or lean meats. When you visit a fast-food restaurant lookout for the healthiest options, it can be a grilled or baked food instead of deep-fried stuff. Start with a soup or salad with low-fat dressing as they are low in calories and keep you filled, then get a smaller serving of your main course. Vegetarian choices are often healthier than meat-based starters, as long as they are not fried. Try to skip fattier toppings like mayo, sauces, cheese and creams.

Healthier Junk Food Options

Craving for unhealthy junk food stuff is real and powerful. Well, instead of struggling and fighting your cravings, just try to feed it with a healthier version. There are certain junk foods that are pretty good for you which include:

Popcorn baked or made at home with a drizzle of olive or vegetable oil is a source of good dietary fibre.

Ice-creams and Greek yoghurt  are great options loaded with calcium and protein.

Look for dark chocolate  bars that are 70% cocoa for your guilt-free indulgence for something sweet. Dark chocolates abound in antioxidants, protein and fibre.

Tortilla chips made from kale, greens are preferred choice versus traditional potato chips.

Sweet potato fries though has a high amount of carbs and calories, it is heaped with dietary fibre and a massive amount of vitamin A.

Snacking on one or two cubes of cheese   will offer you a boost of calcium and protein. It is a good idea to top up the cheese with fruit or nuts for that bonus vitamins.

Oatmeal cookies is one of the best bet for a healthful snack packed with fibre, calcium and iron.

Conclusion :

Junk food are highly processed foods loaded with calories, sugar and fat, however, it is devoid of essential nutrients like fibre, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. It is believed to be a key factor in the obesity epidemic and a driving force in the development of chronic diseases. Moderation is the key mantra when it comes to food. The combination of fat and sugar make junk foods more addicting and easy to overdo. Relishing your favourite treat on occasional basis is a more realistic, healthful and sustainable approach for your health.

Disclaimer:

The content provided here is for informational purposes only. This blog is not intended to substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of a qualified healthcare provider for any questions or concerns you may have regarding a medical condition. Reliance does not endorse or recommend any specific tests, physicians, procedures, opinions, or other information mentioned on the blog.

• ← Previous
• Next →

Related Posts

Maharashtra Bans Junk Food, Soft Dr..

Vegetable khicdi, rajma-rice and idli - vada are set to be among the dishes that..

Junk Food Consumption Ups Allergy R..

Researchers have found that high consumption of junk food such as microwaved foo..

Craving For Junk Food? Try These He..

Let’s confess that we all love junk foods and for many of us eating deep f..

Healthy Eating Food Pyramid: A Guid..

Healthy eating is all about making smart food choices. A food pyramid serves as ..

5 Successful Healthy Eating Habits ..

Eating healthy is not really about strict restrictions, staying whimsically thin..

Drinking Soft Drinks Linked To Obes..

Researchers have found that sugar-sweetened acidic drinks, such as soft drinks, ..

Obesity: Causes, Symptoms And Treat..

Obesity is a chronic and severe lifestyle disorder in which excess fat accumulat..

Related Products

Latest Posts

Ayurveda For Stamina: Spectacular Natura..

Have you experienced a feeling of undue tiredness and weakness not just at the e..

Sprained Ankle: 7 Effective Exercises To..

Ankle sprains are most common injuries that can happen to anyone, irrespective o..

Marine Collagen: Unleash The Amazing Bea..

In the vast depths of the ocean, where life takes on extraordinary forms, there ..

Soursop/Graviola: Health Benefits And Cu..

Have you ever noticed a prickly green fruit called Graviola at an exotic fruit m..

• Free Essays
• Citation Generator

Junk Food vs. Healthy Food

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

Warnings on unhealthy food.

Firstly, junk food can be the reason of a lot of illnesses, such as stomach ulcer, obesity, sugar diabetes, etc. For example, according to the article Health warnings on junk food “…hamburgers, chips, soybean oil, pizza give rise to obesity and it can be the reason of heart attacks and even cancer…” So, people should know what they eat.…

New Study Reveals Junk Food Good For You By Billy Bunting

There is controversy over whether or not people should stop eating junk food. In the article “New Study Reveals Junk Food Good for You,” Billy Bunting believe some types of sugary, fatty junk foods “are better for you than so-called healthy foods” (Bunting). Throughout the article, he accounts evidences to verify his argument that eating large doses of junk food is good and a key to a long and healthy life. In “New Study Reveals Junk Food Good for You,” Bunting accounts studies, action points, and seven “tips to enjoy eating junk food so that its benefits can be fully realized” (Bunting).…

Eating Healthily and Advantages Disadvantages of Foods

Today, every people and every country were all developing and moving forward, by then shall we keep in mind, what make us live until today and keeping us healthy.“Eating Healthily With A Busy Lifestyle”, is the topic that I chose. By reading the topic, the main point that I chose, straight away in people’s mind they will think of delicious food, delicacy that bring up the appetite, but do they have the time to eat what they want, to enjoy such appetizing meals? Does it suit our healthy life since nowadays we usually eat what we, just like the often phrase we usually heard, saw in the advertisements, ‘eat all you can’ or ‘eat while you can’. Some people neglect the healthy food thing, because they thought that healthy food is boring, not delicious and many more.…

Junk Food Should Be Banned In Schools Essay

that are eaten by many people. Junk foods are unhealthy because it doesn’t have much…

Taxing Junk Food

Usually, and as the medical reports say, junk food is unsafe. We can explain this in an easy way. Most of the restaurants that serve fast food do not serve healthy and safe food to people where as they serve junk food. “Unsafe food” means that the reference of the food is unknown. If we take meat as an example, because it is used in most fast food restaurants’ sandwiches, we do not know whether the health organizations in the government approved that this kind of meat which is being sold in the fast food restaurant is clean and healthy or is not appropriate to be eaten. People do not know the reality, but they have a big field of research they can do so they know more about junk food.…

Obesity In The United States

Many people are wondering why they are getting so sick, but they have not realized what causes the sickness. There is a great number of people including young children, adult and young adults, and the elders who are being affected by consuming junk food every day. Junk food is very dangerous to human’s health, and not many people are aware of that. Research shows that people living in the United State are more affected by eating junk food than many people in other countries. It is very crucial to know the side effects of junk food although junk food may taste very delicious. People need to be knowledgeable about what they eat every day. Therefore, knowing what junk food can cause to the human’s health is very important. There are mainly three…

Eating Healthy and Staying Active

Many Americans continuously eat junk food and see no problem with it. It is fast, cheap, and delicious so how could it be bad for you. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The fact is most fast food companies make their food cheap and long lasting. How they accomplish this is by adding many doses of preservatives to their food. This can have bad effects on your health. Continuous consumption of these foods could cause strokes, heart attacks, and diabetes. In order to avoid these health problems it is suggested that you even out your diet to consist of a varity of different food groups. It is ok to have junk food every once in a while but in order to maintain your health you must also eat some fruits and vegetables. By evening out your diet your body will be able to pull out all the nutrients it needs to stay healthy.…

Persuasive Essay on Eating Healthy

When you keep your body strong, well, and clean, you are being healthy. In order to be healthy, the person will have to eat the right kind of food, exercise daily, take a shower, keep him/herself clean, and stay well. People who are healthy are likely to have the background of being and staying drug free. Junk food is not one of the things people eat to be healthy. Eating junk food affects your body and can make you sick.…

Determinants of Health

Junk food contains to much sugar or to much salt which can negatively affect our health in short or long term…

Taxing Junk Food Essay

Junk food can be known as different types of food, candy, and even sugary drinks. Some foods that can be considered ‘junk food’ are candies, chips, gum, and salted snacks are just a few examples of ‘junk food’. Pizza, hamburgers and tacos could be considered healthy or junk food. Sweetened drinks can be considered ‘junk food’ because they have a lot of sugar. Some drinks that are under the ‘junk food’ category are sports drinks, sodas, frappes, and milkshakes. These are just some of the many unhealthy drinks.…

Junk food; a slow poison

Junk food may be affordable and delicious, yet it is deadly. Examples of junk food include burger, pizza, hot dog, tacos, fries, biscuits, cookies, and soft drinks. Today many people are addicted to junk food. They grab junk food without planning to or making many decisions. Even when time is available, people still prefer to consume junk food rather than prepare a normal wholesome meal, which is healthier. Junk food is very popular around the world today. Junk food popularity is due the busy nature of the society in which we live. Junk food is also popular because of its price, good taste, availability, and attractive sight. In as much as junk food is advantageous, over consumption of junk food can be devastating to the health. Junk food contains elements like sodium, fat, and sugar, which when accumulated in the body can lead to numerous diseases. Hence, junk food can kill slowly like a slow poison.…

Consuming Unhealhy Food Against Healthy Food

Unhealthy food is referring to junk food, which is a term applied to some foods that are perceived to have little or no nutritional value (Michael Jacobson). We can consider junk food as everything that is fast food. All these food are easy to make and easy to consume. Such as, pizza, hamburgers, hot dogs, chips, candy, gum, most sweet desserts, fried fast food and carbonated beverages. On the other hand, healthy food is considered to be whole food, non processed food and organic food such as, vegetables, fruits, whole wheat products, whole grain products, etc.…

Junk Food Advertising Should Be Banned in Australia

The purpose of this report was to present the definition of junk food and how junk food advertising has recently become an important issue around the world which began to concern governments, health authorities and families in every country, especially in Australia .Therefore, this report will address the problem of junk food very carefully and in order to accomplish that this report will involve an internet research and will include a number of evidences, which have been taken from books, magazines and newspapers. This report has described an important solution for this problem which is banning advertisements of junk food and then discussed three reasons behind this ban in a wide range. Also, it will include many facts and statistics about junk food advertising. These statistics show and improve one important fact which is junk food advertising should be banned. .…

Although junk food is not health and cheap, like Bittman said, but I think junk food also is very convenient and appetitive. Since the fast food by the people's "favorite", it certainly has its benefits; otherwise it cannot become a mainstream food culture. First, when people feel hungry, and they do not have time to cook, when you order at the general restaurant, teahouse, people usually need to wait for some time to have a food supply. Thus, it is not easy to satisfy people. Second, junk food usually uses the high cooking method which has the good color, flavor and taste, such as frying and high concentration of ingredients; those can stimulate people's appetite. People who is weekday rush and poor appetite is very suitable to eat junk food. Many parents are worried about their children eating problem that most children don’t like eating real food. Eating junk food is a way to solve this problem.…

The phrase "junk food" itself speaks of endangerment to health. Junk food typically contains high levels from sugar or fat with little protein and minerals. Foods usually considered junk foods are salted snack foods, gum, candy, fast food, and carbonated drinks. People should acknowledge that junk foods contained high amount of chemical substance, which will lead various disease. Yes, junk foods are tasty and the sweetness gives you pleasure, but health is way more important if you people don’t take the first step to avoid! As we said, prevention is better than cure.…

Related Topics

Healthy Food Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on healthy food.

Healthy food refers to food that contains the right amount of nutrients to keep our body fit. We need healthy food to keep ourselves fit.

Furthermore, healthy food is also very delicious as opposed to popular thinking. Nowadays, kids need to eat healthy food more than ever. We must encourage good eating habits so that our future generations will be healthy and fit.

Most importantly, the harmful effects of junk food and the positive impact of healthy food must be stressed upon. People should teach kids from an early age about the same.

Benefits of Healthy Food

Healthy food does not have merely one but numerous benefits. It helps us in various spheres of life. Healthy food does not only impact our physical health but mental health too.

When we intake healthy fruits and vegetables that are full of nutrients, we reduce the chances of diseases. For instance, green vegetables help us to maintain strength and vigor. In addition, certain healthy food items keep away long-term illnesses like diabetes and blood pressure.

Similarly, obesity is the biggest problems our country is facing now. People are falling prey to obesity faster than expected. However, this can still be controlled. Obese people usually indulge in a lot of junk food. The junk food contains sugar, salt fats and more which contribute to obesity. Healthy food can help you get rid of all this as it does not contain harmful things.

In addition, healthy food also helps you save money. It is much cheaper in comparison to junk food. Plus all that goes into the preparation of healthy food is also of low cost. Thus, you will be saving a great amount when you only consume healthy food.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Junk food vs Healthy Food

If we look at the scenario today, we see how the fast-food market is increasing at a rapid rate. With the onset of food delivery apps and more, people now like having junk food more. In addition, junk food is also tastier and easier to prepare.

However, just to satisfy our taste buds we are risking our health. You may feel more satisfied after having junk food but that is just the feeling of fullness and nothing else. Consumption of junk food leads to poor concentration. Moreover, you may also get digestive problems as junk food does not have fiber which helps indigestion.

Similarly, irregularity of blood sugar levels happens because of junk food. It is so because it contains fewer carbohydrates and protein . Also, junk food increases levels of cholesterol and triglyceride.

On the other hand, healthy food contains a plethora of nutrients. It not only keeps your body healthy but also your mind and soul. It increases our brain’s functionality. Plus, it enhances our immunity system . Intake of whole foods with minimum or no processing is the finest for one’s health.

In short, we must recognize that though junk food may seem more tempting and appealing, it comes with a great cost. A cost which is very hard to pay. Therefore, we all must have healthy foods and strive for a longer and healthier life.

FAQs on Healthy Food

Q.1 How does healthy food benefit us?

A.1 Healthy Benefit has a lot of benefits. It keeps us healthy and fit. Moreover, it keeps away diseases like diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol and many more. Healthy food also helps in fighting obesity and heart diseases.

Q.2 Why is junk food harmful?

A.2 Junk food is very harmful to our bodies. It contains high amounts of sugar, salt, fats, oils and more which makes us unhealthy. It also causes a lot of problems like obesity and high blood pressure. Therefore, we must not have junk food more and encourage healthy eating habits.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essays About Eating Healthy Foods: 7 Essay Examples And Topic Ideas

If you’re writing essays about eating healthy foods, here are 7 interesting essay examples and topic ideas.

Eating healthy is one of the best ways to maintain a healthy lifestyle. But we can all struggle to make it a part of our routine. It’s easier to make small changes to your eating habits instead for long-lasting results. A healthy diet is a plan for eating healthier options over the long term and not a strict diet to be followed only for the short.

Writing an essay about eating healthy foods is an exciting topic choice and an excellent way to help people start a healthy diet and change their lifestyles for the better. Tip: For help with this topic, read our guide explaining what is persuasive writing ?

1. The Definitive Guide to Healthy Eating in Real Life By Jillian Kubala

2. eating healthy foods by jaime padilla, 3. 5 benefits of eating healthy by maggie smith, 4. good food bad food by audrey rodriguez, 5. what are the benefits of eating healthy by cathleen crichton-stuart, 6. comparison between healthy food and junk food by jaime padilla, 7. nutrition, immunity, and covid-19 by ayela spiro and helena gibson-moore, essays about eating healthy foods topic ideas, 1. what is healthy food, 2. what is the importance of healthy food, 3. what does eating healthy mean, 4. why should we eat healthy foods, 5. what are the benefits of eating healthy foods, 6. why should we eat more vegetables, 7. can you still eat healthy foods even if you are on a budget.

“Depending on whom you ask, “healthy eating” may take many forms. It seems that everyone, including healthcare professionals, wellness influencers, coworkers, and family members, has an opinion on the healthiest way to eat. Plus, nutrition articles that you read online can be downright confusing with their contradictory — and often unfounded — suggestions and rules. This doesn’t make it easy if you simply want to eat in a healthy way that works for you.”

Author Jillian Kubala is a registered dietitian and holds a master’s degree in nutrition and an undergraduate degree in nutrition science. In her essay, she says that healthy eating doesn’t have to be complicated and explains how it can nourish your body while enjoying the foods you love. Check out these essays about health .

“Eating provides your body with the nourishment it needs to survive. A healthy diet supplies nutrients (such as protein, vitamins and minerals, fiber, and carbohydrates), which are important for your body’s growth, development, and maintenance. However, not all foods are equal when it comes to the nutrition they provide. Some foods, such as fruits and vegetables, are rich in vitamins and minerals; others, such as cookies and soda pop, provide few if any nutrients. Your diet can influence everything from your energy level and intellectual performance to your risk for certain diseases.”

Author Jaime Padilla talks about the importance of a healthy diet in your body’s growth, development, and maintenance. He also mentioned that having a poor diet can lead to some health problems. Check out these essays about food .

“Eating healthy is about balance and making sure that your body is getting the necessary nutrients it needs to function properly. Healthy eating habits require that people eat fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fats, proteins, and starches. Keep in mind that healthy eating requires that you’re mindful of what you eat and drink, but also how you prepare it. For best results, individuals should avoid fried or processed foods, as well as foods high in added sugars and salts.”

Author Maggie Smith believes there’s a fine line between healthy eating and dieting. In her essay, she mentioned five benefits of eating healthy foods – weight loss, heart health, strong bones and teeth, better mood and energy levels, and improved memory and brain health – and explained them in detail.

You might also be interested in our round-up of the best medical authors of all time .

“From old generation to the new generation young people are dying out quicker than their own parents due to obesity-related diseases every day. In the mid-1970s, there were no health issues relevant to obesity-related diseases but over time it began to be a problem when fast food industries started growing at a rapid pace. Energy is naturally created in the body when the nutrients are absorbed from the food that is consumed. When living a healthy lifestyle, these horrible health problems don’t appear, and the chances of prolonging life and enjoying life increase.”

In her essay, author Audrey Rodriguez says that having self-control is very important to achieving a healthy lifestyle, especially now that we’re exposed to all these unhealthy yet tempting foods that all these fast-food restaurants offer. She believes that back in the early 1970s, when fast-food companies had not yet existed and home-cooked meals were the only food people had to eat every day, trying to live a healthy life was never a problem.

“A healthful diet typically includes nutrient-dense foods from all major food groups, including lean proteins, whole grains, healthful fats, and fruits and vegetables of many colors. Healthful eating also means replacing foods that contain trans fats, added salt, and sugar with more nutritious options. Following a healthful diet has many health benefits, including building strong bones, protecting the heart, preventing disease, and boosting mood.”

In her essay, Author Cathleen Crichton-Stuart explains the top 10 benefits of eating healthy foods – all of which are medically reviewed by Adrienne Seitz, a registered and licensed dietitian nutritionist. She also gives her readers some quick tips for a healthful diet. 

“In today’s generation, healthy and unhealthy food plays a big role in youths and adults. Many people don’t really understand the difference between healthy and unhealthy foods, many don’t actually know what the result of eating too many unhealthy foods can do to the body. There are big differences between eating healthy food, unhealthy food and what the result of excessively eating them can do to the body. In the ongoing battle of “healthy vs. unhealthy foods”, unhealthy foods have their own advantage.”

Author Jaime Padilla compares the difference between healthy food and junk food so that the readers would understand what the result of eating a lot of unhealthy foods can do to the body. He also said that homemade meals are healthier and cheaper than the unhealthy and pricey meals that you order in your local fast food restaurant, which would probably cost you twice as much. 

“The Covid-19 pandemic has sparked both an increased clinical and public interest in the role of nutrition and health, particularly in supporting immunity. During this time, when people may be highly vulnerable to misinformation, there have been a plethora of media stories against authoritative scientific opinion, suggesting that certain food components and supplements are capable of ‘boosting’ the immune system. It is important to provide evidence-based advice and to ensure that the use of non-evidence-based approaches to ‘boost’ immunity is not considered as an effective alternative to vaccination or other recognized measures.”

Authors Ayela Spiro, a nutrition science manager, and Helena Gibson-Moore, a nutrition scientist, enlighten their readers on the misinformation spreading in this pandemic about specific food components and supplements. They say that there’s no single food or supplement, or magic diet that can boost the immune system alone. However, eating healthy foods (along with the right dietary supplements), being physically active, and getting enough sleep can help boost your immunity.

If you’re writing an essay about eating healthy foods, you have to define what healthy food is. Food is considered healthy if it provides you with the essential nutrients to sustain your body’s well-being and retain energy. Carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals, and water are the essential nutrients that compose a healthy, balanced diet.

Eating healthy foods is essential for having good health and nutrition – it protects you against many chronic non-communicable diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. If you’re writing an essay about eating healthy foods, show your readers the importance of healthy food, and encourage them to start a healthy diet.

Eating healthy foods means eating a variety of food that give you the nutrients that your body needs to function correctly. These nutrients include carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals, and water. In your essay about eating healthy foods, you can discuss this topic in more detail so that your readers will know why these nutrients are essential.

Eating healthy foods includes consuming the essential nutrients your body requires to function correctly (such as carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals, and water) while minimizing processed foods, saturated fats, and alcohol. In your essay, let your readers know that eating healthy foods can help maintain the body’s everyday functions, promote optimal body weight, and prevent diseases.

Eating healthy foods comes with many health benefits – from keeping a healthy weight to preventing long-term diseases such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer. So if you’re looking for a topic idea for your essay, you can consider the benefits of eating healthy foods to give your readers some useful information, especially for those thinking of starting a healthy diet.

Ever since we were a kid, we have all been told that eating vegetables are good for our health, but why? The answer is pretty simple – vegetables are loaded with the essential nutrients, vitamins, and minerals that our body needs. So, if you’re writing an essay about eating healthy foods, this is an excellent topic to get you started.

Of course, you definitely can! Fresh fruits and vegetables are typically the cheapest options for starting a healthy diet. In your essay about eating healthy foods, you can include some other cheap food options for a healthy diet – this will be very helpful, especially for readers looking to start a healthy diet but only have a limited amount of budget set for their daily food. 

For help with this topic, read our guide explaining what is persuasive writing ?

If you’re stuck picking your next essay topic, check out our round-up of essay topics about education .

