ArticlePLoS medicine2021
Estimating the effect of moving meat-free products to the meat aisle on sales of meat and meat-free products: A non-randomised controlled intervention study in a large UK supermarket chain.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing the effect of a dynamic descriptive social norm message on meat-free food selection in worksite cafeterias: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medicine · 2025Trial
- Trial
- The impact of altering restaurant and menu option position on food selected from an experimental food delivery platform: a randomised controlled trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Trial
- Effectiveness of a Theory-Informed Documentary to Reduce Consumption of Meat and Animal Products: Three Randomized Controlled Experiments.Nutrients · 2021Trial
- MEET-eaters: An agent-based model of food consumption practices at the household level.PloS one · 2026Article
- The UK Food Environment: A Systematic Review of Domains, Methodologies, and Outcomes.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Review
- Can (dynamic) social norms encourage plant-based food purchases? a quasi-experimental study in real-world Dutch supermarkets.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Do promotions of healthier or more sustainable foods increase sales? Findings from three natural experiments in UK supermarkets.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Supermarket Transaction Records In Dietary Evaluation: the STRIDE study: validation against self-reported dietary intake.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
- Barriers associated with pulse and plant-based meat alternative consumption across sociodemographic groups: a Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour model approach.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Article
- Does promoting plant-based products in Veganuary lead to increased sales, and a reduction in meat sales? A natural experiment in a supermarket setting.Public health nutrition · 2022Article
- Article
- Removing seasonal confectionery from prominent store locations and purchasing behaviour within a major UK supermarket: Evaluation of a nonrandomised controlled intervention study.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- Marketing strategies used for alternative protein products sold in Australian supermarkets in 2014, 2017, and 2021.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Changing behaviour for net zero 2050.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReducing meat consumption could bring health and environmental benefits, but there is little research to date on effective interventions to achieve this. A non-randomised controlled intervention study was used to evaluate whether prominent positioning of meat-free products in the meat aisle was associated with a change in weekly mean sales of meat and meat-free products. METHODS AND
findingsWeekly sales data were obtained from 108 stores: 20 intervention stores that moved a selection of 26 meat-free products into a newly created meat-free bay within the meat aisle and 88 matched control stores. The primary outcome analysis used a hierarchical negative binomial model to compare changes in weekly sales (units) of meat products sold in intervention versus control stores during the main intervention period (Phase I: February 2019 to April 2019). Interrupted time series analysis was also used to evaluate the effects of the Phase I intervention. Moreover, 8 of the 20 stores enhanced the intervention from August 2019 onwards (Phase II intervention) by adding a second bay of meat-free products into the meat aisle, which was evaluated following the same analytical methods. During the Phase I intervention, sales of meat products (units/store/week) decreased in intervention (approximately -6%) and control stores (-5%) without significant differences (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01 [95% CI 0.95-1.07]. Sales of meat-free products increased significantly more in the intervention (+31%) compared to the control stores (+6%; IRR 1.43 [95% CI 1.30-1.57]), mostly due to increased sales of meat-free burgers, mince, and sausages. Consistent results were observed in interrupted time series analyses where the effect of the Phase II intervention was significant in intervention versus control stores.
conclusionsProminent positioning of meat-free products into the meat aisle in a supermarket was not effective in reducing sales of meat products, but successfully increased sales of meat-free alternatives in the longer term. A preregistered protocol (https://osf.io/qmz3a/) was completed and fully available before data analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.