D5.1: Presentations of current views and situations on ... Presentations of literatur… · Project no: FOOD-CT-2006-23043 Project acronym: HECTOR Project title: Eating Out: Habits,

Project no: FOOD-CT-2006-23043

Project acronym: HECTOR Project title: Eating Out: Habits, Determinants, and Recommendations for Consumers and the

European Catering Sector

Instrument: Coordination Action Thematic Priority: Food Quality & Safety 3rd thematic call, Topic T5 priority Area 4.3.4

Catering and eating out of home

D5.1: Presentations of current views and situations on food services, consumer behaviour and the psycho-sociological

aspects of eating out Due date of deliverable: Month 25

Actual Submission date: Month 25

Start date of project: 1 June 2006 Duration: 42 months

Project coordinator name: Antonia Trichopoulou, MD

Project coordinator organisation name: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

Revision: draft 1

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) Dissemination Level

PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services). RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services). CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services).

2

DELIVERABLE REPORT FOR DELIVERABLE 5.1, HECTOR CA

Table of Contents

1.1 Food services available in the catering sector................................................................................ 3 1.2 Consumers’ attitudes and behaviour when eating out ................................................................. 35 1.3 Socio-psychological perspective of the eating out occasions ...................................................... 61

Deliverable name: Presentations of current views and situations on food services, consumer behaviour and the psycho-sociological aspects of eating out (based on literature review)

Deliverable no: D5.1

Work package no: 5

Lead participant no: 11 (UGent)

Responsible work package leader Patrick Kolsteren

Authors INRAN : Aida Turrini NCRC : Johanna Varjonen, Johanna Mäkelä CNIPH: Laido Zrinka

3

1.1 Food services available in the catering sector

Presentation prepared by INRAN (Italy)

Review on existing knowledge on food services

available in the catering sector

Foodservices in Europe

Aida Turrini, INRAN

PLENARY WORKSHOP III

Athens, Greek6-9 May 2008

Statistics in focusIndustry, trade and servicesAuthor: Manfred SCHMIEMANN31/2008

Enterprises by size class - overview of SMEs in the EU

55-1 hotels55-2 other short-stay accommodation55-3 restaurants55-4 cafés55-5 canteens and caterers.

NACE Rev.1(Statistical Classification of Economic Activities - Council Regulation (EEC) No3037/90).

Modified from Maresca, 2004

Foodservices

COMMERCIAL CATERING

Restaurants (European, Ethnic, Concept)Quick service (Fast-food/Modern restaurants, cafes,

“Delicatessens and take-aways”)Pubs (Public Houses)Hotels/GuesthouseLeisure (Visitor Attractions, Entertainment, Clubs, Events, On

board travel/carriers/eating on the move)Popular catering

This includes self service restaurants and restaurants without a full drinks licence, although some had a wine licence. The category includes independent restaurants and restaurants which are part of larger organisations such as department stores.

Foodservices

Foodservices

Foodservices

COLLECTIVE CATERING/INSTITUTIONAL CATERING

Staff catering (self-run/in-house canteen, contracted canteen, governmental/authorities canteen, off shore catering)

Health care (hospitals, care homes)Education (all levels)Services (Governmental services, welfare – including

meals on wheels)

Foodservices

Foodservices

FormatsSpecialised Staff & Outlets: Free-flow, self-

service, bar, restaurant, canteen, buffetSpecialised Staff & No Outlets: events, home

deliveryNo specialised staff & Outlets:

automated/robot, vending machine (e.g. 24-h food shop)

No specialised staff & No Outlets: Internet, phone ordering

Foodservices

Catering and nutrition

Quality of menu offering is expected to affect nutritional evaluation of eating out,

Nutrition for the Food Service Professional (EichDrummond, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1997) focuses on menu planning, developing healthy recipes, marketing menus, and light beverages and foods for the beverage operation.

Foodservices

Catering and nutrition

Some questions to address:

Acceptance of mandatory nutritional labelling ? (see Thomas & Mills, 2006)

Role in managing malnutrition, as for example in hospitals ? (see Mikkelsen et al., 2003).