Bryan Collins is the owner of Become a Writer Today. He's an author from Ireland who helps writers build authority and earn a living from their creative work. He's also a former Forbes columnist and his work has appeared in publications like Lifehacker and Fast Company.

View all posts

Healthy Food Essay

500+ words essay on healthy food.

Before starting your daily activity, you must have food. Food is essential for our body besides water. Eating healthy food gives you the required nutrients you need to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Your daily food should have carbohydrates, proteins, water, vitamins, fat and minerals. To keep ourselves fit, we need healthy food.

When we talk about our health, healthy food plays a crucial role. It helps preserve our health, and some nutrients renew the health of various organs. Besides, healthy food is always delicious and mouthwatering. Kids, nowadays, should eat healthy food more than ever. We must encourage kids to eat healthy food so that our future generations become healthy and fit.

We should speak more often about the harmful effects of unhealthy food and the positive impact of healthy food. In this way, we can teach our kids about eating healthy foods from an early age.

To keep our internal organs healthy, we should make a habit of eating healthy food. Unhealthy food welcomes life-threatening diseases like heart attack, high or low blood pressure, increased or decreased glucose level, etc. In today’s scenario, with so many changes around the world in terms of climate, pollution, etc., eating healthy food should be on our priority list.

Advantages of Eating Healthy Food

• We get a solid and fit body by eating healthy and nutritious food.
• Healthy food also gives the body physical strength; that way, one can go about their duties comfortably.
• Eating healthy food gives good health, saving you from wasting time, money and resources seeking medical assistance and solutions.
• By eating nutritious food, we can protect our bodies from getting serious diseases like diabetes, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, and so forth.
• It also helps maintain our weight, and unhealthy food leads to obesity.
• Likewise, healthy sustenance gives us a fit and fine body and smooth skin.
• We never feel lazy in the wake of eating light and solid nourishment; instead, we feel dynamic and energetic.
• Eating healthy food helps build the body and its immunity levels, enhancing the living standards one gets to enjoy.
• It is one of the ways individuals enjoy life as they get to spend good time with friends and family.
• Healthy food is, therefore, a principal requirement for the body.

Junk Food vs Healthy Food

In today’s scenario, consumption of junk food is increasing rapidly, due to which the fast-food market is also growing fast. Junk foods are easier to prepare and delicious. It became more accessible after the arrival of the food delivery apps. People can now sit at their homes and order junk food as per their choice.

But, unknowingly, we are compromising our health by having junk food. After eating it, you will feel more satisfied. Junk food leads to poor concentration and creates digestive problems as it contains less fibre, which causes indigestion.

Junk food also results in varying blood sugar levels because it contains less protein and carbohydrates. Consumption of junk food also increases levels of triglyceride and cholesterol.

When we talk about healthy food, it contains a plethora of nutrients. It keeps our bodies physically and mentally fit. It enhances our immune system and develops our brain functionality. If we are worried about our health, we should not consume processed food.

We know that junk food seems to be more appealing and tempting, but it comes at a very high price. Therefore, we should eat healthy food to live a longer and healthier life.

Conclusion of Healthy Food Essay

We can end the essay by stating that eating healthy food is our primary need. Eating healthy food is a simple way to increase the ease of the body and the happiness of the mind. Eating junk food will make our bodies weaker and have low immunity. So, it is essential to consume healthy food to maintain good health.

Students of the CBSE Board can get essays on different topics from BYJU’S website. They can visit our CBSE Essay page and learn more about essays.

Frequently Asked Questions on Healthy Food Essay

What are the negative impacts of junk food.

1. High sodium content 2. Excessive carb intake and cholesterol intake 3. Obesity and cardiac diseases

What are some of the healthy food items?

1. Fruits and vegetables 2. Foods with high fibre content  3.  Foods containing saturated fats 4. Foods with less salt and sugar

How to regulate our body with food intake?

1. Eat at regular intervals 2. Do not overeat or have junk food 3. Drink water and be hydrated

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Counselling

Essay on Healthy Food vs Junk Food

Students are often asked to write an essay on Healthy Food vs Junk Food in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Healthy Food vs Junk Food

Introduction.

Healthy food and junk food are two types of food often discussed. Healthy food is nutritious, while junk food lacks essential nutrients but is high in harmful substances.

Healthy Food

Healthy food includes fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and whole grains. They provide the body with necessary vitamins, minerals, and fiber to maintain good health.

Junk food includes fast food, sweets, and soda. They contain high amounts of sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats, which can lead to health problems like obesity and heart disease.

In conclusion, healthy food is the best choice for maintaining good health, while junk food can harm our health.

250 Words Essay on Healthy Food vs Junk Food

The escalating health crisis worldwide has brought into the spotlight the critical role diet plays in overall health. The debate between healthy food and junk food is more relevant than ever, with the former being associated with wellness and the latter with numerous health problems.

The Allure of Junk Food

Junk food, characterized by high levels of sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats, is often preferred for its convenience and addictive taste. However, the immediate gratification it offers comes with long-term health consequences. Overconsumption of junk food is linked to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses. It also negatively impacts cognitive functions, affecting academic performance and productivity.

The Power of Healthy Food

On the other hand, healthy food, rich in nutrients like vitamins, minerals, protein, and fiber, provides the body with the necessary components for optimal functioning. These foods boost the immune system, enhance cognitive abilities, and lower the risk of chronic diseases. They also contribute to maintaining a healthy weight and promote overall well-being.

Changing the Narrative

Despite the clear benefits of healthy food, the pervasive culture of fast food has normalized junk food consumption. However, changing this narrative is possible through education and awareness. Understanding the detrimental effects of junk food and the benefits of a balanced diet can help steer societal preferences towards healthier options.

In conclusion, while junk food may appeal to our taste buds and offer convenience, its long-term effects on health are detrimental. In contrast, healthy food, despite being less convenient, provides numerous health benefits, making it the superior choice. It is essential for individuals, especially college students, to make informed dietary choices for a healthier future.

500 Words Essay on Healthy Food vs Junk Food

The debate between healthy food and junk food has been a topic of interest for many years. As society becomes more health-conscious, the importance of dietary choices is increasingly recognized. This essay aims to explore the differences between healthy and junk food, their impact on our health, and the societal implications of these choices.

Understanding Healthy Food and Junk Food

Healthy food refers to foods that are rich in essential nutrients like vitamins, minerals, protein, carbohydrates, and fats. These foods include fruits, vegetables, lean meats, whole grains, and dairy products. They provide the body with the necessary nutrients for growth, development, and maintenance of overall health.

On the other hand, junk food is typically high in unhealthy fats, sugars, and salt, while being low in nutritional value. Common examples include fast food, candy, soda, and chips. These foods may be appealing due to their taste and convenience, but their regular consumption can lead to various health issues.

The Health Implications

The consumption of healthy food has numerous health benefits. It provides the necessary nutrients that the body needs to function optimally. A balanced diet can help maintain a healthy weight, boost the immune system, and reduce the risk of chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer.

Conversely, the excessive consumption of junk food can lead to obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and other health problems. High levels of sugars and fats can lead to weight gain and elevated cholesterol levels. Moreover, the lack of essential nutrients can result in deficiencies that affect the body’s normal functioning.

Societal Implications

The choices between healthy food and junk food also have broader societal implications. The rising consumption of junk food is often linked to the global obesity epidemic. The ease of access and low cost of junk food, combined with aggressive marketing strategies, contribute to its popularity, particularly among younger generations.

Meanwhile, healthy food is often perceived as more expensive and less accessible, especially in low-income communities. This creates a socio-economic divide in dietary choices and health outcomes. Promoting the consumption of healthy food and making it more accessible and affordable can help address these disparities.

In conclusion, the choice between healthy food and junk food has significant impacts on individual health and society as a whole. While junk food may offer convenience and taste, its long-term health implications cannot be ignored. On the other hand, healthy food, despite its perceived cost and accessibility barriers, provides essential nutrients for our bodies and contributes to long-term health. As we become more health-conscious, it’s crucial to make informed dietary choices for our well-being and for a healthier society.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Disadvantages of Junk Food
• Essay on Harmful Effects of Junk Food
• Essay on Harmful Effects of Video Games

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges and Departments
• Email and phone search
• Give to Cambridge
• Museums and collections
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Fees and funding
• Postgraduate events
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement

Healthy vs unhealthy food: the challenges of understanding food choices

• Research home
• About research overview
• Animal research overview
• Overseeing animal research overview
• The Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body
• Animal welfare and ethics
• Report on the allegations and matters raised in the BUAV report
• What types of animal do we use? overview
• Guinea pigs
• Naked mole-rats
• Non-human primates (marmosets)
• Other birds
• Non-technical summaries
• Animal Welfare Policy
• Alternatives to animal use
• Further information
• Funding Agency Committee Members
• Research integrity
• Horizons magazine
• Strategic Initiatives & Networks
• Nobel Prize
• Interdisciplinary Research Centres
• Open access
• Energy sector partnerships
• Podcasts overview
• S2 ep1: What is the future?
• S2 ep2: What did the future look like in the past?
• S2 ep3: What is the future of wellbeing?
• S2 ep4 What would a more just future look like?
• Research impact

We know a lot about food but little about the food choices that affect the nation’s health. Researchers have begun to devise experiments to find out why we choose a chocolate bar over an apple – and whether ‘swaps’ and ‘nudges’ are effective.

Perceiving food as tasty is important. It’s not good enough simply to tell people what is healthy if they don’t think those foods are also tasty. Suzanna Forwood

The solution to the obesity epidemic is simple: eat less, move more. But take a deep breath before you type these four words into a search engine. The results exceed 9 million. Of the top four results, two websites argue against the statement and two for it. Below, arguments about eating and exercise rage fast and furious with dozens of assertions backed by equations, flowcharts, promises of slimming success, and lists of the latest superfoods.

“Despite all we know about food, we know remarkably little about the process of food choice,” says Dr Suzanna Forwood, until recently Research Associate at the Behaviour and Health Research Unit (Cambridge University) and now Lecturer in Psychology at Anglia Ruskin University. “In a supermarket we’re bombarded with the thousands of products on the shelves and but most of the time we happily make relatively quick decisions about what to buy. So what’s going on in our minds when we reach out for our favourite breakfast cereal?”

When it comes to eating, we’re all experts. We’re secure in our own opinions (and prejudices) and have no shortage of advice for everyone else. The truth is that, in common with many human activities, our relationship with food is complex and deeply embedded in culture. Forwood says: “Whenever I give a talk, even to an academic audience, people will listen to me talk about the big picture and then come up to me afterwards to tell me about their personal experiences – typically what they spotted in other people’s trolleys the day before.”

We might broadly agree that eating less (and better) and moving more, a message endorsed by the NHS, makes sense – but do we act accordingly?  We don’t. Finding out exactly what people eat is hard, finding out why they make those choices is harder – and changing those eating patterns is harder still. “Most of the data we have – and we have lots of it – is observational rather than experimental,” says Forwood. “There have been relatively few experiments looking at food choice – and those that have been carried out tend to have a low number of participants.”

In the late 1980s government began to realise that it was facing an obesity epidemic on a scale that demanded intervention. Levels of obesity in the UK have tripled since 1980: almost 25% of the adult population is now obese with the UK topping the tables for Western Europe. These worrying figures led to nationwide initiatives to promote healthy living – and increased efforts to understand food choice behaviour.

Research has shown that obesity is linked to deprivation and low levels of education – as well as to a whole range of life-threatening conditions. Top of the list of ‘avoidable diseases’ associated with obesity is type 2 diabetes (treatment of type 2 diabetes costs the NHS an estimated £8.8 bn each year), followed by cancer, high blood pressure and heart disease. “In the past, weight status has long been regarded as a matter of personal choice,” says Forwood. “And this is reflected by the government’s desire for non-regulatory interventions.” The preference for a light touch approach is exemplified by the establishment of the so-called Nudge Unit (Behavioural Insight Team).

In 2009 the government launched its Change4Life campaign as a ‘movement’ to improve the nation’s health. Change4Life’s online advice for adults makes a series of suggestions for ‘swaps’ and ‘nudges’. Swap a large plate for a smaller one, swap fast eating for slow eating, and swap food high in fat or sugar for healthy fruit and vegetables. Look closely at labelling and make healthy choices based on a comparison of calories and nutritional information.

The current focus is on reducing intake of sugar – not the sugar that occurs naturally in fruit, or even the sugar we sprinkle on our cereal, but the hidden sugar that sweetens so many processed foods and flavours so many popular drinks. In the case of sugar, what is proposed is a financial nudge in the form of a ‘sugar tax’. “Taxes have been shown to be effective but they have to be carefully designed,” says Forwood. “Sugar taxes, for example, need to avoid raising the price of fruit juices which are high in sugar.”

Do other strands of swaps and nudges work? Research suggests that people are remarkably resilient in their food choices. Taste emerges as the most important factor. Forwood’s work shows that healthy foods (such as fruit and vegetables) are not perceived as tasty, particularly by groups who are reluctant to choose healthy foods. She says: “That might seem tautological but there is strong observational data to suggest that perceiving food as tasty is important. It’s not good enough simply to tell people what is healthy if they don’t think those foods are also tasty.”

The perception of healthy foods as less tasty than unhealthy foods prompts the question: could product labelling, promoting the tastiness of healthy foods, nudge consumers into making ‘better’ choices when they’re shopping. In research published last year, Forwood and colleagues looked at the ‘nudging power’ of labelling to increase the percentage of people who might say ‘no’ to a chocolate bar and ‘yes’ to an apple as part of a notional meal deal.

In the online study, around half of a representative sample of people expressed a preference for an apple when given the choice of apple or chocolate bar. Participants were divided into five groups and given the same choice (apple or chocolate bar) with the apple labelled in five different ways: ‘apple’, ‘healthy apple’, ‘succulent apple’, ‘healthy and succulent apple’, ‘succulent and healthy apple’. Labels combining both health and taste descriptors significantly increased the rate of apple selection – to 65.9% in the case of ‘healthy and succulent’ and 62.4% for ‘succulent and healthy’.

Another study , also published last year, looked at the potential for food swaps – often used as part of social media campaigns – as a means for reducing dietary levels of energy, fat, sugar or salt. Using the model of an online supermarket, built as a testing platform, participants were asked to complete a 12-item shopping task. In the course of the purchasing process, they were offered alternatives with lower energy densities (ED). For each item, lower ED alternatives were offered or imposed, either at the point of selection or at the checkout.

“Our study showed that within-category swaps did not reduce the ED of food purchases. Only a minority of swaps were accepted by the consumer and the notional benefits to swaps were slight. It was striking that more than 47% of the participants offered alternatives did not accept any of the swaps they were offered,” says Forwood. “Female participants and better-off participants were more likely to accept swaps. This was predictable in that these are the people who we know from other research typically make healthier choices anyway.”

It has been argued that omnipresence of food imagery in the modern built environment, and via all kinds of media, contributes to rising rates of obesity with adverts for less healthier foods identified as a driver for consumption of such foods. A study in Australia showed that people who watched commercial television channels (which carry advertising for fast foods) were, perhaps not surprisingly, more likely to purchase TV dinners .

“What we’re talking about here is, of course, observational data,” says Forwood, “It may, for example, be that people who consume TV dinners are more attracted to certain television programmes that are on commercial channels. Remember that huge sums of money are spent targeting TV adverts in order to make sure that the right population sees them. But this raises the question: could advertising represent an opportunity for policy makers looking to promote consumption of healthier choices?” 

‘Priming’ is described as a psychological effect in which exposure to a stimulus – such as advertising – modifies behaviour. When Forwood and colleagues    tested the effectiveness of priming by asking volunteers to look at an advertisement for healthy food (such as fruit) and then choose between healthy and unhealthy, they found that the priming had little difference. The observations were different, however, when the participants were hungry, in which case the preference for the energy dense foods rose. However, when the hungry volunteers were shown an advertisement for fruit in advance of their choice, the ‘hungry factor’ was offset by the priming.

The initial experiment was carried out in Cambridge where the participants were predominantly female, well-educated and older – and likely to be in favour of healthy eating.  When the experiment was carried out with a more nationally representative sample, the results showed that priming was ineffective in socially disadvantaged groups. “These people are hard to reach and represent a real challenge to policy-makers,” says Forwood. “Research tells us that 89% of people want to make dietary changes to improve their health. We need to identify the levers that can support them.”

Read this next

Fish fed to farmed salmon should be part of our diet, too, study suggests

Farm to factories

AI predicts healthiness of food menus

Genetic mutation in a quarter of all Labradors hard-wires them for obesity

Nancy's Fruit Salad by John Hritz

Credit: Flickr Creative Commons

Search research

Sign up to receive our weekly research email.

Our selection of the week's biggest Cambridge research news and features sent directly to your inbox. Enter your email address, confirm you're happy to receive our emails and then select 'Subscribe'.

I wish to receive a weekly Cambridge research news summary by email.

The University of Cambridge will use your email address to send you our weekly research news email. We are committed to protecting your personal information and being transparent about what information we hold. Please read our email privacy notice for details.

• food choices
• Public health
• Global food security
• food security
• Suzanna Forwood
• Behaviour and Health Research Unit (BHRU)
• School of Clinical Medicine
• Cambridge Institute of Public Health

Related organisations

• Anglia Ruskin University

Connect with us

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility statement
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Cambridge University Press & Assessment
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 29 November 2018

Availability of healthier vs. less healthy food and food choice: an online experiment

• Rachel Pechey   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6558-388X 1 &
• Theresa M. Marteau 1  

BMC Public Health volume  18 , Article number:  1296 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

26 Citations

47 Altmetric

Metrics details

Our environments shape our behaviour, but little research has addressed whether healthier cues have a similar impact to less healthy ones. This online study examined the impact on food choices of the number of (i) healthier and (ii) less healthy snack foods available, and possible moderation by cognitive load and socioeconomic status.

UK adults ( n  = 1509) were randomly allocated to one of six groups (two cognitive load x three availability conditions). Participants memorised a 7-digit number (7777777: low cognitive load; 8529713: high cognitive load). While remembering this number, participants chose the food they would most like to eat from: (a) two healthier and two less healthy foods, (b) six healthier and two less healthy foods, or (c) two healthier and six less healthy foods.

Compared to being offered two healthier and two less healthy options, the odds of choosing a healthier option were twice as high (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.0, 95%CI: 1.6, 2.6) with four additional healthier options, while the odds of choosing a less healthy option were four times higher (OR: 4.3, 95%CI: 3.1, 6.0) with four additional less healthy options. There were no significant main effects or interactions with cognitive load or socioeconomic status.

Conclusions

This study provides a novel test of the impact of healthier vs. less healthy food cues on food choice, suggesting that less healthy food cues have a larger effect than healthier ones. Consequently, removing less healthy as opposed to adding healthier food options could have greater impact on healthier choices. Studies are now needed in which choices are made between physically-present foods.

Peer Review reports

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, now cause the majority of premature preventable deaths worldwide [ 1 , 2 ]. Patterns of unhealthy behaviour, including excessive energy intake, are key contributors to these NCDs, and are socially patterned, i.e. less healthy behaviours are generally more common amongst the poorest, contributing in turn to the substantial socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy and years lived in good health.

One strategy that may be effective in targeting these behavioural risk factors is to target the physical micro-environment, addressing the multiple cues – aspects of our environments that can influence behaviour – which act detrimentally by limiting healthier options or promoting less healthy ones [ 3 ]. This approach (sometimes termed ‘choice architecture’ or ‘nudging’) [ 4 , 5 , 6 ] is based on dual process models of behaviour [ 7 , 8 ]. It has been hypothesised that interventions targeting non-conscious processes regulating behaviour are more effective than more information-based interventions, as they do not necessarily rely on individuals’ cognitive resources [ 3 , 9 ]. One such environmental cue is the availability (including both the number and range) of healthier vs. less healthy foods, which represents one of the top three interventions suggested in the McKinsey Global Institute report on obesity [ 10 ] as having the highest likely impact across the population. While the mechanisms underlying the effects of altering availability have not been explored to our knowledge, increasing the availability of product(s) may influence consumption by increasing the visibility or salience of these products to consumers, and/or increased options may lead to these appealing to a wider range of people. Evidence is beginning to accumulate to support the effectiveness of targeting product availability to change behaviour [ 11 , 12 , 14 ].

One choice when designing interventions to alter availability is whether to increase healthier foods, decrease less healthy foods or both simultaneously. Thus far, there is a paucity of evidence on this, although observational data suggests that the availability of less healthy foods but not fruit and vegetables is associated with body mass index (BMI) [ 15 ]. Establishing if there is a difference in response to healthier vs. less healthy food cues could help prioritise interventions that are likely to be most effective to change behaviour.

Looking at food cues beyond product availability, evidence comparing responses to healthier vs. less healthy food cues remains limited. There are a small number of observational studies demonstrating that individuals may be more responsive to price promotions on less healthy rather than healthier products [ 16 ], and that consumers may be more responsive to price discounts on less healthy foods and price increases on healthier foods [ 17 ]. Experimental studies looking at changing the proximity of foods have altered both healthier and less healthy foods, and have not suggested any differences by food healthiness [ 18 , 19 ] – however, these have focused on altering just one example of a healthier and less healthy food. No experimental studies to our knowledge have set out to isolate responses to altering a range of healthier vs. less healthy foods, which is likely to better reflect many food environments.

