Availability and Promotion of Healthful Foods in Stores and Restaurants ― Guam, 2015
RESEARCH BRIEF — Volume 14 — July 13, 2017
Elizabeth A. Lundeen, PhD, MPH1; Brenna K. VanFrank, MD, MSPH1; Sandra L. Jackson, PhD, MPH2; Brittani Harmon, DrPH1; Alyssa Uncangco3; Patrick Luces3; Carrie Dooyema, MPH, MSN1; Sohyun Park, PhD1 (View author affiliations)
Suggested citation for this article: Lundeen EA, VanFrank BK, Jackson SL, Harmon B, Uncangco A, Luces P, et al. Availability and Promotion of Healthful Foods in Stores and Restaurants ― Guam, 2015. Prev Chronic Dis 2017;14:160528. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd14.160528external icon.
Chronic disease, which is linked to unhealthy nutrition environments, is highly prevalent in Guam. The nutrition environment was assessed in 114 stores and 63 restaurants in Guam. Stores had limited availability of some healthier foods such as lean ground meat (7.5%) and 100% whole-wheat bread (11.4%), while fruits (81.0%) and vegetables (94.8%) were more commonly available; 43.7% of restaurants offered a healthy entrée or main dish salad, 4.1% provided calorie information, and 15.7% denoted healthier choices on menus. Improving the nutrition environment could help customers make healthier choices.
Guam, a US Affiliated Pacific Island, has a similarly high prevalence of self-reported obesity and chronic disease as the continental United States; 31.6% of adults have obesity, 32.0% have hypertension, and 12.0% have diagnosed diabetes (1,2). The nutrition environment — the availability, pricing, and promotion of foods in stores and restaurants — may contribute to chronic disease (3). The Guam Department of Public Health and Social Services (DPHSS) and its partners outlined chronic disease prevention strategies, including increasing fruit and vegetable intake and decreasing salt consumption (4). To guide these strategies, we conducted assessments of the nutrition environment in stores and restaurants.
A sampling frame of 607 stores and 711 restaurants was developed using business listings from the Guam DPHSS, Division of Environmental Health, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the telephone directory. A regionally stratified, disproportionate allocation sampling method was used to randomly select 114 stores, classified as large stores (≥2 cash registers, n = 37) and small stores (1 cash register, n = 77), and 63 restaurants (43 sit-down, 20 fast-casual/fast-food). Stores were surveyed if they were open to the public, had a permanent or nonmobile structure, and sold at least 3 of 5 staple foods (milk, bread, eggs, meat or fish, or produce). Three large stores, where many residents shopped, were deliberately sampled. Restaurants were included if they met the first 2 criteria and offered 5 or more breakfast, lunch, or dinner entrées.
The Nutrition Environment Measures Survey (NEMS) is a validated assessment tool for stores (NEMS–S) (5) and restaurants (NEMS–R) (6). Being a US territory, Guam has food options in restaurants and stores that are similar to those in the continental United States. Additionally, NEMS was further adapted for Guam through a literature review on local dietary patterns (7,8), consultation with local dietitians, and field testing of the survey tools. In September 2015, surveyors used NEMS to assess food options through on-site observations and menu reviews. In stores, NEMS defined healthier options as fruits and vegetables, reduced-fat milk, low-calorie beverages, whole grains, lean meats, and reduced-fat condiments or snacks. Because many stores lacked visible prices, a few commonly available staple foods were preselected for pricing. Within-store price comparisons were made between healthier items and their regular counterparts: reduced-fat (≤2%) milk versus whole milk and brown rice versus white rice. Price comparisons were made between large and small stores for 4 healthier items: bananas, cabbage, reduced-fat milk, and brown rice. In restaurants, healthy dishes were defined based on calorie and fat content or menu icons denoting healthy items. Within-restaurant price comparisons were made for the least expensive healthy entrées and sides versus the least expensive less-healthy entrées and sides. We used χ2 tests to examine differences in availability and t tests for pricing comparisons (significant at P < .05). Analyses were weighted to account for survey design.
Stores had limited availability for several healthier items like 100% whole-wheat bread (11.4%), whole-grain cereal with less than 7 g of sugar per serving (25.4%), lean ground meat with 10% or less fat (7.5%), and 1% fat/skim milk (20.6%) (Table 1). Availability was greater for other items like fruits (81.0%) and vegetables (94.8%), including fresh fruits (65.3%) and fresh vegetables (62.8%). Among stores that sold fresh fruits and vegetables, variety was somewhat limited; 46.9% sold more than 2 varieties of fresh fruits, and 57.9% sold more than 2 varieties of fresh vegetables. For the majority of healthier foods, availability was greater in large stores than in small stores. There was no difference in the average price of reduced-fat milk ($5.94 per 0.5 gallon) versus whole milk ($5.98 per 0.5 gallon), or brown rice ($6.35 per 5 lb) versus white rice ($6.46 per 5 lb). Small stores had significantly higher prices than large stores for bananas ($1.82 vs $1.44 for 1 lb), reduced-fat milk ($6.06 vs $5.76 for 0.5 gallon), and brown rice ($6.78 vs $6.01 for 5 lb). Stores more commonly promoted less-healthy eating (57.1%) than healthy eating (10.7%) through store signage.