Modified from Maresca, 2004

Foodservices

Supply

Food* Ingredients for catering* Food products supply* Meal solutions/convenience food

Non food* Equipment* Services* Meal ticket/luncheon voucher

Food providers

Food providers

Food providers FISH

Starch & sugar Plastic packaging

Drying - Torrefaction - Carbonisation

Services for catering sector (examples)




Associations

Links: http://www.ih-ra.com/advocacy/issues/org_briefs/hcima.php

http://www.ih-ra.comIHRAInternational Hotel and restaurant Association

www.hotrec.orgHOTRECHotels, Restaurants & Cafés in Europe

http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Company_News/H/HCIMA/

HCIMAHotel & Catering International Management Association

http://www.ferco-catering.org/FERCOEuropean Federation of Contract Catering Organization

www.emrarestaurants.comEMRAEuropean Modern Restaurant Association

http://www.effat.org/public/EFFATEuropean Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions

WebsiteAcronymName

What’s going on?

What’s going on?

SELF-CATERING

VENDING

What’s going on?

Hospitality networks –“the Cesarine”,

“albergo diffuso”1982

Surveying in Italy

AC Nielsen for ISMEA

1) Eating out by households (Telepanel)2) Purchase by Commercial Catering (they are

piloting a new structure, increasing samplesize to include collective catering and detailing food categories

35

1.2 Consumers’ attitudes and behaviour when eating

out

Presentation prepared by NCRC (Finland)

Review on existing knowledge on consumers’ attitudes and behaviour when eating out:Key points and outline for a

reportJohanna Varjonen and Johanna Mäkelä,National Consumer Research Centre, Helsinki

HECTOR Plenary Workshop III, Athens, 6th–9th of May2008

The aim and focus

• ”Review of the existing knowledge onconsumers’ attitudes and behaviour when eating out. e.g. what types ofrestaurants/catering institutions are preferred;what are the trends using take-away foods or ready-made meals from the supermarkets;attitudes to menus; the role of prices etc.”– WP5: presentation– WP6: report

Literature search

• mainly studies published after 2000• the search is based on keywords like

eating out, dining out, food services‘cross-tabled’ with consumer attitudes,behaviour, choice etc.

• at this moment we have app. 100 more or less relevant references

Definition of eating out (HECTOR)

• 1. meals, beverages, snacks consumed out of home (core definition coined in Athens 2006)

• If more detailed data are available, EatingOut will be defined as:– 2. meals eaten out of home prepared by food

services (it is understood by food services to referto catering, formal and informal eating out)

– 3. meals prepared by food services and consumedin home

the variety of ’names’ for eating out: food outlets, food facilities, food services, FAFH…

Types of research on eating out

• theoretical studies– e.g. the concept of eating out (Warde & Martens,

2000)• qualitative studies

– e.g. the functions of restaurants in everyday life(Pettersson & Fjellström, 2007)

• quantitative studies: statistical data andsurveys– HBS and other surveys– National Accounts (individual consumption)– McDonald’s panel data from four countries (FR,

DE, ES, UK)

Catering services and the expenditureon food and non-alc beverages, 2005 (Source: OECD data, tourists included)

Food and non-alc beverages = 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

POLAND

HUNGARY

CZECH REPUBLICBELG

IUM

FRANCE

SLOVAK R

EPUBLICNORW

AYDENMARKGERMANY

NETHERLANDS

FINLA

NDITALY

PORTUGALIC

ELAND

LUXEMBOURG

AUSTRIA

UNITED KIN

GDOMSPAIN

Catering services and the expenditureon food and non-alc beverages, 2005

(Source: OECD data, tourists included)

food and non-alc beverages = 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

UNITEDSTATES

CANADA AUSTRALIA KOREA

Consumers’ choices and motives concerning eating

out• food services provide for multiple purposes and

functions focus varies• 1. consumers view restaurant service in terms of

attributes (attribute-value theory)– low price, food quality, convenient location etc