This distinction between healthier and less healthy food cues may also have implications for socioeconomic inequalities. Living in differentially ‘obesogenic’ environments may drive some of the socioeconomic differences in diet-related behaviours, e.g. those who are more deprived may have less exposure to healthier environmental cues, such as the presence of healthier food outlets, and greater exposure to less healthy environmental cues, such as unhealthy food outlets [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. How people respond to the same environmental cues may additionally contribute to inequalities: response inhibition (a core element of executive function that includes being able to resist impulsive behaviour [ 23 ]) is associated with socioeconomic status (SES) [ 24 , 25 ], and predicts obesity and food-related behaviour [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. The healthiness of the food involved may play a role, however, with response inhibition having a more limited (if any) impact on consumption of healthier foods [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. As such, the choice of targeting healthier or less healthy food cues may have implications for the effectiveness of an intervention across socioeconomic groups, and any differential responsiveness is essential to establish in order to select interventions for implementation that will not inadvertently increase inequalities.

Given the association between socioeconomic status and response inhibition [ 24 , 25 ], it is interesting to investigate people’s responses to food cues when their response inhibition has been lowered. One means of targeting response inhibition is increasing cognitive load, which can be used to temporarily deplete an individual’s cognitive resources (including response inhibition) [ 33 , 34 , 35 ]. The effect of increasing cognitive load is also worthy of exploration in the context of making changes to environmental cues, such as product availability, given that it has been hypothesised the changes to the physical micro-environment may impact on behaviour without relying on individuals’ cognitive resources [ 3 , 9 ]. Moreover the effects of increasing cognitive load when exploring cues targeting healthier vs. less healthy foods have not been explored to our knowledge, and may vary given the different associations between response inhibition and healthier/ less healthy food choices.

It is worth noting that any effects of response inhibition may also be moderated by food appeal – with those with strong appeal towards less healthy foods and lower response inhibition being more likely to make less healthy choices and to gain the most weight [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. This may also have further implications for socioeconomic inequalities, as some healthier foods have higher appeal for less deprived individuals [ 40 ]. As such, food appeal may act alongside response inhibition to mediate some of the socioeconomic patterning seen in diet-related behaviour, and may contribute to any differences in responses to healthier and less healthy food cues.

To address some of the gaps in the extant literature, the current study aims to examine: (a) the impact of increasing the range of (i) healthier (i.e. lower energy) snack foods vs. (ii) less healthy (i.e. higher energy) snack foods on food selection in an online task; and the potential moderation of responses to these cues by (b) cognitive load and (c) by socioeconomic status. In addition, response inhibition and food appeal will be investigated as potential mediators of any influence of socioeconomic status on food choice. Snack foods (operationalized as single-serve pre-packaged foods, including confectionery, potato chips and cereal bars) were chosen as an initial category to investigate this hypothesis, given they are more likely to be selected and consumed within a short interval, potentially making them more susceptible to fluctuations in response inhibition than meals. The specific hypotheses tested are set out below.

Primary hypothesis

Increasing the number of less healthy food items has a larger effect on the healthiness of food choices than increasing the number of healthier food items

Secondary hypotheses

Cognitive load: Participants under high (vs low) cognitive load:

will show no differences in their likelihood of selecting healthier foods after seeing a greater number of healthier food options

will be more likely to select less healthy foods after seeing a greater number of less healthy food options

Socioeconomic status: Participants with higher (vs lower) socioeconomic status:

will be more likely to select healthier foods after seeing a greater number of healthier food options

will be less likely to choose less healthy foods after seeing a greater number of less healthy food options

Response inhibition and food appeal both partially mediate the impact of socioeconomic status on food choice

Participants were randomly allocated to one of six groups in a between-subjects design (three availability conditions x two cognitive load conditions). Randomisation was conducted online using the Qualtrics randomiser element, and was performed separately for each of three socioeconomic groups (defined by occupational group), to achieve similar numbers of participants of each socioeconomic status in each study group. As such, neither the recruiter nor researcher were aware of participants’ group assignment prior to participation.

Availability conditions

Participants were asked to select an item from an array of snack foods that they would most like to eat right now. The composition of this array differed between participants depending on their assignment to one of three conditions: (1) two healthier and two less healthy food items (reference); (2) two healthier and six less healthy food items (increased less healthy); (3) six healthier and two less healthy food items (increased healthier). As such, comparing condition 2 to condition 1 involved changing the number of less healthy items while keeping the number of healthier items constant (and vice versa comparing condition 3 to condition 1). The intervention also involved changing the proportion of healthier to less healthy and the overall number of options, but this was mirrored across the two conditions where options were increased (conditions 2 and 3).

Cognitive load conditions

Participants were asked to memorise a 7-digit number as part of the study. They were randomised to either a complex string (e.g. 8529713; high load) or simple string (e.g. 7777777; low load).

The study was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/nxt4s/ ), and ethical approval was obtained from the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee (Pre.2017.016).

The sample of 1509 UK adults was recruited from an online market research company panel (Research Now). No specific inclusion criteria were used, but the sample was selected to be representative of the UK in terms of age and gender, with quotas set for socioeconomic status (evenly divided between occupational status groups A&B: Higher and intermediate managerial, administrative and professional occupations; C1&C2: Supervisory, clerical and junior managerial, administrative and professional occupations; D&E: Semi-skilled and unskilled manual occupations). Participants are paid in vouchers for their time spent completing surveys for the market research company, with participation in this study being paid at the usual rate.

The planned sample size was determined using G*Power (version 3.1.9.2), for a logistic regression, with power of 0.8 and alpha =0.025, to detect a small effect size (odds ratio 1.5) using a binomial predictor variable, with balanced groups. The effect size was based on the impact of availability on food choice in pilot work and the r-squared accounted for by control variables was taken to be medium-sized (0.25). This gives a sample estimate of 1257, for a 2-group comparison (i.e. 629 per group, which was rounded to 630 to give a slight over-recruitment). For the 3 availability conditions × 2 cognitive load conditions, this gave a total sample size of 3780.

However, due to issues with recruitment from the online panel, the total sample size could not be achieved. When this became apparent, recruitment was paused and a post-hoc internal pilot was conducted to determine whether additional data should be sought from an alternative source. The data obtained thus far was given to a statistician (who was not responsible for the study analyses), who conducted an updated sample size estimate, based on the actual effect size. This revised estimate suggested that a total sample size of 579 would allow a test the impact of availability on food choice with a power of 0.8. Given this sample had already been achieved, recruitment was halted.

Anyone completing the survey in less than 30% of the median time was excluded (no participants met this exclusion criteria). In addition, participants had to correctly answer a quality control question as part of the study to ensure that they are paying attention to the questions (“How many times have you visited the planet Mars?”). Anyone answering incorrectly (i.e. any answer other than “Never”) was screened out and was not counted towards the study quotas ( n  = 321).

Outcome: Food choice (healthier or less healthy)

Participants’ choice of a healthier or less healthy snack food was the main study outcome. Participants were asked which of an array of items they would most like to eat right now, with the array differing depending on their assigned availability condition.

Healthier vs. less healthy foods

The study focused on pre-packaged snack food, with the relative healthiness of snack foods defined by kcal per pack. While this does not encompass the full picture with regard to healthier diets, reducing the energy consumed from discretionary foods like snacks – which tend to have limited nutritional value [ 41 ] – is a relevant public health target, given adults on average consume 200 kcal per day over their recommended energy intake in the UK [ 42 ].

Healthier snack foods: 100 kcal or less per pack. The 100 kcal limit was chosen based on Change4Life’s recommendation of a 400 kcal per day allowance for snacks and drinks [ 43 ], dividing this into a 100 kcal allowance for two snacks and two drinks.

Less healthy snack foods: 200 kcal or more per pack. This would then mean that consuming two of these snacks daily would exceed Change4Life’s recommended allowance, without considering drinks.

Piloting of healthy and less healthy food choices

A pilot survey was conducted to choose the snack foods to use in the main study. One hundred UK adults were recruited by the same market research company, with equal quotas by the same three occupational groups. Participants were presented with pictures of food items (front-of-pack only), and asked to rate these on familiarity, appeal, serving size and healthiness.

This pilot work identified a selection of six healthier and six less healthy snack foods whereby:

Healthier items all had higher mean perceived healthiness scores than any of the less healthy items;

Healthier and less healthy foods were matched in terms of perceived familiarity;

All packages were perceived as single-serve.

The six healthier options were Alpen Light Chocolate and Fudge bar (19 g), Special K Red Berry Cereal bar (21.5 g), Nakd Banana Bread bar (30 g), Walkers Pops Original (19 g), Sunbites Lightly Salted Popcorn (20 g) and Kettle Bites Maple Barbeque Waves (22 g). The six less healthy options were: Reese’s Snack Mix (56 g), Dairy Milk Big Taste Toffee Whole Nut bar (43 g), Niknaks Nice ‘N’ Spicy (50 g), Kettle Chips Crispy Bacon and Maple Syrup (40 g), Lindt Lindor Milk Chocolate Orange bar (38 g), Walkers Max Paprika (50 g).

Food items were not matched on appeal, given that food appeal may vary between healthier and less healthy foods, and may mediate some of the pathway between socioeconomic status and food choice.

• Socioeconomic status

This was assessed via four indicators: (1) occupational group; (2) highest educational qualification, (3) total annual household income, and (4) Index of Multiple Deprivation scores.

Participants’ occupational group was provided by the market research company. In addition, participants were asked to indicate their highest educational qualification and total annual household income (see Table  1 for the categorisations used). Index of Multiple Deprivation scores were derived from participants’ postcodes (using adjusted indices to account for participants being from different parts of the UK [ 44 ]).

Food appeal

Participants were presented with pictures of snack foods, including those used in the food choice task, and rated “How enjoyable is eating this food?” using a seven-point scale from Unenjoyable – Enjoyable (e.g. [ 45 ]). The order in which pictures were presented was randomised.

Response inhibition

The Short-form UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale (SUPPS-P [ 46 ]) was used as a trait measure of impulsivity. The order in which items were presented was randomised.

Members of the market research panel were sent a link to the study website, where the study was described as investigating the appeal of snack food. After consenting to the study, they rated pictures of snack foods for enjoyability (food appeal) and completed the SUPPS-P (response inhibition). The quality control question was embedded within the picture rating section; participants answering this incorrectly were screened out of the survey. Following this, participants were randomised to one of six groups (two cognitive load conditions x three availability conditions). All participants were asked to memorise a 7-digit number (either a complex string for high cognitive load or a simple string for low cognitive load). Participants needed to press two keys (‘Q’ and ‘P’) simultaneously to reveal the number (to discourage cheating on this task, given it was conducted online), which was displayed for 10 s (using Inquisit Web). Participants were then shown an array of food items on screen, and asked to select the item that they would most like to eat right now. The image for each item displayed the front-of-pack only. Each participant saw a single array, from which they were able to select one item. The number of healthier and less healthy foods in the array differed depending on their assigned availability condition. The food items offered to each participant were selected at random from the pool of healthier and less healthy items, and their positions in the array were also randomly determined (operationalised in Inquisit by setting the selection mode to random). Following the food choice, participants were asked to recall the 7-digit number that they had memorised. Finally participants completed a set of demographic questions, including socioeconomic status measures, and hunger ratings (using a 7-pt rating scale from Very hungry – Very full).

Changes from study pre-registration

Two changes were made after pre-registration of this study ( https://osf.io/nxt4s/ ):

Firstly, the sample size was reduced, as outlined above, due to problems with recruitment

Secondly, due to concerns about the length of the survey, the planned implicit measures of food appeal and response inhibition were moved to a secondary study session, and as such are not reported here. We used the explicit measures of food appeal and response inhibition described here to explore our hypotheses with regard to these variables.

Hypothesis 1 ( Increasing the number of less healthy food items has a larger effect than increasing the number of healthier food items ):

This was analysed via logistic regression (using Stata SE version 12.1) predicting choice of a healthier food option, with dummy variables indicating the availability and cognitive load conditions as the key predictors. For availability, the two healthier & two less healthy choices condition was the reference group, with two dummy variables for the other availability conditions indicating (1) increase in healthier options and (2) increase in less healthy options. For cognitive load, a dummy variable indicating high load was used. Control variables included socioeconomic status, gender, age and hunger.

Hypotheses 2a & 2b: Cognitive load ( Participants under high cognitive load will not be significantly more or significantly less likely to choose healthier foods after seeing a greater number of healthier food options than those under low cognitive load; Participants under high cognitive load are more likely to choose less healthy foods after seeing a greater number of less healthy food options than those under low cognitive load ):

Interactions between availability condition and cognitive load were added to the model used for hypothesis 1. That is, dummy variables indicating (1) high_cognitive_load* increase_in_healthier_options; (2) high_cognitive_load* increase_in_less_healthy_options.

Hypotheses 3a & 3b: Socioeconomic status ( Participants with higher socioeconomic status are more likely to choose healthier foods after seeing a greater number of healthier food options than those with lower socioeconomic status; Participants with higher socioeconomic status are less likely to choose less healthy foods after seeing a greater number of less healthy food options than those with lower socioeconomic status ):

Interactions between availability condition and socioeconomic status (separately for each of the four indicators) were added to the model used for hypothesis 1. Socioeconomic patterning was examined for each different measure, given that these indices are thought to be conceptually distinct, and have different pathways of influence. Each socioeconomic indicator was modelled as a set of dummy variables, using the categorisations shown in Table 1 .

For example, for the occupational group socioeconomic status indicator, with occupational group A&B as the reference, these interactions were dummy variables indicating (1) occupational_group_C1&C2* increase_in_healthier_options; (2) occupational_group_D&E* increase_in_healthier_options; (3) occupational_group_C1&C2* increase_in_less_healthy_options; (4) occupational_group_D&E* increase_in_less_healthy_options.

Hypothesis 4 ( Response inhibition and food appeal both partially mediate the impact of socioeconomic status on food choice ):

If the analyses in (1) and (3) suggested a relationship between socioeconomic status and food choice, separate mediation analyses were planned to investigate the extent to which (a) response inhibition variables and (b) food appeal variables mediate any relationship between socioeconomic status (each indicator separately) and food choice.

For our primary hypothesis (hypothesis 1), we used p  < 0.05 (two-tailed) to infer if there was a statistically significant effect. For the remaining analyses (secondary hypotheses regarding interactions and mediators), we used a p -value < 0.0027 (two-tailed), using a Bonferroni adjustment to account for the different hypotheses tested and analyses by different SES indicators ( p  = 0.05/18).

Table 1 shows the study group allocation and characteristics of the 1509 study participants. Their mean age was 49.6 (s.d. 15.4; range 18–92), and 46.6% identified as female (the remainder identifying as male).

Figure  1 shows the percentage of participants choosing a healthier option, broken down by cognitive load condition (see Additional file  1 : Table S1 for numbers in each group). The pattern of results here suggests a strong effect of availability (55% choosing a healthier item with increased healthier options vs. 38% with equal options vs. 12% with increased less healthy options), with limited impact apparent by cognitive load condition.

Percentage choosing healthier option by cognitive load condition

Hypothesis 1

Figure  2 presents the results of logistic regressions used to test the impact of availability for healthier vs. less healthy food options (Hypothesis 1; see Additional file 1 : Table S2 for full results). The odds of choosing a healthier option are twice as high (OR: 2.0, 95%CI: 1.6, 2.6) when offered six healthier options and two less healthy, than when offered two healthier and two less healthy options. The odds of choosing a less healthy option (i.e. reversing the outcome measure to obtain comparable odds ratios) are four times higher (OR: 4.3, 95%CI: 3.1, 6.0) when offered two healthier options and six less healthy, than when offered two healthier and two less healthy options. Comparing these two odds ratios (using Stata’s ‘contrast’ command), the odds of making a less healthy choice after seeing an increased number of less healthy options are 2.16 times higher (95%CI: 1.8, 2.5) than the odds of a healthier choice after seeing an increased number of healthier options.

Effects of increasing healthier vs. less healthy options on food choice: Odds ratios (and 95% CIs) of making a healthier (less healthy) choice with increased numbers of healthier (less healthy) options, relative to having equal numbers of healthier and less healthy options

Hypothesis 2

No significant main effects of cognitive load, or interactions between cognitive load and availability condition, were shown in analyses of food choice (see Additional file 1 : Table S3).

Hypothesis 3

Figure  3 shows the percentage choosing healthier options by occupational group. Regression analyses found no significant differences in choosing a healthier option across socioeconomic status using any of the four measures examined. Similarly, no interactions between any measure of socioeconomic status and availability condition were shown in analyses (see Additional file 1 : Tables S4a-d).

Percentage choosing healthier options by occupational group 1 . 1 A&B: Higher and intermediate managerial, administrative and professional occupations; C1&C2: Supervisory, clerical and junior managerial, administrative and professional occupations; D&E: Semi-skilled and unskilled manual occupations

Hypothesis 4

Given the expected socioeconomic patterning in food choice was not found, the planned mediation analysis for hypothesis 4 was not applicable. Exploratory regression analyses (using p -value < 0.002, to adjust for the additional comparisons) instead examined the two halves of the pathway in the proposed mediation, i.e. (1) whether socioeconomic status predicted (i) food appeal and (ii) response inhibition; and (2) whether (i) food appeal and (ii) response inhibition predicted food choice.

Analyses showed no significant differences by any measure of socioeconomic status for either food appeal or response inhibition (see Additional file 1 : Table S5).

Both enjoyment ratings (food appeal) but not SUPPS-P scores (response inhibition) predicted food choice (see Additional file 1 : Table S6), with higher odds of participants choosing a healthier option if they had less liking for less healthy snacks (OR: 0.41, 95%CI: 0.35, 0.49) or greater liking for healthier snacks (OR: 2.17, 95%CI: 1.84, 2.57)).

The results of this study suggest that altering the availability of less healthy food may have more impact on the healthiness of food choices than altering the availability of healthier food, supporting Hypothesis 1. Indeed, the odds of making a less healthy choice after seeing an increased number of less healthy options were twice as high as the odds of a healthier choice after seeing an increased number of healthier options. This is one of the first experimental studies to explore the relative effectiveness of healthier vs. less healthy food cues at influencing behaviour.

These results tie in with previous observational research looking at both food availability and price [ 15 , 16 , 17 ], which suggested people may be more responsive to cues encouraging less healthy food choices. This may in part reflect differential appeal of healthier and less healthy items (less healthy items were rated as more enjoyable to eat in the current study), with people perhaps being more responsive to cues for foods they find more appealing. That said, in the exploratory analyses the effects of availability did not change when enjoyment ratings for healthier and less healthy snack foods were included in models. While previous experimental studies examining the effect of proximity of healthier and less healthy foods have not suggested differential responsiveness [ 18 , 19 ], the current study set-up involves both a wider range of food items and an explicit choice (rather than being able to select both), which may allow an effect of food healthiness to be more readily observed.

The study also explored additional hypotheses relating to the potential for cognitive load or socioeconomic status to modify the impact of these different food cues. However, the results suggested no significant main effects on food choice, or interactions with availability condition for either cognitive load or socioeconomic status. As such, the other hypothesised relationships were not supported by these analyses.

In terms of cognitive load, the two main explanations for the effects found here are that the manipulation we used was not effective, or that it was effective but the choices made were not affected by cognitive load. It cannot be discounted that the manipulation may not have impacted on cognitive load as strongly as expected, as it was not possible to include a manipulation check due to concerns about survey length. Given that Shiv and Fedorikhin found that the effect of cognitive load in their study was only apparent when actual foods were presented [ 33 ], repeating this element of the study with choices between physically-present foods would be valuable. Nevertheless, the lack of effect may indicate that cognitive load did not influence people’s choice of food, as has previously been demonstrated in studies of food proximity [ 47 ]. This could suggest that altering the availability of healthier and less healthy food impacts behaviour without requiring cognitive resource, such as response inhibition, as has been hypothesised for interventions targeting physical micro-environments [ 3 , 9 ]. If so, then this could mean that this intervention is likely to be effective regardless of people’s current cognitive resources, which would be promising in terms of the potential for such interventions to change behaviour across socioeconomic groups.

While socioeconomic patterning in diet is well documented [ 48 , 49 , 50 ], this does vary by food type [ 51 ]. The results here suggest that the snack foods used in the current study may represent a set of food for which appeal and choice does not differ across socioeconomic groups. As such, if there is any differential response to certain types of food cue by socioeconomic status, driven in part by differential response inhibition or food appeal, this would not be picked up in the current study. On the other hand, if the lack of social patterning seen here in responses to the intervention does prove consistent across food types, this would suggest that interventions targeting food availability would be unlikely to widen health inequalities.

In terms of the potential for response inhibition and food appeal to mediate differences in food choice by socioeconomic group, exploratory analyses suggested that food appeal (but not response inhibition) predicted food choice in the current investigation. While these results support food appeal as a potential driver of diet-related behaviour, the lack of effect of response inhibition is in contrast to those seen in previous studies [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. However, given that the SUPPS-P is a trait-level measure, this may reflect that while measures such as the SUPPS-P might predict aggregated food choices over time, they may not be discriminatory for a one-off task.

Strengths and limitations

This study offers a novel test of the relative impact of increasing healthier vs. less healthy food cues, matching healthier and less healthy food items on familiarity and controlling for the number of each. The study was conducted using a large sample, broadly representative of the UK in terms of age and gender, and with quotas ensuring equal representation by occupational status. It should be noted, however, that this did not equate to the sample being representative across all socioeconomic indicators, with the sample being more highly educated than the UK as a whole. Nonetheless, this study provides some of the most robust evidence to date that there may be a stronger impact of reducing less healthy food cues than increasing – by an equivalent number – healthier food cues.

However, several limitations to the study should be noted. Firstly, as this was an online study, the food choice task did not include selection with physically present foods or consumption. This can be addressed in subsequent studies using a food choice task in which participants receive the food item in question. Secondly, it was not possible to include a manipulation check for the cognitive load manipulation due to concerns over study length. While other studies have used a similar task to manipulate cognitive load [ 33 , 34 , 35 ], uncertainty remains in the current context. Thirdly, while focusing on only a small number of food items was necessary for this online food choice task, this limited the potential to examine socioeconomic patterning, seen when looking across diets. Indeed, investigating a wider range of foods, including items that have a healthier nutritional profile overall – rather than focusing only on lower energy items – would be a valuable extension to this study. Finally, including implicit (state rather than trait) measures of food appeal and response inhibition concurrent with the food choice task would strengthen testing of these potential pathways, in particular, for response inhibition.

Implications for research and policy

These results require replication, in particular, in real world settings used by those who are more and less socially deprived, and altering availability in additional ways such as changing the number but not the range of options. If replicated, the greater impact of less healthy food cues compared to healthier food cues would prioritise removing less healthy cues over adding healthier cues in policies for healthier eating. Further research could also explore the potential for differential effects by socioeconomic status through examining a broader range of foods or food types for which consumption is known to be socially patterned. Establishing which cues are most influential on behaviour, and in particular which have the greatest impact on more socially deprived groups, could help in designing more effective public health interventions to reduce both the substantial burden of non-communicable diseases and their contribution to health inequalities.

This study provides a novel test of the relative impact of healthier vs. less healthy food cues on food choice, suggesting that less healthy food cues may be more influential. Further work is required to try to replicate these findings in experiments requiring participants to make choices between physically-present food items, and when using different ways of altering availability, as well as to explore the potential for differential effects by socioeconomic status using other food options. If replicated, the greater impact of less healthy food cues than healthier food cues should prioritise a healthier eating policy focus on reducing less healthy food cues rather than increasing healthier cues.

Abbreviations

Body mass index

Non-communicable diseases

Short-form Urgency, Premeditation (lack of), Perseverance (lack of), Sensation Seeking, Positive Urgency, Impulsive Behavior Scale

Forouzanfar MH, Alexander L, Anderson HR, Bachman VF, Biryukov S, Brauer M, Burnett R, Casey D, Coates MM, Cohen A, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990&#x2013;2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2287–323.

Article   Google Scholar  

Wang H, Naghavi M, Allen C, Barber RM, Bhutta ZA, Carter A, Casey DC, Charlson FJ, Chen AZ, Coates MM, et al. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980&#x2013;2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1459–544.

Marteau TM, Hollands GJ, Fletcher PC. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science. 2012;337(6101):1492–5.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, Roland M, Suhrcke M, Kelly MP. Judging nudging: can nudging improve population health? BMJ. 2011;342:d228.

Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. 2nd ed. London, UK: Penguin; 2008.

Google Scholar  

Hollands GJ, Bignardi G, Johnston M, Kelly MP, Ogilvie D, Petticrew M, Prestwich A, Shemilt I, Sutton S, Marteau TM. The TIPPME intervention typology for changing environments to change behaviour. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:0140.

Hofmann W, Friese M, Strack F. Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4(2):162–76.

Strack F, Deutsch R. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(3):220–47.

Wood W. Habit in personality and social psychology. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2017;21(4):389–403.

McKinsey Global Institute: Overcoming obesity: An initial economic analysis. In . ; 2014.

Allan JL, Querstret D, Banas K, de Bruin M. Environmental interventions for altering eating behaviours of employees in the workplace: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2017;18(2):214–26.

Hollands GJ, Carter P, Shemilt I, Marteau TM, Jebb SA, Higgins J, Ogilvie D. Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012573 .

Grech A, Allman-Farinelli M. A systematic literature review of nutrition interventions in vending machines that encourage consumers to make healthier choices. Obes Rev. 2015;16(12):1030–41.

Pechey R, Cartwright E, Pilling M, Hollands GJ, Vasiljevic M, Jebb SA, Marteau TM. Impact of increasing the proportion of healthier foods available on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias: A stepped wedge randomized controlled pilot trial. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.11.013 .

Rose D, Hutchinson PL, Bodor JN, Swalm CM, Farley TA, Cohen DA, Rice JC. Neighborhood food environments and body mass index: the importance of in-store contents. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(3):214–9.

Nakamura R, Suhrcke M, Jebb SA, Pechey R, Almiron-Roig E, Marteau TM. Price promotions on healthier compared with less healthy foods: a hierarchical regression analysis of the impact on sales and social patterning of responses to promotions in Great Britain. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(4):808–16.

Talukdar D, Lindsey C. To buy or not to buy: Consumers’ demand response patterns for healthy versus unhealthy food. J Mark. 2013;77(2):124–38.

Musher-Eizenman DR, Young KM, Laurene K, Galliger C, Hauser J, Oehlhof MW. Children’s sensitivity to external food cues: how distance to serving bowl influences Children’s consumption. Health Educ Behav. 2010;37(2):186–92 10.1177/1090198109335656.

Privitera GJ, Zuraikat FM. Proximity of foods in a competitive food environment influences consumption of a low calorie and a high calorie food. Appetite. 2014;76:175–9.

Molaodi O, Leyland A, Ellaway A, Kearns A, Harding S. Neighbourhood food and physical activity environments in England, UK: does ethnic density matter? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9(1):75.

Smith DM, Cummins S, Taylor M, Dawson J, Marshall D, Sparks L, Anderson AS. Neighbourhood food environment and area deprivation: spatial accessibility to grocery stores selling fresh fruit and vegetables in urban and rural settings. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(1):277–84.

Cummins S, Smith DM, Taylor M, Dawson J, Marshall D, Sparks L, Anderson AS. Variations in fresh fruit and vegetable quality by store type, urban–rural setting and neighbourhood deprivation in Scotland. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(11):2044–50.

Diamond A. Executive Functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64(1):135–68.

Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Harrington H, Houts R, Poulton R, Roberts BW, Ross S, et al. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108(7):2693–8.

Raver CC, Blair C, Willoughby M. Poverty as a predictor of 4-year-olds’ executive function: new perspectives on models of differential susceptibility. Dev Psychol. 2013;49(2):292.

Vainik U, Dagher A, Dubé L, Fellows LK. Neurobehavioural correlates of body mass index and eating behaviours in adults: a systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37(3):279–99.

Allan JL, Johnston M, Campbell N. Unintentional eating. What determines goal-incongruent chocolate consumption? Appetite. 2010;54(2):422–5.

Allan JL, Johnston M, Campbell N. Missed by an inch or a mile? Predicting the size of intention–behaviour gap from measures of executive control. Psychol Health. 2011;26(6):635–50.

Hall PA. Executive control resources and frequency of fatty food consumption: findings from an age-stratified community sample. Health Psychol. 2012;31(2):235–41.

Collins A, Mullan B. An extension of the theory of planned behavior to predict immediate hedonic behaviors and distal benefit behaviors. Food Qual Prefer. 2011;22(7):638–46.

Allom V, Mullan B. Individual differences in executive function predict distinct eating behaviours. Appetite. 2014;80:123–30.

Lowe CJ, Hall PA, Staines WR. The effects of continuous theta burst stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on executive function, food cravings, and snack food consumption. Psychosom Med. 2014;76(7):503–11.

Shiv B, Fedorikhin A. Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. J Consum Res. 1999;26(3):278–92.

Van Dillen LF, Papies EK, Hofmann W. Turning a blind eye to temptation: how cognitive load can facilitate self-regulation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013;104(3):427–43.

Zimmerman FJ, Shimoga SV. The effects of food advertising and cognitive load on food choices. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):342.

Nederkoorn C, Houben K, Hofmann W, Roefs A, Jansen A. Control yourself or just eat what you like? Weight gain over a year is predicted by an interactive effect of response inhibition and implicit preference for snack foods. Health Psychol. 2010;29(4):389–93.

Appelhans BM, Woolf K, Pagoto SL, Schneider KL, Whited MC, Liebman R. Inhibiting food reward: delay discounting, food reward sensitivity, and palatable food intake in overweight and obese women. Obesity. 2011;19(11):2175–82.

Hofmann W, Friese M, Roefs A. Three ways to resist temptation: the independent contributions of executive attention, inhibitory control, and affect regulation to the impulse control of eating behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009;45(2):431–5.

Rollins BY, Dearing KK, Epstein LH. Delay discounting moderates the effect of food reinforcement on energy intake among non-obese women. Appetite. 2010;55(3):420–5.

Turrell G. Socioeconomic differences in food preference and their influence on healthy food purchasing choices. J Hum Nutr Diet. 1998;11(2):135–49.

Dunford E, Popkin B. Disparities in snacking trends in US adults over a 35 year period from 1977 to 2012. Nutrients. 2017;9(8):809.

Public Health England. Calorie reduction: The scope and ambition for action. London, UK: Public Health England; 2018.

Calories [ https://www.nhs.uk/change4life/food-facts/healthier-snacks-for-kids/100-calorie-snacks ].

Abel GA, Barclay ME, Payne RA. Adjusted indices of multiple deprivation to enable comparisons within and between constituent countries of the UK including an illustration using mortality rates. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012750.

Hollands GJ, Prestwich A, Marteau TM. Using aversive images to enhance healthy food choices and implicit attitudes: an experimental test of evaluative conditioning. Health Psychol. 2011;30(2):195–203.

Cyders MA, Littlefield AK, Coffey S, Karyadi KA. Examination of a short English version of the UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale. Addict Behav. 2014;39(9):1372–6.

Hunter JA, Hollands GJ, Couturier D-L, Marteau TM. Effect of snack-food proximity on intake in general population samples with higher and lower cognitive resource. Appetite. 2018;121:337–47.

Galobardes B, Morabia A, Bernstein MS. Diet and socioeconomic position: does the use of different indicators matter? Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(2):334–40.

Giskes K, Avendaňo M, Brug J, Kunst AE. A systematic review of studies on socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes associated with weight gain and overweight/obesity conducted among European adults. Obes Rev. 2010;11(6):413–29.

French S, Wall M, Mitchell N. Household income differences in food sources and food items purchased. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7(1):77.

Pechey R, Jebb SA, Kelly MP, Almiron-Roig E, Conde S, Nakamura R, Shemilt I, Suhrcke M, Marteau TM. Socioeconomic differences in purchases of more vs. less healthy foods and beverages: analysis of over 25,000 British households in 2010. Soc Sci Med. 2013;92(Supplement C):22–6.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mark Pilling for statistical advice.

RP is supported by a Wellcome Research Fellowship in Society and Ethics [106679/Z/14/Z] and the Behaviour and Health Research Unit is funded by the Department of Health Policy Research Programme (Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health [PR-UN-0409-10109]). The funders had no role in the design of the study, in collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset generated during the current study is available in the Open Science Framework https://osf.io/54rfg/ (data dictionary: https://osf.io/hw3gc/ ).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK

Rachel Pechey & Theresa M. Marteau

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RP designed the study, collected data, performed the statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript. TMM participated in study design and critical revision of the manuscript. Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Pechey .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee (Pre.2017.016). All participants provided written informed consent online.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

Table S1. Percentage (n) choosing healthier option. Table S2. Results of logistic regression predicting healthier food choice (less healthy food choice for alternative outcome row) from availability conditions, controlling for age, gender, hunger, social class. Table S3. Results of logistic regression predicting healthier food choice from availability conditions, with interactions by cognitive load. Tables S4a-d. Results of logistic regressions predicting healthier food choice from availability conditions, with interactions by socioeconomic status. Table S5. Regression coefficients predicting (i) enjoyment of healthier snack options, (ii) enjoyment of less healthy snack options and (iii) SUPPS-P total scores from socioeconomic status, controlling for availability condition, cognitive load condition, gender, age and hunger. Table S6. Results of logistic regression predicting healthier food choice from availability conditions, with enjoyment ratings and impulsivity (SUPPS-P) as predictors. (DOCX 42 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pechey, R., Marteau, T.M. Availability of healthier vs. less healthy food and food choice: an online experiment. BMC Public Health 18 , 1296 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6112-3

Download citation

Received : 08 March 2018

Accepted : 11 October 2018

Published : 29 November 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6112-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Healthiness
• Availability
• Cognitive load

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Food Junk Food

Similarities and Differences Between Healthy and Junk Food

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• American Food and Nutrition
• Artificial Sweeteners

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How information about what is “healthy” versus “unhealthy” impacts children’s consumption of otherwise identical foods

Jasmine m. dejesus.

1 University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Katherine M. Du

2 Duke University

Kristin Shutts

3 University of Wisconsin-Madison

Katherine D. Kinzler

4 Cornell University

Associated Data

Can brief messages about health influence children’s consumption of identical foods? Across a series of studies, we manipulated children’s consumption of identical foods (fruit sauces) by pairing those foods with brief messages about each food’s health status. What initially appeared to be a preference for foods described as healthy among 5–6-year-old children ( Studies 1 – 2 ) actually reflected a preference for alternatives to foods described as unhealthy ( Studies 3 – 5 ), including comparison foods that were described with negative or neutral content. Although the two foods on each trial were identical, children consistently ate more of the alternative to a food described as unhealthy. Similar effects were observed among 8–9-year-old children ( Study 6 ). These results demonstrate that children’s eating behavior is affected by messages they receive from other people, including messages about health. Further, these studies reveal basic psychological mechanisms that contribute to children’s choices among foods, which could lead to effective interventions in the food domain.

Learning what to eat is a critical problem of development. Several human food preferences are observed early in life and across cultures. From infancy, humans prefer sweet and salty flavors (which signal that foods are calorically dense) and avoid bitter flavors (which signal that foods could be toxic) ( Birch, 1990 , 1999 ; Coldwell, Oswald, & Reed, 2009 ; Mennella, Finkbeiner, Lipchock, Hwang, & Reed, 2014 ; Mennella, Lukasewycz, Griffith, & Beauchamp, 2011 ; Ventura & Mennella, 2011 ). Children and adults also favor foods they have eaten before and avoid things they have not tried or that they associate with sickness ( Aldridge, Dovey, & Halford, 2009 ; Bernstein, 1978 , 1994 ; Birch & Marlin, 1982 ; Garb & Stunkard, 1974 ; Hausner, Nicklaus, Issanchou, Mølgaard, & Møller, 2009 ; Mennella, Jagnow, & Beauchamp, 2001 ). Although these early preferences shape human eating behavior in important ways, they do not explain the rich cultural diversity and social meaning that characterizes human food selection ( Rozin, 2005 ; Rozin & Schiller, 1980 ). Moreover, in the modern food environment, humans cannot rely exclusively on early flavor and familiarity preferences to develop a healthy diet ( Gearhardt, Grilo, DiLeone, Brownell, & Potenza, 2011 ; Mennella, Bobowski, & Reed, 2016 ). Fortunately, people do not need to choose foods in isolation. Children can determine which foods comprise a healthy, culturally appropriate diet by learning from other people ( DeJesus, Kinzler, & Shutts, 2019 ; Nguyen, 2012 ; Shutts, Kinzler, & DeJesus, 2013 ; Wertz & Wynn, 2014 ). The current paper investigates whether brief messages about health impact children’s food intake, particularly when the foods only differ in the way they are described by another person (e.g., as “healthy” or “unhealthy”).

Health messages provide an interesting case study for social learning because the literature is relatively mixed regarding the influence of different types of health messages on children’s eating behavior. Some past efforts to increase children’s acceptance of healthy foods have even backfired: In one study with 9- to 11-year-old children, participants rated a drink labeled as “healthy” more negatively than a drink labeled as “new” and reported that they would be less likely to ask their parents to purchase the “healthy” drink ( Wardle & Huon, 2000 ). Similarly, 3–5-year-old children presented with a food described as “healthy” chose to eat less of it than a control food, suggesting an early association between “healthy” and “not tasting good” ( Maimaran & Fishbach, 2014 ). In contrast, interventions that build on young children’s early intuitions that food serves important health functions ( Inagaki & Hatano, 2004 ; Wellman & Johnson, 1982 )—for example, by providing a theory-driven, causal framework to understand nutrition or by giving lessons about the connection between food and the body—have been shown to increase preschool-age children’s nutrition knowledge ( Gripshover & Markman, 2013 ; Nguyen, McCullough, & Noble, 2011 ; Sigman-Grant et al., 2014 ) and their vegetable consumption ( Gripshover & Markman, 2013 ). The success of interventions that teach about nutrition and the body suggest that children are capable of conceptually rich thinking about food, that such thinking is related to children’s food choices, and that children are capable of classifying foods as healthy vs. “junk” at as early as 3 years ( Nguyen, 2007 ). However, such interventions are also highly resource-intensive, unfold over long periods of time, and would be difficult for most parents, schools, and clinicians to implement.

Developing brief, inexpensive interventions that could promote healthy eating in childhood, as well as understanding the psychological mechanisms underlying children’s responses to these interventions, are important contributions to efforts to promote children’s health and reduce childhood obesity ( Cunningham, Kramer, & Narayan, 2014 ; Ebbeling, Pawlak, & Ludwig, 2002 ; Freedman et al., 2005 ; Levi, Segal, Rayburn, & Martin, 2015 ; Nader et al., 2006 ; Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2014 ; Wang & Beydoun, 2007 ). The potential for social learning to encourage healthier food choices is especially important given that, on average, children in the United States are not meeting recommendations for fruit and vegetable intake ( Kim et al., 2014 ; Muñoz, Krebs-Smith, Ballard-Barbash, & Cleveland, 1997 ). Further, the modern food environment is replete with misleading signals such as nonnutritive sweeteners and easily accessible foods that are high in sugar, fat, and salt ( Gearhardt et al., 2011 ; Mennella et al., 2016 ). In addition to the high prevalence of clearly unhealthy foods, the health status of many foods is ambiguous. For example, lay opinion is that that yogurt is healthy; yet, yogurts (especially yogurts with child-friendly marketing) are often very high in sugar ( Moore, Horti, & Fielding, 2018 ). Therefore, discovering strategies that promote healthier food choices – especially early in development – is critical.

Across a series of studies employing a common method, we presented children with pairs of identical foods, each described using a different message. We aimed to better understand the early psychological impact of brief health messages on children’s eating behavior. Describing identical foods using different messages allowed us to isolate the effect of message content (compared to a food’s flavor, ingredients, packaging, or appearance). Message content was manipulated across studies. We primarily recruited 5- and 6-year-old children in the present studies based on past studies showing that children are capable of reasoning about food and health by this age ( Gripshover & Markman, 2013 ; Nguyen, 2007 ; Sigman-Grant et al., 2014 ), but that children do not necessarily select healthy foods at this age or later in childhood ( Maimaran & Fishbach, 2014 ; Wardle & Huon, 2000 ). We measured actual consumption to obtain an ecologically valid assessment of the effect of message content on children’s choices. In addition to our primary measure of consumption, children were subsequently asked to evaluate the foods (and these evaluation data are presented in the Supplemental Materials , available on the Open Science Framework ).

In Studies 1 and 2 , we examined 5- and 6-year-old children’s intake of otherwise identical foods that were described with messages about their healthiness versus unhealthiness. After observing a general preference for “healthy” over “unhealthy” foods, we next examined the mechanisms underlying children’s differential consumption of foods: Does children’s consumption reflect a preference for healthy foods, a desire to avoid unhealthy foods, or both ( Studies 3 , 4 , and 5 )? Finally, in Studies 6 and 7 , we examined the scope of our observed effects by including older children (8–9-year-old children; Study 6 ) and by testing 5–6-year-old children with pared-down messages about the foods ( Study 7 ). All studies presented a variant of a common method, which is described in detail in Study 1 . Together, these studies provide a deeper understanding of the early psychology of food selection.

Study 1: Healthy vs. Unhealthy

In Study 1, an adult informant presented children in a university lab setting with one food described as healthy (“This food is very healthy. It has a lot of healthy ingredients. It will make your bones and muscles get strong”) and an identical food described as unhealthy (“This food is not very healthy. It does not have healthy ingredients. It won’t make your bones and muscles get strong”). Children’s consumption of the two foods was measured. We reasoned that children might eat more of the healthy food given that it was described more positively. Alternatively, past research suggests that children sometimes avoid eating a food described as “healthy” because they infer that it does not taste as good. ( Maimaran & Fishbach, 2014 ; Wardle & Huon, 2000 ).

Participants.

Participants included 32 5- and 6-year-old children. Children participated in a laboratory located in a city in the Midwestern region of the United States. See Table 1 for additional details on demographics and exclusions.

Participant characteristics in each study. Family income per year was rated on a 1 (< $15,000) to 9 (> $150,000) scale. In Study 1 , 12 families did not report their income (of these families, 16 parents reportedly held a bachelor’s degree or more). S1 and S2 refer to studies reported in supplemental materials .

Children were presented with two identical foods on each trial and each child participated in two trials. One trial used a single-serving snack package of Gerber® 2nd Foods Pear Blueberry sauce, while the other used a single-serving snack package of Motts® Natural Applesauce. For each trial, foods were prepared by dividing the single-serving cup of fruit sauce into two smaller plastic cups. Each small plastic cup was placed inside a larger bowl (yellow, green, red, or blue) with a white plastic spoon. Both foods in each trial were served on one tray for ease of movement.

These foods were selected because they are typically familiar to children of this age, so we expected that children would be generally willing to try this food in an unusual setting (i.e., the laboratory) and that parents would approve of children eating it. Neither food contained added sugars or artificial sweeteners. We have used these foods in related studies and found that children’s consumption and evaluation of these foods, despite their familiarity, can be influenced by context ( DeJesus, Shutts, & Kinzler, 2015 ; DeJesus, Shutts, & Kinzler, 2018 ). These fruit sauces are referred to as “food” throughout for brevity, but we return to the issue of generalizability to a broader range of foods in the General Discussion.