• 2. consumer view restaurant service in terms of expectations or post-experience performance evaluations (expectancy disconfirmation theory)

• Kivela, Inbakaran, Reece (1999) have developed a model of dining satisfaction and return patronage that combines the above-mentioned approaches

The model of dining satisfaction and return patronage (1)

• customer-oriented (external) factors include– dining occasion: celebration, social

occasion, business need, convenience– situational constraints: time, money– dining out frequency– customer characteristics: age, gender,

income, occupation


• restaurant attributes include– food: presentation of food; menu item variety; nutritious

food; tastiness of food; food quality; freshness of food; temperature of food what about healthiness? nutritious vs. healthy?

– service: friendly, polite and helpful staff; attentive staff; staff greeting customers; efficient service; staff are willing to serve; staff have food/ beverage knowledge; sympathetic handling of complaints

– atmosphere: level of comfort in the restaurant; level of noise in the restaurant; view from the restaurant; cleanliness of the restaurant; dining privacy; restaurant’s temperature; restaurants appearance; staff appearance

– convenience: handling of telephone reservations; parking convenience


• pre-dining perceptions– customers’ dining expectations of restaurant attributes – customers’ importance perceptions of restaurant attributes

DINING EXPERIENCE

• post-dining perceptions– customers’ dining expectations met perception

DINING (DIS)SATISFACTION

Could this model be useful in enhancement of healthy

eating out?

Restaurant and menu preferences (1)

• a world of contradictions and tensions– healthy everyday lunches vs. festive occasions

call for enjoyment without calorie counting (Mertanen 2008)

– consumers’ orientation towards eating out (Bugge & Lavik 2007)

• health vs. hedonism• economy vs. extravaganza • democratisation vs. distinction• convenience vs. enthusiasm

– different people go to different places ☺• type of eating out outlets in UK (Olsen, Warde & Martens

(2000)

Restaurant and menu preferences (2)

• attributes for the choice of meals either in restaurant or at home (in the order of importance) are taste, nutrition, convenience, ease of digestion, low prices

those who put importance on the nutrition, eat out less frequently and are less likely to buy fast food (Stewart et al. 2005)

Healthiness (1)• relatively little research on the healthiness of eating

out especially from consumers’ point of view• people with health orientation wish more information

of the nutritional content of restaurant meals (e.g.Hartwell and Symonds 2005)

• many researchers presume that fast food and obesity are connected (Mehta and Chang 2008, Dixon et. al. 2005)

• obesity and eating out (e.g. ”supersize” discussion)

Healthiness (2)• in Finland, the majority of interviewed restaurant

customers believed that the food served atrestaurants is prepared according to the present nutritional recommendations (Mertanen, 2008)

• in the UK, the consumers think that it is the responsibility of the caterer to provide healthy choices (Hartwell and Symonds 2005) are food services able to take this challenge?

• Adams and Ferret (1997) did a study in UK there consumers ( N = 100) estimated the nutritional status of their lunch sandwiches– women judged the fat content correctly, while men

estimated it lower than it factually was

Convenience foods and obesity

• according to an Australian Delphi study (Dixon, Hinde & Banwell, 2006) the social trends fuelling changes in food consumption are– rising use of convenience and pre-prepared food– aggressive food marketing– growing availability of, and access to, food

“We inhabit a food rich environment.”

Convenience foods and obesity (2)

• the consequences are– the loss of intuitive understanding of what is in the

foods we eat – limited capacity and confidence in assessing

marketing information and making informed, sensible food choices

– reduced physical activity in food preparation– loss of skills in relation to planning eating and

meals, deciding what to eat, and hence being susceptible to messages about what is easy and tastes good

– handing over control to companies, which make decisions about ingredients and serving sizes