An experimenter brought the child into the testing room and introduced the child to a “teacher.” Children sat facing the teacher at a rectangular table containing one set of bowls and foods. The experimenter then left the room. A second experiment, the teacher, introduced herself to the child by saying, “I’m a teacher at a school right near here. I know a lot about the foods at my school. I’m going to tell you about some foods today.” The teacher then described each food to the child. For the healthy food, the teacher said, “This food is very healthy. It has a lot of healthy ingredients. It will make your bones and muscles get strong.” For the unhealthy food, the teacher said, “This food is not very healthy. It does not have healthy ingredients. It won’t make your bones and muscles get strong.” These messages were designed to ensure that all children had access to the same information about the meaning of “healthy” and “unhealthy” without providing any additional information about the food’s flavor, ingredients, or brand. We refer to these foods throughout the paper as “healthy” and “unhealthy” for brevity. (Though to note, in Study 7 , we specifically examine whether simply labeling foods as “healthy” and “unhealthy” without additional descriptions influenced children’s eating behavior.)

After the teacher described each food, the first experimenter returned to the testing room and said that the teacher was needed elsewhere. The teacher told the child, “you can eat whatever you want,” pushed the foods towards the child, and left the room. The experimenter remained in the room and appeared to read a magazine in the corner of the testing room while timing for 60 seconds, during which children could freely eat or not eat the provided foods. This parameter was set so there would be a clear end to each trial and so that all children would have an equal amount of time with the foods (whether they ate or not).

A research assistant sat behind a screen in the testing room and triggered a light placed outside the testing room to alert the experimenter to enter the room after the teacher completed the messages so that the experimenter would be unaware of the message content paired with each food. The research assistant triggered the light again to alert the teacher to enter the room for the second trial so that the teacher would be unaware of children’s eating behavior in the first trial. To reduce any overt social pressure children might feel to eat a particular food (or to eat at all), the teacher left the room while children ate and the experimenter unobtrusively supervised the study by appearing to read a magazine.

Food consumption was our primary measure of interest in this study and was measured as the number of bites of food children took in the study. Foods were also weighed before and after the test session. In addition, after participants had the opportunity to eat the foods, children were asked to evaluate each food on a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from “not yummy at all” to “really really yummy.” Children’s evaluations largely followed similar patterns to their consumption data (see Supplemental Materials ).

All procedures were approved by our Institutional Review Board. Parents of participating children provided written consent and completed demographic questionnaires and questionnaires asking about children’s food allergies. Children were tested between 2012 and 2017 and each child participated in only one of the studies reported here.

Design and Analyses.

The pairing of message to bowl (e.g., the red bowl to the healthy vs. unhealthy message) was counterbalanced across participants. Half of children heard a positive (healthy) message first on the first trial, whereas half of children heard a negative (unhealthy) message first on the first trial. Children who heard a positive message first on the first trial heard a negative message first on the second trial, and vice versa.

In Study 1 , as well as in all subsequent studies, we conducted a repeated-measures Poisson regression model with number of bites eaten as the outcome and food type (healthy, unhealthy; reference category = unhealthy) and gender (male, female; reference category = female) entered as predictors. For significant predictors, we report exponential effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals for significant predictors ( Coxe, 2018 ). Bites (rather than grams) were analyzed in this manner after inspection of the data revealed that responses were not normally distributed. Bites eaten provides a count variable that differentiates between true 0s and very small bites. Across studies, bites and grams for each child were highly correlated, r (312) = 0.89, p < .001 (grams data are presented in the Supplemental Table 1 ). Means and bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals are presented as descriptive statistics of children’s food intake.

We included gender in our analyses based on research showing that children prefer foods eaten by same-gender models ( Frazier, Gelman, Kaciroti, Russell, & Lumeng, 2012 ; Shutts, Banaji, & Spelke, 2010 ), as well as a previous study showing that girls (but not boys) ate more foods offered by peers than by teachers ( Hendy & Raudenbush, 2000 ). Additional analyses are described where relevant. The data and analysis code for all studies are available on the Open Science Framework .

Results and Discussion

Children ate more of the food described as healthy ( M = 6.28, CI = 4.37, 8.47) than the food described as unhealthy ( M = 2.03, CI = 1.31, 2.81), b = 1.13, SE = 0.14, z = 7.91, p < .001, exponential effect size = 3.09 (95% CI = 2.31, 4.10). No significant effect of gender was observed, b = −0.08, SE = 0.12, z = −0.61, p = .54. See Supplemental Materials for children’s evaluations and Table 2 for the number of participants who ate all foods, just one food type, or no foods across studies.

Number of participants who ate both foods, just one food, or neither food in each study. “Mixed across trials” refers to children who demonstrated different behaviors across trials (e.g., ate both foods on trial 1 and the healthier food in trial 2; ate the healthier food in trial 1 and no food in trial 2). S1 and S2 refer to studies reported in supplemental materials .

Given that children ate more of the healthy food, we next examined whether this finding was primarily driven by valence (i.e., children interpreting “healthy” as generally good and “unhealthy” as generally bad) or more specifically by the particular messages presented here, as well as the generalizability of this finding across contexts. Accordingly, in Study 2 , each food was described using one positive and one negative attribute.

Study 2: Healthy/Unpopular vs. Popular/Unhealthy

In Study 2, an adult described one food as healthy but not popular and described the other food as popular but not healthy (including explanatory details) in a laboratory context. If children interpret healthy and unhealthy messages as meaning generally “good” and “bad” (respectively), then they might not differentiate between the foods in Study 2, as each food had one positive and one negative attribute. If children do consider the described health status of foods, then they might eat more of the healthy/unpopular food than the popular/unhealthy food. Social messages were selected as the comparison because previous research reveals that children at this age prefer foods that have been endorsed by other children and people who match their social group membership ( Birch, 1980 ; DeJesus et al., 2018 ; Frazier et al., 2012 ; Hendy & Raudenbush, 2000 ; Shutts et al., 2010 ). Therefore, children may alternatively be inclined to eat a food described as popular among other children, compared to a food described as healthy.

Participants included 32 5- and 6-year-old children. Children participated in a laboratory in a Midwestern U. S. city (see Table 1 ).

The procedure was identical to Study 1 , except for the messages provided. For the healthy/unpopular food, children heard, “This food is very healthy but it is not very popular. It has a lot of healthy ingredients. It will make your bones and muscles get strong. But kids don’t think this food is a cool food to eat. No one eats it at school with their friends.” For the popular/unhealthy food, they heard, “This food is very popular but it is not very healthy. All the kids think it’s a cool food to eat. Everyone eats it at school with their friends. But this food does not have healthy ingredients. It won’t make your bones and muscles get strong.” The popular and unpopular messages were taken from a related study ( DeJesus et al., 2018 ), in which 5- and 6-year-old children ate more food described as popular than food described as unpopular and reported that the popular food tasted better than the unpopular food.

In addition to the counterbalancing structure reported in Study 1 , the presentation order for positive and negative components of each message was counterbalanced across participants.

Children ate more of the food described as healthy but not popular ( M = 5.75, CI = 3.47, 8.53) than the food described as popular but not healthy ( M = 2.16, CI = 1.31, 3.13), b = 0.98, SE = 0.14, z = 6.95, p < .001, exponential effect size = 2.67 ( CI = 2.03, 3.52; see Figure 1 , left). No significant effect of gender was observed, b = 0.09, SE = 0.13, z = 0.69, p = .49. See Supplemental Materials for children’s evaluations.

Box-and-whiskers plot of children’s consumption of foods described as healthy/unpopular and popular/unhealthy. The leftmost bars represent Study 2 ; the middle bars represent Supplemental Study 1 ; the rightmost bars represent Supplemental Study 2 .

Children’s preference for “healthy but not popular” foods could be considered somewhat surprising, particularly given past research showing that children like and consume more of foods that they think other children like to eat ( Birch, 1980 ; DeJesus et al., 2018 ; Frazier et al., 2012 ; Hendy & Raudenbush, 2000 ; Shutts et al., 2010 ), as well as studies finding that health messages can backfire ( Maimaran & Fishbach, 2014 ). Yet, this finding seems to be robust: We replicated and extended this basic finding in two different contexts, which are reported in full in the Supplemental Materials . In Supplemental Study 1 , we presented children with the messages from Study 2 in a school setting. In Supplemental Study 2 , a child informant presented children with the messages from Study 2 in a lab setting. Participants tested in both contexts (a school setting with an adult informant and in a lab setting with a child informant) similarly ate more of the food described as healthy but not popular than the food described as popular but not healthy. Overall, these studies provide striking evidence of children’s responses to health messages in guiding their consumption, even when choosing between otherwise identical foods.

One possibility is that children really do recognize the value of healthy eating, and our studies could provide evidence of this. American diets and nutrition knowledge have improved in recent years ( Guthrie, Derby, & Levy, 1999 ; Rehm, Peñalvo, Afshin, & Mozaffarian, 2016 ). Moreover, children are capable of learning about nutrition in the preschool years ( Gripshover & Markman, 2013 ; Nguyen, 2007 ). If so, simply telling children that foods are healthy could serve as a successful intervention to promote healthy eating. Alternatively, a different interpretation of the results from Studies 1 and 2 is that children’s behavior does not reflect an affinity for foods described as healthy. Instead, children’s performance may reflect a tendency to selectively avoid foods described as unhealthy. Our results might indicate that children preferentially consume alternatives to foods described as unhealthy, rather than seeking out healthy foods per se. In past studies demonstrating that children ate less of foods described as healthy ( Maimaran & Fishbach, 2014 ; Wardle & Huon, 2000 ), the alternative options presented were foods described as tasting good or foods described neutrally, but not foods described as unhealthy. Thus, children’s early and robust attention to the unhealthy component of the messages in Studies 1 and 2 could account for children’s differential food consumption. Studies 3 – 5 tested this possibility.

Studies 3–5: Do Children Prefer Healthy Foods or Avoid Unhealthy Foods?

Studies 3 – 5 examined whether children in previous studies were attracted to healthy foods or repelled by unhealthy foods (or both). In Studies 3 and 4 , we compared children’s consumption of foods described using a neutral message to foods described as unhealthy ( Study 3 ) and as healthy ( Study 4 ). In Study 5 , we compared children’s consumption of unhealthy vs. unpopular foods.

Study 3: Unhealthy vs. Neutral

Children in Study 3 were presented with a food described as unhealthy and a food described neutrally (including explanatory details). If children were motivated to select the alternative to an unhealthy food in previous studies, we would expect children to eat more of the neutral food than the unhealthy food.

Participants included 32 5- and 6-year-old children. Children participated in a laboratory study in a Midwestern U. S. city (see Table 1 ).

One food was described as unhealthy and one food was described neutrally. For the unhealthy food, the teacher again said, “This food is not very healthy. It does not have healthy ingredients. It won’t make your bones and muscles get strong.” For the neutral food, the teacher said, “This food is right here. It has a lot of ingredients. You can buy this food at the store.” Other than the change in message content, the method was identical to Study 1 .

Children ate more of the neutral food ( M = 7.62, CI = 5.41, 10.06) than the unhealthy food ( M = 3.72, CI = 2.44, 5.25), b = 0.72, SE = 0.11, z = 6.42, p < .001, exponential effect size = 2.05 ( CI = 1.66, 2.57; see Figure 2 , left). No significant effect of gender was observed, b = − 0.08, SE = 0.11, z = −0.72, p = .47. See Supplemental Materials for children’s evaluations.

Box-and-whiskers plot of children’s consumption of a food described with a neutral message, compared to either a food described as unhealthy ( Study 3 , left bars) or healthy ( Study 4 , right bars).

Children’s eating in Study 3 suggests that children prefer the alternative to an unhealthy food (rather than seeking out healthy foods). In Study 4 , we further examined this possibility by comparing children’s consumption of a healthy food and a neutral food.

Study 4: Healthy vs. Neutral

Children in Study 4 were presented with one food described as healthy and one food described neutrally (including explanatory details). If children are motivated to eat healthy foods directly, as opposed to the alternative to an unhealthy food, we would expect children to eat more of the healthy food compared to the neutral food. Alternatively, children might not differentiate between healthy and neutral foods, or might eat more of the neutral foods if they assume that healthy foods do not taste good.

One food was described as healthy and one food was described neutrally. For the healthy food, the teacher again said, “This food is very healthy. It has a lot of healthy ingredients. It will make your bones and muscles get strong.” For the neutral food, as in Study 3 , the teacher said, “This food is right here. It has a lot of ingredients. You can buy this food at the store.” Other than the change in message content, the method was identical to Study 1 .

We observed no significant effect of food type, b = −0.05, SE = 0.11, z = −0.40, p = .69 (see Figure 2 , right). Children ate similar amounts of the healthy food ( M = 4.75, CI = 3.25, 6.34) and the neutral food ( M = 4.97, CI = 3.41, 6.53). No significant gender effect was observed, b = 0.15, SE = 0.11, z = 1.30, p = .19. See Supplemental Materials for children’s evaluations.

Comparing across Studies 3 and 4 , children ate more of the food described as healthier ( M = 6.19, CI = 4.78, 7.63) than as less healthy ( M = 4.34, CI = 3.28, 5.52), b = 0.72, SE = 0.11, z = 6.42, p < .001, exponential effect size = 2.05 ( CI = 1.65, 2.57). Children also ate more in Study 3 ( M = 11.34, CI = 8.16, 14.9 than in Study 4 ( M = 9.72, CI = 6.88, 12.44), b = 0.29, SE = 0.12, z = 2.39, p = .017, exponential effect size = 1.34 ( CI = 1.05, 1.68). A significant interaction between food and study was also observed, b = −0.76, SE = 0.16, z = −4.79, p < .001, exponential effect size = 0.47 ( CI = 0.34, 0.63). To examine this interaction, we compared the difference in children’s bites of healthier vs. less healthy foods in Study 3 ( M = 3.91) to Study 4 ( M = −0.22) and found that this difference was significantly larger in Study 3 than Study 4 , t (57.69) = 3.61, p < .001.

These studies provide evidence that even young children consider the health status of a food when deciding what to eat. At the same time, the mechanisms underlying children’s choices may be different from those that adults would assume at first glance: Choices of healthy foods could reflect a selection among alternatives, rather than a specific interest in healthfulness. Children’s eating behavior also demonstrated variability across the presented foods, as shown in Figure 2 . Rather than reducing their intake of the unhealthy food (and potentially eating similar amounts of healthy and neutral food), children ate more neutral food. One possibility is that children view the “neutral” food differently depending on the alternative to which it is compared. Children may view the neutral food as a smart or desirable choice compared to the unhealthy food (and therefore eat more), but they may view the neutral food slightly less positively when compared with a healthy food. Another possibility is that children’s existing health knowledge does not necessarily translate into a useful health strategy at this stage. Children seem to respond based on a conceptualization of unhealthy foods as relatively less desirable, but they might not realize that a better health strategy would be to reduce their intake of unhealthy food (rather than increasing their intake of the alternative). These possibilities may operate in tandem to boost children’s intake of the neutral food (relative to unhealthy), rather than a pattern of eating in which healthy foods were maximized and unhealthy foods were minimized.

Study 5 provides an additional test of children’s willingness to eat the alternative to an unhealthy food – here, children were presented with one food described as unhealthy and one food described as unpopular. Given that children could reject both foods, Study 5 provides an especially stringent test of children’s tendency to eat the alternative to an unhealthy food. We hypothesized that children might eat more of the unpopular food than the unhealthy food, even though both foods were described negatively.

Study 5: Unhealthy vs. Unpopular

Children in Study 5 were presented with one food described as unhealthy and one food described as unpopular. If children primarily prefer healthy foods, we might not expect children to differentiate between these two foods, given that they were both described negatively. In contrast, if children’s responses in previous studies were primarily driven by a desire to avoid the unhealthy food, we would expect children to eat more of the unpopular food than the unhealthy food.

Foods were described as either unhealthy or unpopular. For the unhealthy food, the teacher said, “This food is not very healthy. It does not have healthy ingredients. It won’t make your bones and muscles get strong.” For the unpopular food, the teacher said, “This food is not very popular. Kids don’t think this food is a cool food to eat. No one eats it at school with their friends.” The procedure and design were otherwise identical to Study 1 .

Children ate more of the food described as unpopular ( M = 5.25, CI = 3.31, 7.56) than the food described as unhealthy ( M = 2.75, CI = 1.53, 4.38), b = 0.65, SE = 0.13, z = 4.91, p < .001, exponential effect size = 1.91 ( CI = 1.47, 2.46). No significant effect of gender was observed, b = −0.03, SE = 0.13, z = −0.25, p = .80. See Supplemental Materials for children’s evaluations.

Taken together, Studies 3 , 4 , and 5 suggest that children’s patterns of eating are best characterized as consuming the alternative to an unhealthy food, rather than seeking out healthy foods. Children ate more of the neutral food compared to the unhealthy food ( Study 3 ), yet they did not distinguish between a healthy food and a neutral food ( Study 4 ). Study 5 provided additional evidence that children eat more of the alternative to an unhealthy food: Both foods were described negatively and children could have rejected both foods. Yet, children ate more of the food described as unpopular than the food described as unhealthy.

Studies 6 & 7: Scope of the Effect

In two final studies, we examined the scope and generalizability of children’s consumption of the alternative to an unhealthy food. We replicated our basic finding with 8- and 9-year-old children ( Study 6 ) and presented 5- and 6-year-old children with simpler messages about health and popularity without explanatory details about those concepts ( Study 7 ).

Study 6: Healthy/Unpopular vs. Popular/Unhealthy (Older Children)

In Study 6, we recruited older children (8- and 9-year-olds) to participate in the same procedure as Study 2 : Children were presented with one food described as healthy but not popular and one food described as popular but not healthy (including explanatory details). We tested older children to explore the possibility that children’s consideration of messages about health versus popularity may shift with age. In particular, research suggests that as children age, popularity and social status become more important to them, and children’s peer networks become structured around friendship-based social groups ( Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 2006 ; Putallaz & Gottman, 1981 ; Rubin, Bukowski, & Bowker, 2015 ). By adolescence, interventions that align with social values, including those designed to decrease unhealthy eating, are more effective than interventions that demonstrated success among younger children ( Yeager, Dahl, & Dweck, 2017 ). For instance, adolescents selected healthier snacks after writing about the manipulative practices of the food industry ( Bryan et al., 2016 ), suggesting that different messages or values may be persuasive at different ages. Thus, we recruited 8- and 9-year-old children, who had been in school for more time but were still at an age at which our method would be appropriate, to test whether older children would be persuaded by information about popularity or whether their responses would mirror those of younger children. The latter result would suggest some degree of developmental continuity in the effects observed thusfar.

Participants included 33 8- and 9-year-old children. Children participated in a laboratory study in a Midwestern U. S. city (see Table 1 ).

Study 6 was identical to Study 2 , except that it included older children.

As in previous studies, children ate more of the food described as healthy but not popular ( M = 10.36, CI = 7.67, 13.15) than the food described as popular but not healthy ( M = 4.52, CI = 3.18, 5.88), b = 0.83, SE = 0.10, z = 8.46, p < .001, exponential effect size = 2.30 ( CI = 1.89, 2.79). No effect of gender was observed, b = −0.02, SE = 0.09, z = −0.19, p = .85. See Supplemental Materials for children’s evaluations.

Comparing across ages.

We compared Studies 2 and 6, as both studies used the same procedure with different age groups. Overall, children ate more of the healthy/unpopular food ( M = 8.09, CI = 6.12, 10.26) than the popular/unhealthy food ( M = 3.35, CI = 2.48, 4.28), b = 0.98, SE = 0.14, z = 6.95, p < .001, exponential effect size = 2.67 ( CI = 2.03, 3.53), and older children in Study 6 ( M = 14.88, CI = 11.54, 18.06) ate more food than younger children in Study 2 ( M = 7.91, CI = 4.97, 10.94), b = 0.74, SE = 0.15, z = 5.08, p < .001, exponential effect size = 2.09 ( CI = 1.56, 2.82). No significant interaction between food and age group was observed, b = −0.15, SE = 0.17, z = −0.87, p = .38.

Children’s eating behavior in Study 6 was particularly interesting given the possibility that older children might have placed more value on information about a food’s popularity (compared to younger children). Instead, just like younger children in Study 2 , older children in Study 6 ate more healthy/unpopular food compared to popular/unhealthy food, suggesting some degree of continuity in children’s responses (although the possibility remains that this pattern would shift as children enter adolescence). In Study 7 , we provide a final extension of this effect by recruiting 5- and 6-year-old children and just labeling foods as healthy/unpopular and popular/unhealthy, without the explanatory details provided in previous studies.

Study 7: Healthy/Unpopular vs. Popular/Unhealthy (Short Messages)

Five- and 6-year-old children in Study 7 were presented with foods labeled as healthy but not popular and popular but not healthy, without any additional details describing what those labels meant. We aimed to examine whether simple labels (without supporting content) would be sufficient to guide children’s differential food consumption.

Study 7 was identical to Study 2 (foods were described as healthy but not popular or popular but not healthy), except that children only heard labels; we eliminated the other message details. Thus, children were only told that, “This food is very popular but it is not very healthy” and “This food is very healthy but it is not very popular.”

At the very end of the study, children were also asked what “it means for a food to be very healthy” and what “it means for a food to be not very healthy.” Two coders categorized the content of each explanation as one of three mutually exclusive codes: General health (e.g., “good for you” or “bad for you”), content resembling messages from prior studies (such as “makes your bones and muscles get strong,” “will make you sick” or mentioning ingredients/composition), or other/don’t know. Both coders coded all explanations; reliability was high (kappa = 0.83) and disagreements were resolved by discussion.