Demographic and socio-economic factors

Page 3

20,1

25,2

38,8

16,0

4,314,8

17,4

18,3

12,1

11,1

22,0

12,7

24,1

19,6

24,8

9,95,2

3,8

Population IEO McD

Visit distribution by Age - 2006

9,1

10,8

12,0

13,7

16,7

13,1

24,7

5,5

13,9

20,3

18,1

13,2

7,7

21,3

12,0

21,8

27,2

22,9

122,6 1,5

Population IEO McD

60+ 50 to 59 40 to 49 30 to 39 20 to 29 10 to 19 0 to 9

9,4

10,0

15,0

17,1

15,0

11,6

21,8

4,5

16,2

13,0

23,7

15,3

11,2

16,2

11,6

31,2

15,3

24,7

10,72,1

4,5

Population IEO McD

13,2

13,2

13,1

14,4

14,3

13,6

18,2

5,3

16,6

20,0

21,4

15,3

11,1

10,3

12,3

27,9

22,4

22,5

11,22,4 1,3

Population IEO McD

Different Age breaks

65+

35-64

16-34

0-15

GB Population: census datafrom 2001

Example of the McDonald’s data (IEO= Informal EatingOut)

Life cycle and income factors• labour participation of the household

manager, higher urbanization levels, income and education had a positive effect on the likelihood to consume food away from home

• busy families do not consider mid-scale or up-scale restaurants to be time efficient

• single persons choose restaurants with different motives (up-scale for dating, convenience to everyday eating) (Byrne, Capps and Saha 1998, Mutlu & Grazia 2006)

Sociability of eating out

• eating out as a social activity– In Britain, 76 % of the respondents did not

like eating alone (Warde & Martens, 2000)– In Norway, only 12 % of had eaten their

latest meal outside home alone (Bugge & Lavik, 2007)

• the social dimension of appetite: how do we eat in company and alone?

Conclusion • gaps in existing research

– healthiness of eating out from consumers’ point of view is relatively poorly explored area

– the role of ’healthy option’ markers • lessons to be learned

– it seems that in some cases (Finnish, British) consumers trust that food services follow nutrition recommendations or that food services are responsible for healthiness of food served

– the challenging multifunctionality of eating out– the challenging variety and contextuality of eating

out

Thank you for your attention!

[email protected]@ncrc.fi

61

1.3 Socio-psychological perspective of the eating out

occasions

Presentation prepared by CNIPH (Croatia)

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF EATING OUT

Zrinka LaidoKatica Antonic Degac

Croatian National Institute of Public Health

EXAMPLE

• A 50-year old woman finds out that her choice of 2% milk is higher in fat as she thought

• She decides to change to skim milk

• Is it simple change?

Nestle M., Wing R., Birch L., DiSogra L et al. (1998)‘Behavioural and social influences on food choice’. Nutrition Reviews, 56:5, pp. s50-s74

She needs to:

Locate a store with skim milk

Potentially change market, if her market does not provide it.

If other family members prefer other types of milk, consider storage space for several kinds of milk

Money to purchase several kinds of milk

Think on using skim milk in making family meals and how to get skim milk to workplace


Simple behaviour change – just change for skim milk

The greater the number of factors affecting change – the greater the number of barriers and more difficult to change it


• Providing nutritional information about possible risks will not have much effect on food choice

• Overcome other barriers such as psycho-social, behavioural and environmental barriers

• Dietary guidelines: reduce fat consumption, suggest avoiding certain type of foods

• It may not be compatible with cultural or familial standards of appropriate food intake


Changedietary pattern

Obstaclesfor change

Increased costTimeSkillsKnowledgeEffort for new ways of food preparationAccess.

Peer pressure Advertising

Culturaldeterminants

Social

Political values

Economic aspectsNestle M., Wing R., Birch L., DiSogra L et al. (1998)‘Behavioural and social influences on food choice’. Nutrition Reviews, 56:5, pp. s50-s74

AIM

• Overview of the existing knowledge on consumers’psychological and social aspects of eating out.

• Available information regarding mentioned aspects andeating out

• The literature gaps and lack of information.

METHODS

• During period from January till April 2008 the literature search was performed

• No limitation regarding year of article publication

• The search based on the keywords; eating out, psychological aspects or factors, social aspects or factors, away from home food.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF EATING OUT

Psychological aspects - described in literature with possible influence on food choice during eating out

• Habits• Mood• Stress• Emotions (positive, negative)• Liking, wanting, desiring etc.

• Most of the articles about psychological aspects and food are indicating connection of psychological factors,eating disorders and obesity

• Negative emotions have important role in obesity, eating disorders

• Importance of psychological aspects during loosing weight and weight management

STRESS

• Young adults change dietary intake patterns towards more snacks and high energy dense, snack type foods(regardless gender, nutritional status)

• Changing appetite for snack type over meal type foods• Changing time pressures - speed and convenience of

foods take a higher priority than nutritional quality of foodstuffs

Oliver, G. and Wardle, J. (1999) ‘Perceived effects of stresson food choice’. Physiology & Behaviour, 66:3, pp. 511-515

• Intake of fruits, vegetables, meat, fish decreased during stress

• Foods reported as being eaten in higher amounts: sweets and chocolate (60%), cakes and biscuits (60%) and savoury snacks (48%)

Oliver, G. and Wardle, J. (1999) ‘Perceived effects of stress on food choice’. Physiology & Behaviour, 66:3, pp. 511-515

Tools to identify reasons for eating (stress, emotion) also needs to be monitored

Stress management = possible cornerstone of weight management

MOOD

• Food has influence on mood

• Mood and behaviour: strong influence over food choice

• The balance of protein and carbohydrates in a meal can affect the synthesis and activity of the brain neurotransmitter serotonin

Mac, Evily and Kelly, C. (2001) ‘Mood and food.British Nutrition Foundation’. Nutrition Bulletin, 26:4, pp. 325-329

• Meals with high level of proteins; increase alertness, performance efficiency

• Meals rich in carbohydrates; decrease depressed mood (seasonal affective disorder, premenstrual syndrome, obesity).

• Mood can impact on food preferences, food cravings, dietary behaviour and responses to intervention.

Mac, Evily and Kelly, C. (2001) ‘Mood and food.British Nutrition Foundation’. Nutrition Bulletin, 26:4, pp. 325-329

EMOTIONS

• Negative emotions = craving for sweet food increases along with the tendency to cope with negative emotions through eating

• Recently studies indicated an increase in hedonic eating- tendency to eat in order to enjoy in food and during times of joy

• Emotions and eating are not always directly linked in all situations

• Eating and emotions could have co-occurred by chance

• Eating has been recognised as a coping mechanism for dealing with stress and emotions, usually by under-eating or overeating.

• The study showed that positive emotion in every day life coincided as frequently with eating as did negative emotion and emotionally neutral status.

Macht, M., Haupt, C. and Salewsky, A. (2004) ‘Emotions and eating in everyday life: application of the experience-sampling method’. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 43:4, 11-21

LIKING AND DESIRE

• Differences in desires and food liking = different food experience and attitudes

• Through life, cultural and socioeconomic environment largely determines the opportunities and contexts for sensory experiences

• Liking is different than desire or wanting• The desire to consume certain food item = outcome of

sensory hedonic likes, situation and current internal state.

Mela J. D. (2001)‘Determinants of food choice: relationships with obesity

and weight control’.Obesity Research, 9, pp. 249s-255s

Diagram of factors influencing desire to eat a particular food (Mela D.J. 2001)

Current internal state

Liking Perceived appropriateness

Psycho-physiological cues

Hedonic anticipation

Situational cues

Wanting/desire (+/-)

• Current internal state immediate momentary psychological (e.g., mood) or physiological (e.g., thirst) state

• Liking refers to general pleasure derived from food or foods

• Perceived appropriateness refers to the usual use-context (where, when, with whom) in which a food is eaten

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF EATING OUT

• Consumers’ needs have changed = increased demands for more ready-to-eat foods (packaged, processed, high content of fat, sodium)

• Limited availability of healthy ready-to-eat foods -narrowing possibility for healthy choice

• It discourages people from intention to eat healthier

Social aspects that could have influence on food choice

• Cultural values• Advertising• Access• Availability• Food preferences• Demographic factors - sex, age, occupation, social status• Social - family and friends• Environment