Children ate more of the food labeled as healthy but not popular ( M = 8.12, CI = 5.69, 10.53) than the food labeled as popular but not healthy ( M = 5.25, CI = 3.69, 7.34), b = 0.43, SE = 0.13, z = 3.43, p < .001, exponential effect size = 1.54 ( CI = 1.20, 1.99). Boys took fewer bites ( M = 2.59) than girls ( M = 4.09), b = −0.46, SE = 0.16, z = −2.91, p = .004, exponential effect size = 0.63 ( CI = 0.46, 0.85), but no significant interaction between food type and gender was observed, b < 0.01, SE = 0.20, z = 0.03, p = .97. See Supplemental Materials for children’s evaluations.

Children’s explanations of what it means to be healthy and unhealthy revealed some health knowledge related to the messages delivered in previous studies, but most children did not provide a detailed explanation. Roughly 50% of children’s explanations were coded as general (“good for you”, “bad for you”), 36% of children mentioned a feature of the detailed message content from previous studies (e.g., referring to growth, strength, or ingredients), and 14% of children either did not provide an explanation or named a food (e.g., apple, candy). No significant difference in explanation code was observed based on whether children were asked what it means to be healthy vs. unhealthy, χ 2 (2) = 0.74, p = .691.

Study 7 replicated the finding that children eat more of a healthy/unpopular food compared to a popular/unhealthy food. This study also demonstrated that although most children’s explanations conveyed some idea of what it means to be healthy or unhealthy (though see Sigman-Grant et al., 2014 , for evidence that children may associate “good for you” with taste, rather than health), far fewer explanations included detailed information about the consequences of eating healthy and unhealthy foods (as was provided in our messages in all other studies). Such category labels, in addition to being an efficient shorthand for communication, can serve as messages themselves and provide opportunities to both invite and impede conceptual change by linking to deeper explanatory content and reifying categorical boundaries ( Gelman & DeJesus, 2018 ). Children’s health explanations reveal some insight into the meaning of health in a food context – most explanations included an indication that healthy foods are good for the body and unhealthy foods are not, but most children did not spontaneously offer more complex details. Nevertheless, even without the supporting information provided to them, children ate the alternative to the unhealthy food.

General Discussion

The present research reveals the power of brief messages about health to influence children’s consumption of otherwise identical foods (in this case, fruit sauces). In Studies 1 and 2 , children ate more of foods described as healthy (or healthy but not popular) compared to foods described as unhealthy (or unhealthy but popular). Studies 3 , 4 , and 5 revealed that this effect was primarily driven by children’s attention to the “unhealthy” message – children ate more of the alternative to an unhealthy food, but they did not differentiate between healthy foods and foods described neutrally. Studies 6 and 7 demonstrated the scope of this effect: 8- and 9-year-olds similarly ate more of the healthy but unpopular food than the popular but unhealthy food, and simply labeling foods was sufficient to elicit this effect among younger children. Children’s evaluations largely mirrored their food intake, providing converging evidence for these results (see Supplemental Materials ).

What are the practical consequences of these findings? One might wonder what the value is of changing children’s intake of fruit sauce by a just a few bites in a laboratory setting. We view this series of studies as having two important practical consequences. First, these studies reveal a potential new strategy for guiding children’s food choices: Focusing on what is unhealthy, rather than exclusively encouraging children to eat healthy foods. Strategies that provide rewards for eating healthy foods, such as desserts or additional television time ( Birch, Marlin, & Rotter, 1984 ; Newman & Taylor, 1992 ; Wardle, Herrera, Cooke, & Gibson, 2003 ), have been largely ineffective. Despite some successes ( Gripshover & Markman, 2013 ; Sigman- Grant et al., 2014 ), many interventions focused on delivering verbal lessons to children in classroom settings have had modest beneficial effects at best ( Colquitt et al., 2016 ; Wolfenden et al., 2012 ). The present results suggest that a more effective strategy might be to focus on the unhealthy side of the equation. Related strategies have been examined with adults: In studies that provide adults with information about what is healthy and what is not (such as calorie labels with recommended daily intake or warning labels about high sugar beverages), adults make healthier choices for themselves and their children ( Donnelly, Zatz, Svirsky, & John, 2018 ; Moran & Roberto, 2018 ; Roberto, Larsen, Agnew, Baik, & Brownell, 2010 ). The present studies are the first to provide converging evidence that messages about what is unhealthy can influence young children’s own food choices. Second, understanding how to change people’s attitudes towards foods that are familiar and well-liked (such as the fruit sauce presented to children in this study) is an important endeavor in a food environment where many well-liked foods, including those that are often considered to be healthy by consumers, actually include unhealthy ingredients or lack in nutritional value. For instance, the American Academic of Pediatrics recently changed its guidance on fruit juice intake to discourage parents from offering it to children due to its high sugar content and lack of protein and fiber; nevertheless, many people think of juice as a healthy choice ( Heyman & Abrams, 2017 ). The area in which there is most disagreement lies not in foods such as cookies, ice cream, and soda (which both laypeople and nutritionists agree are unhealthy), but rather in foods such as fruit juice, frozen yogurt, and granola, which laypeople tend to think are somewhat healthy but nutritionists view as unhealthy ( Quealy & Sanger-Katz, 2016 ). Messages that alter the intake of otherwise identical foods points to a possible strategy to change attitudes towards these pseudo-health foods, which could ultimately encourage healthier eating across the lifespan. Among adults, small cumulative changes in health-related behaviors have been shown to add up to meaningful differences in outcomes ( Damschroder et al., 2014 ; Lutes et al., 2008 ), but additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of similar strategies in children, including those that use messages such as those developed in these studies.

From a broader perspective, the present research sheds light on the mechanisms that guide children’s differential intake of otherwise identical foods and can help reconcile conflicting evidence over whether messages about health are attractive to children. At first blush, our initial findings suggested that children prefer foods described as “healthy.” Children’s apparent affinity for foods described as “healthy” was at odds with previous findings suggesting that children discount foods described as “healthy” as not being appealing to eat ( Maimaran & Fishbach, 2014 ; Wardle & Huon, 2000 ) and the everyday experience of many parents and caregivers. Nevertheless, further investigation revealed that children’s responses were not driven by a preference for healthy foods per se but instead by a preference for eating the alternative to foods described as unhealthy. Taken together, our results and these previous findings suggest that describing a food as healthy is unlikely to make that food appealing to children. Nevertheless, these results also suggest that children’s food choices are malleable from an early age and that children are engaging in somewhat consistent strategies to avoid unhealthy foods. Across development, children have an increasing conceptual understanding of health, nutrition, and growth ( Gripshover & Markman, 2013 ; Inagaki & Hatano, 2004 ; Nguyen, 2007 ; Nguyen et al., 2011 ; Schultz & Danford, 2016 ; Sigman-Grant et al., 2014 ; Wellman & Johnson, 1982 ) and future research could examine how children view the immediate and long-term consequences of healthy vs. unhealthy eating and how that conceptualization may shift with age.

These studies raise several important questions for future research. First, how might children react to a broader set of foods and messages? Children ate less of the “unhealthy” option when presented with two identical fruit sauces, but to what extent would this generalize to foods that are more obviously healthy but less typically liked by children (such as broccoli) and unhealthy foods that children typically enjoy eating (such as brownies)? Fruit sauce was selected in these studies because it is familiar to children (so we expected few children to completely reject it) and it strikes a balance between being relatively sweet, given that children prefer sweet foods ( Birch, 1990 , 1999 ; Ventura & Mennella, 2011 ), but not obviously unhealthy. It is unknown whether the messages used in the present studies would be similarly effective in increasing children’s acceptance of bitter foods, which children tend to dislike but is a common flavor in vegetables ( Ventura & Mennella, 2011 ), or overcoming the assumption that healthy foods do not taste good ( Maimaran & Fishbach, 2014 ; Raghunathan, Naylor, & Hoyer, 2006 ). Testing the limits of the messages used in the present studies is an important direction for future research. Changing children’s attitudes towards unfamiliar or new foods might be helpful as well, as children may assume that foods that have been modified to be healthier are necessarily less tasty ( Harris, Hyary, & Schwartz, 2016 ). The finding that children’s evaluations of these foods largely aligned with their patterns of eating suggests that presenting these messages could be a promising avenue – in addition to eating more of the alternative to an unhealthy food, children reported liking it more too (see Supplemental Materials ). Considering the content of the messages designed for the present studies, we chose not to directly pit “healthy” and “tasty” messages against each other to avoid reinforcing the perception that healthy foods do not taste good, but the development of this impression and methods to overcome it are important directions for future studies.

Second, how might the explicit messages provided in this study differ from or complement the language that parents use at home when talking about food or health? Several studies have examined parental talk about food, often focusing on patterns of restriction and encouragement (e.g., Pesch, Miller, Appugliese, Rosenblum, & Lumeng, 2018 ; Stark et al., 2000 ). In one study, mothers of obese children used more direct imperatives when their child was presented with a familiar dessert compared to mothers whose children were not obese ( Pesch et al., 2018 ). Prior studies have also found that parents report modeling healthy eating at home and discussing the taste and health of foods ( Hendy, Williams, Camise, Eckman, & Hedemann, 2009 ; Musher-Eizenman & Holub, 2007 ; Tibbs et al., 2001 ), but relatively few studies have examined how parents spontaneously talk about health. In one study that provided parents with picture books about vegetables to encourage children to be more receptive to those foods, two-year-old children were more likely to eat vegetables and rate vegetables more positively (compared to baseline) at a 3-month follow-up ( Owen, Kennedy, Hill, & Houston-Price, 2018 ). However, it is unclear if these effects were due to exposure from the book, more offers of those foods from parents (since the foods were delivered to families as part of the study and parents were encouraged to offer them daily), or from other conversations that parents and children had in response to the picture books (including conversations about health). Future research is needed to understand how the messages designed for the present research compare to or could supplement everyday conversations between parents and children.

Third, how does the current pattern of results inform an understanding of a potential negativity bias in the food domain? A negativity bias – in which negative information is more salient and influential than positive information – has been observed across domains and across the lifespan ( Baltazar, Shutts, & Kinzler, 2012 ; Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001 ; Ito, Larsen, Smith, & Cacioppo, 1998 ; Mumme, Fernald, & Herrera, 1996 ; Vaish, Grossmann, & Woodward, 2008 ). Infants are highly sensitive to information about disgust that has been paired with foods ( Liberman, Woodward, Sullivan, & Kinzler, 2016 ), even though children’s own avoidance of contaminated foods develops over a more protracted developmental period ( DeJesus et al., 2015 ; Rozin, Hammer, Oster, Horowitz, & Marmora, 1986). The observation that children eat the alternative to an unhealthy food, rather than specifically preferring a healthy food, fits well within a more domain-general theory about negative information conveying more strong information than positive information. Nonetheless, we note that children did not treat all negative information equally in this study – “not popular” did not do the same work as “not healthy.” Future studies could more purposefully probe children’s sensitivity to different types of negative information about food. One possibility is that negative information that is specifically about disgust, safety, and health may be especially impactful in the food domain.

Finally, the present studies emphasize the importance of developmental science for designing interventions that promote healthy eating in childhood and may ultimately contribute to efforts to prevent childhood obesity ( Cunningham et al., 2014 ; Ebbeling et al., 2002 ; Freedman et al., 2005 ; Levi et al., 2015 ; Nader et al., 2006 ; Ogden et al., 2014 ; Wang & Beydoun, 2007 ). Carefully controlled laboratory studies can illuminate which manipulations are effective, which may then be applied to broader field settings. Understanding how to guide children away from unhealthy foods (rather than solely focusing on promoting the consumption of healthy foods) is critical in a food environment in which young children have so much access to sugary foods: From the age of 2, children in the U. S. are more likely to eat a processed sweet food than a fruit or vegetable ( Saavedra, Deming, Dattilo, & Reidy, 2013 ; Siega-Riz, Kinlaw, Deming, & Reidy, 2011 ). By age 3, most children drink at least one sugar-sweetened beverage per day ( Nickelson, Lawrence, Parton, Knowlden, & McDermott, 2014 ), and more than 15% of children’s daily calories comes from added sugars ( McGuire, 2011 ; World Health Organization, 2015 ). These statistics highlight the need for evidence-based recommendations to encourage healthier eating, both by replacing unhealthy foods with healthier ones and by reducing children’s intake of foods with unhealthy levels of sugar, fat, and sodium. Future research is needed to better understand how influencing children’s tendency to avoid unhealthy foods fits into the constellation of factors that influence children’s obesity risk and obesity risks across the lifespan, including genetics, individual differences in food preferences and attitudes, psychosocial stress, messages from parents, peers, and the media, and broader social policy ( Giskes, Patterson, Turrell, & Newman, 2005 ; Gracey, Stanley, Burke, Corti, & Beilin, 1996 ; Lott, Schwartz, Story, & Brownell, 2018 ; Pesch & Lumeng, 2018 ).

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by NICHD grant R01 HD070890 to K.D.K. and K.S., NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (DGE-1144082) and NIH T32 Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (T32HD079350) to J.M.D., and the Earl R. Franklin Research Fellowship to K.M.C. This research was also supported in part by a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U54 HD090256). We thank Jennifer Galamba, Emily Gerdin, Rachel King, and Ashley Ransom for assistance in data collection and Alex Shaw for helpful discussion and suggestions for study design.

Studies 2 – 4 and Supplemental Studies 1 and 2 were presented in a poster at the 2016 Association for Psychological Science Annual Convention.