CULTURAL BELIEFS

• Rules of specific cultures, subcultures, ethnic groups put frames of acceptable and preferable food

• Traditional societies - “nutritional transition”and taking over the dietary pattern of western societies

• Main characteristic - dietary shift away from grains and starchy roots toward more energy dense fats, saturated fats and sugars


• Based on cultural values, people construct their perceptions, beliefs and attitudes

• Cultural preferences to eat products like meat with high content of fat present barrier for low-fat foods

• In one study focus-group pointed out that “meat is essential for dinner” as it “implies success and status”

SOCIAL INFLUENCES – FAMILY AND FRIENDS

• Family and friends - model and peer pressure for consuming particular foods (high fat, trying new foods)

• Lower levels of food consumption - people eat alone• Higher levels when eating occurs in a group setting• Parents are often too busy to cook or eat as a family • Adolescence age = the frequency of eating dinner with

their family decreases

• Adolescents spend more time away from home because of social, school and community activities and job

• Factor influencing their food choice: amount of time that adolescent “has or wants to spend on food”

• Skipped meals and fewer family meals result in lower intake of fruits, vegetables and dairy products.

• Adolescents associate eating healthy foods with eating family meals and identify parents as important influences of their consumption patterns.

Videon, M. T. and Manning, K. C. (2003) :”Influences on adolescent eating patterns: the importance of

family meals. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, pp. 365-373.

• Adolescents with better-educated parents - better consumption patterns

• Parental presence at evening meal associated with lower risk of poor consumption of fruits, vegetables and diary foods as well as the likelihood of skipping breakfast

Videon, M. T. and Manning, K. C. (2003) :”Influences on adolescent eating patterns: the importance of family meals. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, pp. 365-373.

MEDIA

• Media have power and capacity to persuade

• Media campaigns target specific group aiming to reach a broad audience and repeat messages

• Advertisments with health claims have better chances to increase sale of certain products

• Positive and negative commercial messages: influence on short term changes in nutrition knowledge and attitude, but none of the message was particularly effective in inducing permanent change in behaviour

• Television viewing has been cited as a contributing factor to higher energy and fat intake

• Exposure to food advertising: influence viewers on food choices toward higher fat, higher energy foods and also due to snacking in front of the TV.

• Several health campaigns focused on promotion of daily intake of at least five portions of fruits and vegetables

• Campaigns linked to promotion of fruits and vegetables have an unknown, but probably small, impact

• Potential effectiveness, as so far known, has never been evaluated

• Little is known about which strategies consumers might prefer to adopt in order to achieve RDI of fruits and vegetables

Cox, D. N., Anderson, S.A, Lean, E. J. M. and Mela, J. D. (1998) ‘UK consumer attitudes, beliefs and barriers to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption’. Public Health Nutrition, 1:1, pp. 61-68

• Large-scale study made in USA titled “5-a-day”programme

• Tools and approaches used in the US can’t ensure guidance for the UK

• Culturally specific differences and differences among regions, sectors and target groups

(Havas et al., 1995)

• Not known yet on what occasion they would choose to eat fruits or vegetables - snack or main meal or meal component

• How much these choices would contribute to achieve dietary guidelines

• That information could be included in public health messages for use by health promotion agencies, produces, retailers and caterers

CONSUMER PREFERENCES?


•• Achievers” found including vegetables into main meals

easier than non-achievers

• “Question: If meal consisted of meat and vegetables is largely consumed and can that information be helpful in order to achieve desirable nutrient intake

• Not known whether fruit can replace strongly marketed snacks

• Challenge for producers and retailers.


AVAILABILITY - restaurants, schools, businesses, grocery stores, community centres and worksites)

• Budget• Potential profit margin• Adequate storage• Refrigeration• Consumer demands


• Access = “being able to obtain a variety of healthy foods at a reasonable price”

• Major obstacle for low-income groups?• Majority participants (90%) agreed that they are

surrounded by adequate shopping facilities• Question: Physical access to wholesome foods is not

such an issue to healthy eating, so the main barriers need to be identified?