• Aldridge V, Dovey TM, & Halford JCG (2009). The role of familiarity in dietary development . Developmental Review , 29 ( 1 ), 32–44. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2008.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baltazar NC, Shutts K, & Kinzler KD (2012). Children show heightened memory for threatening social actions . Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 112 ( 1 ), 102–110. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.11.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, & Vohs KD (2001). Bad is stronger than good . Review of General Psychology , 5 ( 4 ), 323–370. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernstein IL (1978). Learned taste aversions in children receiving chemotherapy . Science , 200 ( 4347 ), 1302. doi: 10.1126/science.663613 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernstein IL (1994). Development of food aversions during illness . Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , 53 , 131–137. doi: 10.1079/PNS19940016 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birch LL (1980). Effects of peer models’ food choices and eating behaviors on preschoolers’ food preferences . Child Development , 489–496. doi: 10.2307/1129283 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birch LL (1990). Development of food acceptance patterns . Developmental Psychology , 26 ( 4 ), 515–519. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.26.4.515 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birch LL (1999). Development of food preferences . Annual Review of Nutrition , 19 ( 1 ), 41–62. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nutr.19.1.41 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birch LL, & Marlin DW (1982). I don’t like it; I never tried it: Effects of exposure on two-year-old children’s food preferences . Appetite , 3 ( 4 ), 353–360. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.26.4.515 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birch LL, Marlin DW, & Rotter J (1984). Eating as the” means” activity in a contingency: effects on young children’s food preference . Child Development , 55 ( 2 ), 431–439. doi: 10.2307/1129954 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryan CJ, Yeager DS, Hinojosa CP, Chabot A, Bergen H, Kawamura M, & Steubing F (2016). Harnessing adolescent values to motivate healthier eating . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113 ( 39 ), 10830–10835. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604586113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bukowski W,M, Hoza B, & Boivin M (2006). Popularity, friendship, and emotional adjustment during early adolescence . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 1993 ( 60 ), 23–37. doi: 10.1002/cd.23219936004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coldwell SE, Oswald TK, & Reed DR (2009). A marker of growth differs between adolescents with high vs. low sugar preference . Physiology & Behavior , 96 ( 4 ), 574–580. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.12.010 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colquitt JL, Loveman E, O’Malley C, Azevedo LB, Mead E, Al-Khudairy L, … Rees K (2016). Diet, physical activity, and behavioural interventions for the treatment of overweight or obesity in preschool children up to the age of 6 years . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ( 3 ). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012105 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coxe S (2018, February). Effect size measures for nonlinear count regression models . Poster presented at the American Statistical Association Conference on Statistical Practice Portland, OR February 15 – 17, 2018 https://stefany.shinyapps.io/RcountD/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Cunningham SA, Kramer MR, & Narayan KV (2014). Incidence of childhood obesity in the United States . New England Journal of Medicine , 370 ( 5 ), 403–411. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309753 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Damschroder LJ, Lutes LD, Kirsh S, Kim HM, Gillon L, Holleman RG, …Richardson CR (2014). Small-Changes Obesity Treatment Among Veterans: 12-Month Outcomes . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 47 ( 5 ), 541–553. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.06.016 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeJesus JM, Kinzler KD, & Shutts K (2019). Food Cognition and Nutrition Knowledge In Fisher JO & Lumeng JC (Eds.), Pediatric Food Preferences and Eating Behaviors : Elsevier. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeJesus JM, Shutts K, & Kinzler KD (2015). Eww she sneezed! Contamination context affects children’s food preferences and consumption . Appetite , 87 , 303–309. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeJesus JM, Shutts K, & Kinzler KD (2018). Mere social knowledge impacts children’s consumption and categorization of foods . Developmental Science , 21 ( 5 ), e12627. doi:doi: 10.1111/desc.12627 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donnelly GE, Zatz LY, Svirsky D, & John LK (2018). The effect of graphic warnings on sugary-drink purchasing . Psychological Science , 29 ( 8 ), 1321–1333. doi: 10.1177/0956797618766361 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebbeling CB, Pawlak DB, & Ludwig DS (2002). Childhood obesity: public-health crisis, common sense cure . The Lancet , 360 ( 9331 ), 473–482. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09678-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frazier BN, Gelman SA, Kaciroti N, Russell JW, & Lumeng JC (2012). I’ll have what she’s having: The impact of model characteristics on children’s food choices . Developmental Science , 15 ( 1 ), 87–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01106.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freedman DS, K KL, K SM, H DW, R SS, & S BG (2005). The relation of childhood BMI to adult adiposity: the Bogalusa Heart Study . Pediatrics , 115 ( 1 ), 22–27. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-0220 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garb JL, & Stunkard AJ (1974). Taste aversions in man . American Journal of Psychiatry , 131 ( 11 ), 1204–1207. doi: 10.1176/ajp.131.11.1204 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gearhardt AN, Grilo CM, DiLeone RJ, Brownell KD, & Potenza MN (2011). Can food be addictive? Public health and policy implications . Addiction , 106 ( 7 ), 1208–1212. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03301.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelman SA, & DeJesus JM (2018). The language paradox: Words invite and impede conceptual change . In Amin T & Levrini O (Eds.), Converging and Complementary Perspectives on Conceptual Change . (pp. 89–96). [ Google Scholar ]
• Giskes K, Patterson C, Turrell G, & Newman B (2005). Health and nutrition beliefs and perceptions of Brisbane adolescents . Nutrition & Dietetics , 62 ( 2–3 ), 69–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-0080.2005.00002.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gracey D, Stanley N, Burke V, Corti B, & Beilin LJ (1996). Nutritional knowledge, beliefs and behaviours in teenage school students . Health Education Research , 11 ( 2 ), 187–204. doi: 10.1093/her/11.2.187 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gripshover SJ, & Markman EM (2013). Teaching young children a theory of nutrition conceptual change and the potential for increased vegetable consumption . Psychological science , 24 ( 8 ), 1541–1553. doi: 10.1177/0956797612474827 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guthrie JF, Derby BM, & Levy AS (1999). What people know and do not know about nutrition . America’s eating habits: Changes and consequences , 243–290. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris JL, Hyary M, & Schwartz MB (2016). Effects of Offering Look-Alike Products as Smart Snacks in Schools . Childhood Obesity , 12 ( 6 ), 432–439. doi: 10.1089/chi.2016.0080 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hausner H, Nicklaus S, Issanchou S, Mølgaard C, & Møller P (2009). Breastfeeding facilitates acceptance of a novel dietary flavour compound . European e-Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism , 4 ( 5 ), e231–e238. doi: 10.1016/j.eclnm.2009.06.024 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendy HM, & Raudenbush B (2000). Effectiveness of teacher modeling to encourage food acceptance in preschool children . Appetite , 34 ( 1 ), 61–76. doi: 10.1006/appe.1999.0286 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendy HM, Williams KE, Camise TS, Eckman N, & Hedemann A (2009). The Parent Mealtime Action Scale (PMAS). Development and association with children’s diet and weight . Appetite , 52 ( 2 ), 328–339. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heyman MB, & Abrams SA (2017). Fruit Juice in Infants, Children, and Adolescents: Current Recommendations . Pediatrics , 139 ( 6 ), e20170967. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-0967 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Inagaki K, & Hatano G (2004). Vitalistic causality in young children’s naive biology . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 8 ( 8 ), 356–362. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.06.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ito TA, Larsen JT, Smith NK, & Cacioppo JT (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 ( 4 ), 887–900. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.887 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim SA, Moore LV, Galuska D, Wright AP, Harris D, Grummer-Strawn LM, …Rhodes DG (2014). Vital signs: Fruit and vegetable intake among children — United States, 2003–2010 . Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , 63 ( 31 ), 671–676. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levi J, Segal LM, Rayburn J, & Martin A (2015). State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America: 2015 . Retrieved from http://stateofobesity.org/files/stateofobesity2015.pdf
• Liberman Z, Woodward AL, Sullivan KR, & Kinzler KD (2016). Early emerging system for reasoning about the social nature of food . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113 ( 34 ), 9480–9485. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605456113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lott M, Schwartz M, Story M, & Brownell KD (2018). Why we need local, state, and national policy-based approaches to improve children’s nutrition in the United States In Freemark MS (Ed.), Pediatric Obesity: Etiology, Pathogenesis and Treatment (pp. 731–755). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lutes LD, Winett RA, Barger SD, Wojcik JR, Herbert WG, Nickols-Richardson SM, & Anderson ES (2008). Small changes in nutrition and physical activity promote weight loss and maintenance: 3-month evidence from the ASPIRE randomized trial . Annals of Behavioral Medicine , 35 ( 3 ), 351–357. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maimaran M, & Fishbach A (2014). If it’s useful and you know it, do you eat? Preschoolers refrain from instrumental food . Journal of Consumer Research , 41 ( 3 ), 642–655. doi: 10.1086/677224 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGuire S (2011). U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 7th Edition, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 2011; Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal , 2 (3), 293–294. doi: 10.3945/an.111.000430 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mennella JA, Bobowski NK, & Reed DR (2016). The development of sweet taste: From biology to hedonics . Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders , 17 ( 2 ), 171–178. doi: 10.1007/s11154-016-9360-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mennella JA, Finkbeiner S, Lipchock SV, Hwang L-D, & Reed DR (2014). Preferences for salty and sweet tastes are elevated and related to each other during childhood . PloS one , 9 ( 3 ), e92201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092201 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mennella JA, Jagnow CP, & Beauchamp GK (2001). Prenatal and postnatal flavor learning by human infants . Pediatrics , 107 ( 6 ), e88–e88. doi: 10.1542/peds.107.6.e88 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mennella JA, Lukasewycz LD, Griffith JW, & Beauchamp GK (2011). Evaluation of the Monell forced-choice, paired-comparison tracking procedure for determining sweet taste preferences across the lifespan . Chemical Senses , 345–355. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjq134 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore JB, Horti A, & Fielding BA (2018). Evaluation of the nutrient content of yogurts: a comprehensive survey of yogurt products in the major UK supermarkets . BMJ Open , 8 ( 8 ). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021387 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moran AJ, & Roberto CA (2018). Health warning labels correct parents’ misperceptions about sugary drink options . American journal of preventive medicine , 55 ( 2 ), e19–e27. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.018 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumme DL, Fernald A, & Herrera C (1996). Infants’ responses to facial and vocal emotional signals in a social referencing paradigm . Child Development , 67 ( 6 ), 3219–3237. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01910.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muñoz KA, Krebs-Smith SM, Ballard-Barbash R, & Cleveland LE (1997). Food intakes of US children and adolescents compared with recommendations . Pediatrics , 100 ( 3 ),323–329. doi: 10.1542/peds.100.3.323 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Musher-Eizenman D, & Holub S (2007). Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire: Validation of a New Measure of Parental Feeding Practices . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 32 ( 8 ), 960–972. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsm037 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nader PR, O’Brien M, Houts R, Bradley R, Belsky J, Crosnoe R, … Susman EJ (2006). Identifying risk for obesity in early childhood . Pediatrics , 118 ( 3 ), e594–e601. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-2801 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman J, & Taylor A (1992). Effect of a means-end contingency on young children’s food preferences . Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 53 ( 2 ), 200–216. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen SP (2007). An apple a day keeps the doctor away: Children’s evaluative categories of food . Appetite , 48 ( 1 ), 114–118. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.06.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen SP (2012). The role of external sources of information in children’s evaluative food categories . Infant and Child Development , 21 ( 2 ), 216–235. doi: 10.1002/icd.745 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen SP, McCullough MB, & Noble A (2011). A theory-based approach to teaching young children about health: A recipe for understanding . Journal of Educational Psychology , 103 ( 3 ), 594. doi: 10.1037/a0023392 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nickelson J, Lawrence JC, Parton JM, Knowlden AP, & McDermott RJ (2014). What Proportion of Preschool-Aged Children Consume Sweetened Beverages? Journal of School Health , 84 ( 3 ), 185–194. doi: 10.1111/josh.12136 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, & Flegal KM (2014). Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011–2012 . Journal of the American Medical Association , 311 ( 8 ), 806–814. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.732 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owen LH, Kennedy OB, Hill C, & Houston-Price C (2018). Peas, please! Food familiarization through picture books helps parents introduce vegetables into preschoolers’ diets . Appetite , 128 , 32–43. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.05.140 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pesch MH, & Lumeng JC (2018). Early Feeding Practices and Development of Childhood Obesity In Freemark MS (Ed.), Pediatric Obesity: Etiology, Pathogenesis and Treatment (pp. 257–270). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pesch MH, Miller AL, Appugliese DP, Rosenblum KL, & Lumeng JC (2018). Mothers of Obese Children Use More Direct Imperatives to Restrict Eating . Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , 50 ( 4 ), 403–407.e401. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.10.010 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Putallaz M, & Gottman JM (1981). Social skills and group acceptance In Asher SR & Gottman JM (Eds.), The Development of Children’s Friendships (pp. 116–149). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quealy K, & Sanger-Katz M (2016, July 5, 2016). Is sushi ‘healthy’? What about granola? Where Americans and nutritionists disagree . The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes . com/interactive/2016/07/05/upshot/is-sushi-healthy-what-about-granola-where-americans-and-nutritionists-disagree.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Raghunathan R, Naylor RW, & Hoyer WD (2006). The unhealthy = tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products . Journal of Marketing , 70 ( 4 ), 170–184. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.170 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rehm CD, Peñalvo JL, Afshin A, & Mozaffarian D (2016). Dietary intake among US adults, 1999–2012 . Journal of the American Medical Association , 315 ( 23 ), 2542–2553. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.7491 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberto CA, Larsen PD, Agnew H, Baik J, & Brownell KD (2010). Evaluating the impact of menu labeling on food choices and intake . American Journal of Public Health , 100 ( 2 ), 312–318. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2009.160226 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rozin P (2005). The meaning of food in our lives: A cross-cultural perspective on eating and well-being . Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , 37 , S107–S112. doi: 10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60209-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rozin P, & Schiller D (1980). The nature and acquisition of a preference for chili pepper by humans . Motivation and Emotion , 4 ( 1 ), 77–101. doi: 10.1007/BF00995932 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin K,H, Bukowski W,M, & Bowker J,C (2015). Children in Peer Groups . Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science . doi: 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy40510.1002/9781118963418.childpsy405 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saavedra JM, Deming D, Dattilo A, & Reidy K (2013). Lessons from the feeding infants and toddlers study in North America: What children eat, and implications for obesity prevention . Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism , 62 (suppl 3 )(Suppl. 3), 27–36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schultz CM, & Danford CM (2016). Children’s knowledge of eating: An integrative review of the literature . Appetite , 107 , 534–548. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.08.120 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shutts K, Banaji MR, & Spelke ES (2010). Social categories guide young children’s preferences for novel objects . Developmental Science , 13 ( 4 ), 599–610. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00913.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shutts K, Kinzler KD, & DeJesus JM (2013). Understanding infants’ and children’s social learning about foods: Previous research and new prospects . Developmental Psychology , 49 ( 3 ), 419–425. doi: 10.1037/a0027551 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siega-Riz AM, Kinlaw A, Deming DM, & Reidy KC (2011). New findings from the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008 . Nestlé Nutrition Workshop Ser Pediatric Program , 68 , 83–105. doi: 10.1159/000325667 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigman-Grant M, Byington TA, Lindsay AR, Lu M, Mobley AR, Fitzgerald N, & Hildebrand D (2014). Preschoolers can distinguish between healthy and unhealthy foods: The All 4 Kids Study . Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , 46 ( 2 ), 121–127. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2013.09.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stark LJ, Jelalian E, Powers SW, Mulvihill MM, Opipari LC, Bowen A, … Hovell MF (2000). Parent and child mealtime behavior in families of children with cystic fibrosis . The Journal of Pediatrics , 136 ( 2 ), 195–200. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3476(00)70101-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tibbs T, Haire-Joshu D, Schechtman KB, Brownson RC, Nanney MS, Houston C, & Auslander W (2001). The relationship between parental modeling, eating patterns, and dietary intake among African-American parents . Journal of the American Dietetic Association , 101 ( 5 ), 535–541. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00134-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaish A, Grossmann T, & Woodward A (2008). Not all emotions are created equal: The negativity bias in social-emotional development . Psychological Bulletin , 134 ( 3 ), 383–403. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.383 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ventura AK, & Mennella JA (2011). Innate and learned preferences for sweet taste during childhood . Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care , 14 ( 4 ), 379–384. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e328346df65 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang Y, & Beydoun MA (2007). The obesity epidemic in the United States—gender, age, socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and geographic characteristics: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis . Epidemiologic Reviews , 29 ( 1 ), 6–28. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxm007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wardle J, Herrera ML, Cooke L, & Gibson EL (2003). Modifying children’s food preferences: The effects of exposure and reward on acceptance of an unfamiliar vegetable . European Journal of Clinical Nutrition , 57 ( 2 ), 341–348. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wardle J, & Huon G (2000). An experimental investigation of the influence of health information on children’s taste preferences . Health Education Research , 15 ( 1 ), 39–44. doi: 10.1093/her/15.1.39 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wellman HM, & Johnson CN (1982). Children’s understanding of food and its functions: A preliminary study of the development of concepts of nutrition . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 3 ( 2 ), 135–148. doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(82)90024-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wertz AE, & Wynn K (2014). Selective social learning of plant edibility in 6- and 18-month-old infants . Psychological Science , 25 ( 4 ), 874–882. doi: 10.1177/0956797613516145 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolfenden L, Wyse RJ, Britton BI, Campbell KJ, Hodder RK, Stacey FG, … James EL (2012). Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged 5 years and under . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ( 11 ). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008552.pub2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization. (2015). Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children . Geneva: World Health Organization. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeager DS, Dahl RE, & Dweck CS (2017). Why interventions to influence adolescent behavior often fail but could succeed . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 13 ( 1 ), 101–122. doi: 10.1177/1745691617722620 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Poor Nutrition

Measure Breastfeeding Practices and Eating Patterns

Support breastfeeding in the hospital and community, offer healthier food options in early care and education facilities and schools, offer healthier food options in the workplace, improve access to healthy foods in states and communities, support lifestyle change programs to reduce obesity and type 2 diabetes risk.

Good nutrition is essential to keeping current and future generations healthy across the lifespan. A healthy diet helps children grow and develop properly and reduces their risk of chronic diseases. Adults who eat a healthy diet live longer and have a lower risk of obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers. Healthy eating can help people with chronic diseases manage these conditions and avoid complications.

However, when healthy options are not available, people may settle for foods that are higher in calories and lower in nutritional value. People in low-income communities and some racial and ethnic groups often lack access to convenient places that offer affordable, healthier foods.

Most people in the United States don’t eat a healthy diet and consume too much sodium, saturated fat, and sugar, increasing their risk of chronic diseases. For example, fewer than 1 in 10 adolescents and adults eat enough fruits or vegetables. In addition, 6 in 10 young people aged 2 to 19 years and 5 in 10 adults consume at least one sugary drink  on any given day.

CDC supports breastfeeding and works to improve access to healthier food and drink choices in settings such as early care and education facilities, schools, worksites, and communities.

In the United States:

3 IN 4 INFANTS

are not exclusively breastfed for 6 months.

9 IN 10 AMERICANS

consume too much sodium.

1 in 6 PREGNANT WOMEN

have iron levels that are too low.

NEARLY $173 BILLION

a year is spent on health care for obesity.

The Harmful Effects of Poor Nutrition

Overweight and obesity.

Eating a healthy diet, along with getting enough physical activity and sleep, can help children grow up healthy and prevent overweight and obesity. In the United States, 20% of young people aged 2 to 19 years and 42% of adults have obesity, which can put them at risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.

Heart Disease and Stroke

Two of the leading causes of heart disease and stroke are high blood pressure and high blood cholesterol. Consuming too much sodium can increase blood pressure and the risk for heart disease and stroke . Current guidelines recommend getting less than 2,300 mg a day, but Americans consume more than 3,400 mg a day on average.

Over 70% of the sodium that Americans eat comes from packaged, processed, store-bought, and restaurant foods. Eating foods low in saturated fats and high in fiber and increasing access to low-sodium foods, along with regular physical activity, can help prevent high blood cholesterol and high blood pressure.

Type 2 Diabetes

People who are overweight or have obesity are at increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared to those at a healthybecause, over time, their bodies become less able to use the insulin they make. Of US adults, 96 million—more than 1 in 3—have  prediabetes , and more than 8 in 10 of them don’t know they have it. Although the rate of new cases has decreased in recent years, the number of adults with diagnosed diabetes has nearly doubled in the last 2 decades as the US population has increased, aged, and become more overweight.

An unhealthy diet can increase the risk of some cancers. Consuming unhealthy food and beverages, such as sugar-sweetened beverages and highly processed food, can lead to weight gain, obesity and other chronic conditions that put people at higher risk of at least 13 types of cancer, including endometrial (uterine) cancer, breast cancer in postmenopausal women, and colorectal cancer. The risk of colorectal cancer is also associated with eating red and processed meat.

CDC’s Work to Promote Good Nutrition

CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity  uses national and state surveys to track breastfeeding rates  and eating patterns  across the country, including fruit, vegetable, and added sugar consumption. The division also reports data on nutrition policies and practices  for each state. Data from these surveys  are used to understand trends in nutrition and differences between population groups.

CDC partners use this information to help support breastfeeding and encourage healthy eating  where people live, learn, work, and play, especially for populations at highest risk of chronic disease.

Breastfeeding is the best source of nutrition for most infants. It can reduce the risk of some short-term health conditions for infants and long-term health conditions for infants and mothers. Maternity care practices in the first hours and days after birth can influence whether and how long infants are breastfed.

CDC funds programs that help hospitals use maternity care practices that support breastfeeding . These programs have helped increase the percentage of infants born in hospitals that implement recommended practices 1. CDC also works with partners to support programs designed to improve continuity of care and community support for breastfeeding mothers.

Nearly 56 million US children spend time in early care and education (ECE) facilities or public schools. These settings can directly influence what children eat and drink and how active they are—and build a foundation for healthy habits.

CDC is helping our nation’s children grow up healthy and strong by:

• Creating resources to help partners improve obesity prevention programs and use nutrition standards.
• Investing in training and learning networks that help child care providers and state and local child care leaders meet standards and use and share best practices .
• Providing technical assistance, such as training school staff how to buy, prepare, and serve fruits and vegetables or teach children how to grow and prepare fruits and vegetables.

The CDC Healthy Schools  program works with states, school systems, communities, and national partners to promote good nutrition . These efforts include publishing guidelines and tips on how schools and parents can model healthy behaviors and offer healthier school meals, smart snacks , and water access.

CDC also works with national groups to increase the number of salad bars  in schools. As of 2021, the Salad Bars to School program has delivered almost 6,000 salad bars to schools across the nation, giving over 2.9 million children and school staff better access to fruits and vegetables.

Millions of US adults buy foods and drinks while at work. CDC develops and promotes food service guidelines that encourage employers and vendors to increase healthy food options  for employees. CDC-funded programs are working to make healthy foods and drinks (including water) more available in cafeterias, snack shops, and vending machines. CDC also partners with states to help employers comply with the federal lactation accommodation law and provide breastfeeding mothers with places to pump and store breast milk, flexible work hours, and maternity leave benefits.

People living in low-income urban neighborhoods, rural areas, and tribal communities often have little access to affordable, healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables. CDC’s State Physical Activity and Nutrition Program , High Obesity Program , and Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health program fund states and communities to improve food systems in these areas through food hubs, local stores, farmers’ markets, and bodegas.

These programs, which also involve food vendors and distributors, help increase the variety and number of healthier foods and drinks available and help promote and market these items to customers.

CDC’s National Diabetes Prevention Program  (National DPP) is a partnership of public and private organizations working to build a nationwide delivery system for a lifestyle change program proven to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in adults with prediabetes. Participants in the National DPP lifestyle change program learn to make healthy food choices, be more physically active, and find ways to cope with stress. These changes can cut their risk of developing type 2 diabetes by as much as 58% (71% for those over 60).

Social_govd

Get Email Updates

To receive email updates about this page, enter your email address:

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

Difference Between Eating Healthy And Unhealthy Food

Healthy food vs unhealthy food, knowing the difference and what it does to our body and why some of the food we eat causes obesity. They both have a similarity, but there is a huge difference in healthy and unhealthy food. The main difference are taste, cost, and health. You will see a difference in the costs, but not a huge difference, but we are still saving money from not eating healthy food. Buying cheaper food and healthy food you will see the quality and quantity. Especially, how it looks, feels, and how much comes with the product. I feel like our rate of obesity is so high because healthy food is more expensive than eating junk food or fast food. When eating healthy there are a good amount of benefits compared to not eating healthy. You get more nutrients from watching what you eat and when you are buying healthier food they already have the calorie amount on the packet of the food. One of the benefits I like on the healthier side is that they do not have too much fattening in their food. Being healthier and eating healthier is good for your health conditions. You will feel a lot lighter eating healthy day by day and it would also boost your energy and metabolism. Healthy habits help prevent certain health conditions, such as heart disease, stroke, and high blood pressure. If you take care of yourself, you can keep your cholesterol and blood pressure within a safe range. This keeps your blood flowing smoothly, decreasing your risk of cardiovascular diseases (The Benefit of Healthy Habits, 2016). Fast food and regular food is way cheaper so that is a good benefit. You also do not have to be picky about what you are eating. Having to cook at home would probably cost a little more than eating out, but nothing is more expensive than eating healthy food. Even though fast food is very fast and more convenient you still have to think about all the fattening the food has. Eating unhealthy food always contains unhealthy product in them you would not be able to control what to put in your meal if you are eating out. Although fast food has a reputation for being high in calories and fat, that is slowly changing with the rise of the health-conscious population, which is increasing the demand for healthy food

David Zinczenko Don T Blame The Eater

While everyone generally knows that fast food is not good for their health, however people still eat it for various reasons. Most people that buy fast food have low incomes, are uneducated, and/or are people just trying to save a couple of bucks. Most people trying to save money are buying fast food and it is costing their health in the long run. This will eventually end up costing people even more money.

The Fast Food Industry Since The 70's

Wake up look at what the fast food industry is causing and how it is affecting many people and especially teens and kids. The fast food industry has become very clever throughout the years, making us eat more with their special deals and bigger serving sizes. These companies are getting worse and worse and it will keep happening if nothing against this process is done. Various factors have changed since the 70s to the present day such as changes in serving size and proportions causing excessive consumptions of these foods. Thanks to the so ever convenient and cheap prices of these foods compared to the prices of healthy foods like fresh produce used to make homemade food that are healthier than fast food junk. Ever since

Fast Food Failures Essay

Fast food is exactly how it sounds: food that can be quickly produced for a simple meal. Although they may be satisfactory, they are anything but healthy. Eating fast food is appetizing which is one of the main reasons it is so popular. Not only does it taste good to many, but it is inexpensive, too! America is the number one place for fast food. There are over 160,000 fast food restaurants in the United States and over 50 million Americans are served fast food daily. The frequency of eating fast food is also a problem because according to statisticbrain.com 44 percent of Americans confessed to consuming fast food once per week. What people do not realize is the harm that fast food is doing to their body. Not only is fast food a

Comparing Guatemala And North Carolina Family

Around 160,000 fast food franchises have been opened all over America. America is the most obese country in this world. Healthy food is supplement rich, yet fast food has a tendency to be poor in nutrients and high in calories. Know that fast food can satisfy our day by day calories requirements; not only it gives us calories, but it also harms our health with other ingredients. For instance, fast food is high in soaked fats and trans fats. In addition, it has additives, chemicals, and artificial flavors. Fast food impacts our health and causes infections, for example, heart disease, diabetes, high blood sugar and high blood pressure. On the other hand, healthy food provides the best nutrients and protects our body from sickness, since it contains vitamins, proteins, and minerals. Fast food is addictive and unhealthy. (Obesity in America) (Chronic

Obesity On The United States

The main point of fast food is to be fats, easy and convenient, but sometimes we humans abuse of that option that was given to us. Yes, its true fast food are everywhere in every corner and in every place we turn to, but we cannot blame the food chains for our decisions. Obesity is like a monster and we are feeding it, we stop on every school or work break that we have to snack on some McDonalds, wing stop, and other fast restaurants that are in our path, the only issue with is that we consume it on a daily basis making it our routine and we end up putting our health in risk. A survey made by the college of agriculture, consumer and

The Health Behavior Change That I Will Focus On The Consumption Of Unhealthy Foods

• Save time – unhealthy foods are quicker to cook/prepare which is easier when I don’t have a lot of time with work, university and sport.

Fed Up Documentary Analysis

Better eating Many people in today's world rarely pay attention to the foods they put in their bodies. Our country has now started to revolve and include fast food in our everyday lives, we do this because it has become convenient, cheaper and even just more fun. Because of this the obesity rate in our country has increased drastically, and will continue to rise if we do not take our eating habits more seriously. Fast food restaurants make it hard for us to make better decisions with our eating habits because they advertise and make it seem like fast food is a better alternative.

Informative Speech : Benefits Of Eating Healthy Essay

Central Idea: Eating healthy provides several benefits to our bodies such as preventing cancer and providing energy for our bodies to run at top notch.

Lower Class Reformers

Despite being concerned with nutrition, fast food is beneficial to their busy lifestyle with full time jobs and children. Reiterating the fact that the target segment has families and full time jobs, they are:

Don 't Blame The Eater By David Zinczenko

While most people generally know that fast food is not good for their health, they still eat it for various reasons. Most people that buy fast food are low income, uneducated, and/or are people just trying to save a couple of bucks. However, the people trying to save money by buying fast food, will eventually end up spending more money from the cost of doctor 's visits, medicine, etc.

The Importance of Healthy Eating

Eating a healthy diet is instrumental in the reduction of the risk factors for several major diseases. Obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol are a few of the risk factors that serve as precursors to major diseases, and can be controlled with healthy eating.