Dibsdall, L. A., Lambert, N., Bobbin, R. F. and Frewer, L. J. (2003)‘Low-income consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards access,

availability and motivation to eat fruit and vegetables’. Public Health Nutrition, 6:2, pp. 159-168 sdall et al. (2003

DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

• Limited data available on demographic factors regarding fast food use (USA)

• Demographic factors positively associated with FF consumption; age, being single or married without children, white ethnicity, higher income.

• People in these groups: greater risk than average of excessive fat and energy intake with greater intake of fast food.

• F&V intake is lower among more fast food restaurant user

French, S. A., Harnack, L. and Jeffery, R. W. (2000) ‘Fast food restaurants use among women in the pond of prevention study; dietary, behavioural and demographic correlates’.International Journal of Obesity, 24, pp. 1353-1359

• Sex – Women = more willing to consider recommendations of eating more F&V in order to lose weight or protect themselves against certain diseases

• Age – Older participants more likely to believe they were eating healthily and enjoyed eating F&V

• Adolescents with better-educated parents had better consumption patterns than those with less-educated parents.

• Marital status – Single people were less likely to believe they enjoyed or ate enough fruits and vegetables for their health.

• Widowed participants believe to eat healthily and found F&V more affordable.

• Employment – retired participants more strongly agreed they ate enough F&V

• Jobseekers – believed to have greater difficulties in buying more fruits and vegetables than other participants (employed full, part time, retired)

• Adolescents who worked for pay 10h or more per week were more frequently using fast food restaurant.


• FFR employ adolescents

• Influence dietary intake: increased availability, employee discounts, free meals and beverages

• Convenient way of obtaining meals for families or adolescents - no time or little time for meal preparation.


HEALTHY NUTRITION PROMOTION –RESTAURANTS, “READY TO EAT” FOODS

• American Institute of Cancer Research (2002): Americans tend to ignore serving size during their attempt to maintain body weight

• Many people are just unaware of correct serving sizes

• The increase of eating out: barrier in meeting dietary recommendations for fat, sodium, nutrients and affect the nutritional quality of the diet

• Restaurants: advertising healthier food choices

• Portion sizes of restaurant food increased over last decades

• Increased portion size relates to marketing techniques

• Increased competition among restaurants and the desire to attract more customers with “more food for the money”

• The study evaluated the differences in claimed nutritional values and actual nutritional values in restaurant meals

• Claims on menus of restaurants were consistent and can be helpful in making healthy food choices

• In this study meals identified as healthy choices on menus are in fact healthy choices

Root, A. D., Toma, R. B., Frank, G. C. and Reiboldt, W. (2004) ‘Meals identified as healthy choices in restaurant menus: an evaluation of accuracy’.International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 55:6, pp. 449-454

• Restaurants could have a role in educating clients

• The value of selecting menu items identified as healthier or lower in fat

• Emphasize importance of portion sizes and consider the total energy intake

Root, A. D., Toma, R. B., Frank, G. C. and Reiboldt, W. (2004) ‘Meals identified as healthy choices in restaurant menus: an evaluation of accuracy’.International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 55:6, pp. 449-454

ECONOMICAL ASPECTS – INCOME AND AFFORDABILITY

• People with low income - greater tendency to consume unhealthy diets and develop chronic diseases earlier

• Except of limited income to pay for certain type of foods

• Access to healthy food

• Social support

• Lack of cooking skills and nutritional knowledge

• Low income groups spend more of their income on food

• Most of the participants organised their budget in order to purchasetheir habitual amounts of fruits and vegetables

• Considering purchasing more as an additional expense, rather than exchanging usual food items for healthier options

• 2/3 of participants did not think that lack of money prevents them from eating a healthy diet

• 73% strongly or moderately believed they eat healthily


• Low income groups in the UK eat on average 2.7 portions of fruits and vegetables

• Higher-income groups also do not eat the recommended 5 on more portions of fruits and vegetables every day

• Access and affordability to wholesome food were not major issue

• Access to fruits and vegetables was not a major barrier to eating healthily


• Costly food - fish, lean meats and fresh fruits and vegetables are less likely to be available in poor urban and rural communities

• Even if such kind of food is provided and available, inadequate funds can limit purchase and consumption

• Other factors – as motivational, psychosocial or lifestyle factors present bigger barriers than it was considered


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS – FOOD SAFETY PERCEPTION OF EATING PLACES

• All participants claimed that when deciding to eat out -standard of food hygiene was important to them

• That factor was rated as more important than the type of food, service, price or the location of the eating place.

• Half of participants - difficult to find information on the hygiene standards of eating places.

• If access to information was easier some consumers would eat out more often

• Concern: cleanliness in general, the staff or the kitchen.

Worsfold, D. (2006) ‘Eating out: consumer perceptions on food safety’.

International Journal of Environmental Health Research. 16:3, pp. 219-229

• Caterers are suspected making hygiene errors in order to reduce costs and increase profits in the same time

• Consumer confidence is a critical factor for the catering industry and consumers expect high standards

• “Scores on doors” = main method of raising the confidence of the public in the standards of the food industry

• Develop information that can be effectively and fairly interpreted by the public and media.

Worsfold, D. (2006) ‘Eating out: consumer perceptions on food safety’.

International Journal of Environmental Health Research. 16:3, pp. 219-229

DISCUSSION

• Psychological and social factors (comfort, nostalgia, indulgence, celebrations and social contact) influence dietary habits and have impact during eating out

• To understand what choices are available for people and why they make them: understand possible psychological, social and environmental aspects

The Keystone Forum on Away-From-Home Foods Final Report, 2006

Environmental issue - variables influencig food choice

• Food costs• Technology (production, processing, packaging)• Consumer demographic characteristics (age, dual-income

households, participation of women in the workforce, race/ethnicity)• National and household economics (personal disposable income,

time use)• The availability of quick-service and casual dining restaurants

(number and variety)• Marketing and advertising strategies (amount and quality,

effectiveness, types of food marketed and venue)• Housing patterns (suburban sprawl)• Physical activity expenditures


The most popular foods ordered in restaurants in 2005 (at the spot or take out consumption)

• Men - hamburgers, French fries, pizza, breakfast sandwiches and side salads

• Women – French fries, hamburgers, pizza, side salads and chicken sandwiches

• Students aged 18 to 24 – French fries, hamburgers, pizza, Mexican foods and chicken sandwiches

• Children under age of 6 – French fries, chicken nuggets, pizza,

hamburgers and ice cream.


Social and environmental support for healthy choice?• Restaurant and foodservice operators have role• New and/or reformulated menu items and meals of lower

calorie density• Consumers may not even notice a 25% decrease in

calorie density for foods, little effects on taste• Slight decreases in fat content: reduce the calorie value of

foods (e.g., burgers, pizza, sandwiches)• Increasing content of F&V in the same foodstuffs or on

plate – as meal


Needs to be done?

• Determine actual barriers –as opposed to anticipated barriers-to healthy nutrition

• Identify the cultural factors that influence food choices• Identify methods for creating effective advertising for

fruits and vegetables• Determine strategies for dietary modification that work

effectively with different types of people• Identify the social dynamics that encourage or suppress

the concerns about dietary fat• Determine environmental modifications that might

influence dietary fat intake.


CONCLUSION

• Certain number of surveys conducted in Europe (UK, Finland) and USA

• Investigate relation between mood, emotions, stress and social influences on food choice

• Most of the surveys do not give us quite exact answer why people choose certain foods during eating out

• Question of psychosocial aspects of eating out still needs to be explored in many ways

• Larger number of studies was performed in USA and those tools are not quite easy to adopt and apply in EU countries

• Provide direction of future needed research

Documents

D5.1: Presentations of current views and situations on ... Presentations of literatur… · Project no: FOOD-CT-2006-23043 Project acronym: HECTOR Project title: Eating Out: Habits,