Persuasive Speech : The Need For Nutrition?

Healthy eating can decrease the risk of many problems that are on the rise such as obesity, high blood pressure, and Type 2 diabetes.

Persuasive Essay About Obesity

Almost all food served at fast food restaurants has an extremely high fat and calorie content and lacks nutritional value.

Fast Food In The Film Supersize Me

When observing fast food it is often seen as an on the go meal that offers little nutrition. To a busy person, being productive is a vital part of life but sadly there is not enough time to make a perfect meal with all the nutrition that's desired. For instance, you go to Mcdonalds to get some food in your body, feeling terrible you ate their fare. Fortunately a number of healthy alternatives have been introduced to fast food corporations that change the image of fast food. Fast food is a healthy option.

The Importance Of Eating Healthy

Maintaining healthy eating habits does so much for your body. Eating healthy can prevent and control health problems. It has shown to help and prevent heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and even some cancers. It is not the same as going on a diet for weight control. Diets are temporary and make you eat less food rather than the right

Related Topics

• Healthy diet

Essay On Junk Food Vs Healthy Food For Students & Children In Simple English

• September 12, 2021

In the modern world, children are exposed to a vast array of food options. This can be problematic because it leads to unhealthy diets and habits that may have long-term consequences.

The junk food vs healthy food essay is an essay on the topic of junk food vs. healthy food for students and children in simple English.

Healthy foods are those that include nutrients as well as a variety of vitamins, minerals, carbs, and fats, all of which are essential for our bodies to be fit and healthy.

Junk foods are meals that are manufactured and delivered more rapidly than traditional cuisines, and they are mostly mass-produced foods.

These junk meals, in comparison to the conventional foods that we prepare and consume at home, have a lower nutritional value.

We feel good and have energy when we eat a range of foods that include nutrients that preserve our health, and it is healthy eating that offers necessary minerals and nutrients, since nutrition is extremely important for our bodies.

The Importance Of Eating Well

worksheet foodrhbondingmiamicom healthy Healthy Food Vs Unhealthy Food worksheet foodrhbondingmiamicom rhpinterestcom rhpinterestcom rhpinterestcom rhpinterestcom rh Foods that are good for you vs. foods that are bad for you

We should follow a proper diet because everyone should be able to keep their body fit and healthy, and as a result, good and nutritional food should always be used in their diet, for example, potato bread eggs meat fishes are some of the foodstuffs that give energy to our bodies and keep them healthy and fit, and this diet should be followed on a regular basis by people.

Vegetables should always be cooked thoroughly and consumed fresh. Eating a variety of fruits and nuts also provides nutritious value to our bodies.

While dieting, everyone should have a well-balanced breakfast with appropriate eatings, followed by lunch and supper, and all of this should be done with excellent food.

Although junk foods have a superior flavor to other meals, they have a number of negative health consequences, including a rise in body fat or cholesterol, as well as a number of cancer illnesses and obesity when consumed on a regular basis.

Fast food, such as Subway Burgers and Pizza, are delicious to consume, but they are bad for our digestion and may cause a variety of digestive issues.

People with internal bodily issues should stay away from fast food. This kind of cuisine contains ingredients that raise the body’s calorie level, making youngsters obese and causing a variety of health problems.

Not only should individuals who are on a diet avoid pizza burgers, but they should also avoid sugary beverages and goods. These meals are harmful to the body and should be avoided by everyone, not just dietitians.

Our diet should always be a proper diet in which all of the things that give energy to our body are included, and most people should avoid these junk foods as they harm the body. There are many trends among the youth of eating junk food, and as a result, some people are harmed as a result of this. People should eat these types of food once a month and mostly avoid these types of food.

If you have any more questions about Essay Junk Food Vs Healthy Food, please leave them in the comments section below.

The healthy food vs junk food essay for class 1 is an essay that discusses the differences between healthy and junk food.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is junk food better than healthy food.

Junk food is better than healthy food because it tastes better.

What is the difference between healthy food and unhealthy food?

Healthy food is any food that can be eaten in moderation. Unhealthy food is any food that should only be eaten occasionally, or not at all.

What is junk food and healthy food?

Junk food is something that is high in sugar, fat, and salt. Its not good for you or your body. Healthy food is something that has a low amount of sugar, fat, and salt. Its good for your body and keeps you healthy.

Related Tags

• healthy food vs junk food 10 lines
• difference between junk food and healthy food
• healthy food vs junk food essay for class 4
• healthy food vs junk food chart
• advantages and disadvantages of healthy food essay

Essay On Hockey For Students & Children In Simple English

My home essay for class 1 in simple english.

• September 13, 2021

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Healthy Food Vs Unhealthy Food

Ever tried to eat healthy or simply tried to keep a balanced diet but could not keep the diet constant because you could not afford to purchase food for your regular diet? Don’t you think that healthy food should cost cheaper than unhealthy food? Well if your answers are both yes, and you are willing to have that healthier diet, you might just want to watch the diet-or shall I say budget on your wallet. If your answers are no, congratulations! You could be saving up to a lot money each year by not purchasing healthier food products. But, you may possibly be eligible for a chronic disease. How about an over exceeding calorie intake and a deficient nutrient take? Or maybe a world full of opportunities to make humanity better along with …show more content…

By now, it should be no surprise that unhealthy food causes chronic disease and overall bad health . We have to consider how unhealthy food is first manufactured and produced, all the way to how it is supposed to be cooked, as well as what we are supposed to use to cook the food. We can readily say that fast food is usually fried and cooked in the unhealthiest way. Unhealthy food also contains high amounts of sodium and calories along with harmful chemicals with little nutrients. Due to the fact that there are more calories than nutritional value, intake of unhealthy food causes poor health, weight gain, and bad nutrition . A diet that depends on a unhealthy one causes a person to become overweight; which is also known as obesity . When a person becomes overweight or diagnosed as obese, they are in risk of contracting chronic diseases such as cardiac disease, diabetes, and stroke. Other effects on the body include bloating and puffiness, shortness of breath, depression, dental distress, headache, acne, a weighty problem in the stomach, and more. Once you are diagnosed with a chronic disease, it could last up to three months or more. Chronic diseases cannot be prevented by vaccines nor cured by medication. Although diseases and symptoms cannot be cured or be rid of, there are medications that can lesson the damage to …show more content…

If we could make fruit and vegetable production more efficient and safe, we can make healthy food cheaper which should really happen. This could affect food intake globally and have significant effects on general health of humanity. Healthy food production has a larger amount of regulations such as safety as opposed to production of unhealthy food. Food safety measures are important and necessary in both domestic and export makers and can impose significant costs. We also have to consider costs that are associated with market rejection of contaminated commodities which don’t generally happen with unhealthy food because production of unhealthy food depend merely on machines and products that are more sustainable than healthy products such as fruits and vegetables. Because unhealthy food has grown more sustainable than healthy food, the production and market of healthy products has been affected. “Globalization of the food supply, coordinated accompanied by concentration of food distribution and processing companies, growing consumer awareness increase the need for effective, and proactive national food safety systems” a site states. The needs and demand for these factors need to be act upon. Production of healthy food accounted for at least 170,000 occupational deaths each year. Machinery and

Nt1330 Unit 9 Final Project

Healthy foods are needed for a well-balanced diet, however, price is another factor that greatly impacts whether or not an individual can afford

The Pleasures Of Eating Analysis

When buying food, when do you second guess purchasing it because you don’t know where it came from, how much it costed to be manufactured, or if it has been dyed or chemically treated? Consumers of food are quite oblivious to what is done to the food they purchase and eat. In Harvey Blatt’s, America's Food:What You Don't Know About What You Eat, he states, “We don't think much about how food gets to our tables, or what had to happen to fill our supermarket's produce section with perfectly round red tomatoes and its meat counter with slabs of beautifully marbled steak” (Blatt). He also goes to say, “We don't realize that the meat in one fast-food hamburger may come from a thousand different cattle raised in five different countries. In fact,

Women's Suffrage DBQ

This industry has to be changed with stricter regulations that protect the workers and provide uncontaminated food to the

Analysis Of William Saletan's Please Do Not Feed The Humans

More cheaper and “efficient” products mean more money coming their way. As people are getting more greedy with their income, the people who can not afford the better choice of a healthier diet are getting unhealthy. “More sweeteners, salt, and trans fat. Cheaper meat, more animal fat”, Saletan expressed. As a server at a ramen restaurant, I fully understand how this works.

The Pros And Cons Of Feeding America

When prices rise, consumers often move to cheaper, less-nutritious foods, increasing the risks of micronutrient defects and other forms of malnutrition, which can have long-term unfavorable effects on people’s health, development and productivity. Hunger

No Lunch Left Behind: A Theoretical Analysis

Over recent years, the United States obesity epidemic has increased in abundance to the point where an individual should be worried about making healthier life choices. Eating habits are an immense reason why our health has changed for the worse since the 70s. People die young due to developing obesity related diseases. Diseases occur from choices people make, what one decides to eat, and how much an individual decides to eat. Studies show the life expectancy for an unhealthy person who chooses to eat a bigger portion size, often less than the average individual who keeps a balanced way of eating.

When A Crop Is King Michael Pollan Analysis

Food production has become a problem in america because food companies selling fast food to america and its unhealthy for us. America should also be aware that marketing fast food and snacks that's is unhealthy to children will lead to obesity. Kids need to stop eating fast food because they are getting desicise with they are too young to get. Children are getting sick from the product from eating unhealthy snacks and fast food because the food companies are putting unhealthy things in product. The problem with this because we are eating animals that we should never eat.

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle: The Food Industry

The food industry has better improvements yet; it still needs a thorough cleansing. Although food production has bettered in the last 100 years by its treatment of workers and government’s oversight, it has had some adverse effects like company’s protection

Essay Sugar Should Be Banned

The press is known to explode with news everyday, informing the people on different topics that are happening worldwide. The newest revelation is on the soda ban in New York. Websites and pages are plastered with information and headlines announcing how “Mayor Bloomberg is overreaching with N.Y.C. large soda ban” or “Banning the Big Gulp Ban”. Reporters are scrambling to join the bandwagon of criticizing or praising this mayor’s audacious decision. There are many factors that influence opinions on the matter, but one of the most popular reasons is because of the high numbers of people that are obese and overweight.

Informative Speech: An Attention Getter For Fast Food

I. Introduction A. Hook/Attention getter: “Fast food” is named as fast food because of the whole process from ordering, preparing and serving the food just take several minutes. B. General statement: Fast food is becoming more and more popular among people around the world because of the changing of lifestyle from the past times to the present times. C. Thesis statement: Due to the convenient, affordable price and good taste of fast food, consumption of fast food is rising according to studies but it also brings negative effects on our health in the long run. II. Body A. Topic sentence: Fast food restaurant such as McDonalds (McD) or Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) are available almost anywhere in the world, and you can even get it with a simple phone call and get it delivered right in front of your door step or by ordering through their websites without leaving your work desk.

Obesity Persuasive Speech

It can cause certain cancers, heart problems and diabetes (World Health Organization, n.d.). The thing to know is that obesity is ranked second only to smoking as a preventable cause of death (Flegal, Williamson, Pamuk, &

Persuasive Speech: An Attention Getter For Fast Food

Besides that, it is also rich in sodium from common salt and other additives. i.Sub-sub-supporting point: Based on the study of Dr. Vinyard and Dr. Bowman, by comparing the adults who took fast food often and those who do not, the study showed positive relationship with overweight status. 2.Supporting point 2: Obesity may not bring immediate death but it may cause heart attack, asthma, diabetes and a lot more. a.Sub-supporting point 1: A lot of diseases can be cause by being obese, although some of the diseases meantion above doesn’t bring immediate death but it would cause a lot of trouble to our daily life.

Healthy Food Is More Expensive Than Unhealthy Food Essay

Is healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food the problem Is the people tend to go towards the unhealthy it’s easier more convenient and processed food sometimes can be a bit cheaper. In a study that shows that eating healthy is it really that expensive maybe it takes a little more time to prep your meals but it’s worth it at the end. ”swapping out some of these less expensive, and less healthy foods, for fresher and more nutritious ones added up to only about $1.50 more per day. ”-Alexandra Sifferlin.

The Pros And Cons Of Food Labels

Had he gone further into the report he would have found that organic fruits and vegetables are significantly closer in price to conventionally grown ones. We are all paying extra for the fallout from GMOs. This case indeed shows that food labeling issues are not only vital and extremely important today, but also that there is very hard to come to a solution. It would be very easy to label everything, require companies to let consumers know every single ingredient and in turn, hope to increase global health levels. However, it seems that opposing side has very strong arguments and companies are reluctant to sacrifice their profits in order to improve consumers health, which, very interestingly, is sometimes argued would not be achieved by doing so

Speech On Healthy Lifestyle

In a perfect world we would all be eating the right food, exercising, sleeping well and just generally enjoying life. In the real world most of us manage a percentage of the healthy lifestyle and muddle through as best we can with the rest of it. Part of the problem is we are encouraged to think, mostly by the media, that we should be doing everything possible towards a healthy lifestyle, all of the time. For most of us this is just not possible.

More about Healthy Food Vs Unhealthy Food

Related topics.

Eating Healthy Vs Unhealthy Food Essay

Show More Eating habits have changed in the past few decades. Life today is not how it was before when people wouldn’t have to worry about many health issues. Foods are the building block of every cell in the body, and it’s responsible for the proper functioning of the whole body. That’s why people should make the right choice when choosing what they want to eat. Years ago people used to prepare their own foods from fresh fruits and vegetables and nothing was preserved, unlike today that many meals contain chemicals and preservatives so they can last longer. In life there are two types of foods: healthy and unhealthy, which we have to learn to choose in order to make a change in life and maintain staying healthy. Choosing between eating healthy or …show more content… Unhealthy foods nowadays contain chemicals, preservatives, artificial colors, and artificial flavors, which are really bad for the body. Some people do not have time to cook what they want to eat or they don’t want to spend a lot of time cooking, that’s why they choose unhealthy foods or junk food. In the University of Cambridge, researchers did a study over a 10 year period and they stated, “In 2012, 1000 kcal of “healthy” food cost approximately $12, while 1000 kcal of unhealthy food cost only $4” (Bekiempis). This shows on why many people choose to eat unhealthy instead of healthy because many aren’t able to purchase healthy food choices. Junk food is not only easy to prepare, however in addition it’s delicious and tasty to eat. In comparison, both healthy and unhealthy eating seems to taste amazing. Many would believe that a hamburger is much better than a fruit salad, but when you come to compare their calorie intake you notice that a hamburger is worse than a fruit salad. Unhealthy foods are high in Trans fat, sodium and sugar which can lead to obesity, heart diseases, diabetes and other health problems. Quite the opposite healthy foods are high in minerals, vitamins, healthy fats and protein which can lead to good health, longer living and

Related Documents

The extraordinary science of addictive junk food essay.

Obesity can cause several problems making it one of the most expensive diseases to treat. What goes in a human body can cause many long term health effects. Eating foods high in sugar, salt, or fat can lead to serious health concerns such as obesity or hypertension. The “convenient and inexpensive” foods advertised by many food companies have a much higher price tag than expected. These particular food companies have been at fault with the nations growing health concerns.…

Processed Food In America Essay

Most people will agree that healthy eating takes place when we regularly consume a variety of foods that are filled with nutrients. Nutrients are typically found in foods that contain, grains, proteins and fiber. A daily consumption of these foods will provide the body with the essential stuff that it needs. Fruits, vegetables, and fish, are just three foods should be eaten daily. It is the nutrients that are found in these foods allow the body to operate at its optimal potential, gives us energy and reduce our chances of sicknesses and diseases.…

Is Junk Food Really Cheaper Analysis

Mark Bittman argues that junk food can be just as expensive if not more expensive then good food. His argument is presented to his readers in “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper” an essay written by Bittman. Bittman tries to convince his audience by connecting the issues with his readers. He then provides his readers with a logical and reasonable argument that makes them re-think if junk food really is cheaper or easier. Bittman confirms his argument by using statements from other creditable sources Bittman’s argument sends a good and convincing message because it lets people know that the concept “junk food is easier and cheaper” is not always the case.…

The Omnivore's Dilemma, By Michael Pollan

The Omnivore’s Dilemma is written by the famous food writer Michael Pollan who explains that humans are notably omnivores—eats both meats and plants—and that our biggest dilemma is that we have too many options regarding the foods that we eat. Pollan uncovers the truth about the food industry that most people do not know about. He explains that if people were more aware of how their food is processed, where it comes from, or the impact that it has on your health, environment, and ethics you would definitely consider a major change in your eating habits. It’s no secret that within the last century the way we eat and how we eat our foods has drastically changed. Before, whatever your grandparents had cooked for dinner was considered healthy…

The Controversy Of Obesity In The United States

The Controversy of Obesity Obesity is a major problem in America. The numbers of obese people in the United States have steadily increased since the 1970’s. Over a fourth of the population in America is obese, leading it to be the among the most obese countries in the world. Obesity can be solved.…

Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?

In the article “Gap in Diet Quality Between Wealthiest and Poorest Americans Doubles, Study Finds,” by Tracie McMillan, and article “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?,” by Mark Bittman, shows the American diet quality, and how it can be improved in many ways. In today’s Americans lives consuming the right things into our body is still an issue as well as purchasing the items that we think are cheaper. In the article “Gap in Diet Quality,” by Tracie McMillan, we see how poor people can not afford healthy food where privilege people can afford food and take advantage.…

Benefits Of Healthy Food Essay

Eating healthy allows students to have the energy to perform well in school and sports. Foods that contain a lot of nutrients and vitamins offer a long digestion time, giving you a slower and stable release of energy (Straight Health). The longer the digestion will take, the longer your energy will last. Principals often call during the week standardized testing to say to get plenty of rest and eat a healthy breakfast. A healthy breakfast can actually help students with testing because a meal containing complex carbohydrates, protein, fat, etc. can prevent a drop in blood sugar and allow students to last throughout the day (Healthier).…

Junk Food In America

Tired, grouchy or distracted in class? The reason could be the food you are eating. Many Americans today want to make their fast-paced lives as stress-free as possible by finding substitutions for cooking in junk food, a type of unhealthy food that most Americans enjoy eating because it is cheap, quick, tasty, and convenient. The high amount of calories in the diet and the lack of exercise has led to an increase in obesity in the citizens of the United States. There are many effects of junk food on obesity in America.…

Possible Solutions To The Obesity Problem In America

A person has a choice to decide healthy or unhealthy and how much they consume in each sitting. As Verduin, Agarwal, and Waltman state, “Consumers need clarity and reliable nutrition information to make responsible dietary decisions.” This statement helps people realize that they are not educated enough to even know the difference in what is healthy and what is harmful to their…

Persuasive Essay On Bad Diets

Obesity is one of the most common problem that caused by unhealthy eating style. Also, many other health problems will appear if people do not care about what they eat. Furthermore, people who have poor diets can affect other people around them; therefore, it is important to have the government advises what food will be healthy to put in daily meal. “Understanding the ingredients that make up your diet” (The Risks of a Poor Diet and Being Overweight) is important for all people who want be get healthier. Knowing what is good for health and tasty is what people want, but most of them do not know what are the food.…

Unhealthy Eating Speech

These days, when we think about healthy eating we tend to think of it as expensive and inconvenient. We are in such a rush to go about our daily lives that we put our health on the wayside. We see that it’s easier to grab a burger and fries on our lunch break. We think of it as a strict diet, one that will deprive us of the food we love. What we don’t think about are the benefits that healthy eating has on our bodies.…

Fast Food Vs Mental Health Essay

According to Goggle maps, there are close to 50,000 fast food chains across the United States. In fact, with ascending of advertisements and the lower prices of food, people often find it hard to stay away from fast food. The people often eating the fast and unhealthy food find they are having mental health complications. A 2012 study in the journal Public Health Nutrition revealed that people who ate junk food were 51 percent more likely to show signs of depression and the more junk food people eat, the more likely they were to become depressed (Lallanilla, 2013). Healthy food, while more expensive, as a general rule is much more beneficial than unhealthy food because it helps boost your energy, improve your mood, and improve longevity.…

Fast Food And Obesity Essay

Many people question if fast food restaurants are responsible for rising obesity rates. Fast food restaurants are partially responsible for the rise in obesity rates. The food that fast food restaurants serve is extremely unhealthy but easily accessible and cheap and this is what attracts people to consume large amounts of it. These large amounts of consumption of these foods play a large factor in why obesity rates are rising. Based on rising obesity rates and consumption patterns, there is a clear link between fast food consumption and the rising levels of obesity.…

Essay On Nutrition Problems

Eating healthy is important to everyone in order to have a greater level of life with less possibilities of diseases. Plus it makes you feel better with more energy and potential throughout the day. Some may ask ”What does eating healthy really mean?” Eating healthy means that you have to consume a diverse selection of foods which give you the right nutrients that make you feel healthy, helps to feel good, and have great energy in a regular basis. The nutrients that should be mainly consumed to be “eating healthy” are vitamins, minerals, protein, carbohydrates, and fat which people tend to take it as a danger to our…

Unhealthy Eating Habits Essay

Unhealthy eating is becoming the norm for many adolescents. Teenager’s consumption of junk food is enormously predominant. Junk food is defined as foods with little or no nutritional value that are high in calories, fat, sugar, salt, or caffeine. Junk food can include sugary foods such as breakfast cereals, sweet desserts and processed foods such as hot dog fatty foods such as French fries. Fats, from junk food, trigger the brain to want more food.…

Related Topics

Ready to get started.

• Create Flashcards
• Mobile apps
•   Facebook
•   Twitter
• Cookie Settings