Although only 12.6% of restaurants offered 1 or more healthy entrées on the adult menu, 39.4% had a healthy main salad (Table 2). Combined, 43.7% offered a healthy entrée or main dish salad. Over half (58.8%) offered free refills of sugar-sweetened beverages. Thirty-three percent of restaurants had a kids’ menu; of these, 62.8% offered 1 or more healthy entrées and 48.8% provided a healthy beverage by default. Calorie information was available in 4.1% of restaurants, whereas 15.7% had menu icons denoting healthier dishes. The only significant difference in pricing was found in sit-down restaurants, where the least expensive healthy entrée cost $16.53 on average versus $13.86 for the least expensive less-healthy entrée. Restaurants more commonly used signs and displays to encourage unhealthy eating (29.1%) than healthy eating (19.2%).
Availability of healthier foods in stores varied across items, with some healthier options having limited availability. Small stores generally had less availability and higher prices for healthier foods than did large stores. In restaurants, availability of healthier foods was limited and nutrition information was generally unavailable. Promotional materials in stores and restaurants more commonly encouraged unhealthy eating. These findings are similar to the findings of surveys in the continental United States (5,9–11) and American Samoa (12), which found more limited availability of healthier options in small stores. Findings from restaurants in Guam are consistent with findings from a restaurant survey in Minnesota, which found limited availability of healthy entrées and nutrition information (11).
This study is the only nutrition environment assessment of its kind in Guam. By assessing both stores and restaurants, the survey provided a comprehensive picture of the nutrition environment on the island. However, this assessment has limitations. Challenges in creating an accurate sampling frame because of business closures, name changes, and venue duplication may have influenced sampling weights. Store price comparisons were restricted by the absence of displayed prices in most small stores. Additionally, the assessment of healthy entrées in restaurants was limited by the lack of nutrition information or menu icons denoting healthy items in most restaurants.
These findings can be used to develop strategies to help customers choose healthier options. Stores and restaurants could increase the availability of healthy foods and promote the healthy foods they offer. Promotion strategies could include encouraging healthy eating through signage, providing menu icons to denote healthy dishes in restaurants, assigning healthier beverages as the default for kids’ menus, or placing healthier foods in more prominent locations in stores. Improving the availability, pricing, and promotion of healthier options in stores and restaurants could help efforts to increase consumption of healthful foods in Guam.
The authors gratefully acknowledge contributions from Guam DPHSS staff, including Roselie Zabala, Lawrence Alam, Elizabeth Guerrero, Alexis Silverio, Ruby Gonzales, Christopher Surla, Diana Santos, Cherisse Santiago, Vivian Pareja, Juan Santiago, Rachel Ramirez, and Venancio Imanil, as well as students and staff at the University of Guam and Guam Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–Education (SNAP–Ed). This work was funded through an Epidemiologic Assistance (Epi-Aid) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There is no funding to disclose.
Corresponding Author: Elizabeth A. Lundeen, PhD, MPH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341. Telephone: 770-488-6517. Email: email@example.com.
Author Affiliations: 1Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 3Bureau of Community Health Services, Guam Department of Public Health and Social Services, Mangilao, Guam.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of self-reported obesity among U.S. adults by state and territory, BRFSS, 2015. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html. Accessed September 27, 2016.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic disease indicators. http://www.cdc.gov/cdi/. Accessed September 27, 2016.
- Mezuk B, Li X, Cederin K, Rice K, Sundquist J, Sundquist K. Beyond access: characteristics of the food environment and risk of diabetes. Am J Epidemiol 2016;183(12):1129–37. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
- Guam Department of Public Health and Social Services; Non-Communicable Disease Consortium. Live healthy Guam. Guam non-communicable disease strategic plan 2014–2018. Chalan Kareta, Mangilao (GU): Guam Department of Public Health; 2013. http://dphss.guam.gov/article/2014/06/30/guam-non-communicable-disease-strategic-plan-2014-2018. Accessed June 12, 2017.
- Glanz K, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD. Nutrition Environment Measures Survey in stores (NEMS-S): development and evaluation. Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4):282–9. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
- Saelens BE, Glanz K, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Nutrition Environment Measures Study in restaurants (NEMS-R): development and evaluation. Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4):273–81. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
- Guerrero RT, Paulino YC, Novotny R, Murphy SP. Diet and obesity among Chamorro and Filipino adults on Guam. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2008;17(2):216–22. PubMedexternal icon
- Pobocik RS, Trager A, Monson LM. Dietary patterns and food choices of a population sample of adults on Guam. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2008;17(1):94–100. PubMedexternal icon
- Kumar G, Jim-Martin S, Piltch E, Onufrak S, McNeil C, Adams L, et al. Healthful nutrition of foods in Navajo Nation stores: availability and pricing. Am J Health Promot 2016;30(7):501–10. PubMedexternal icon
- Leone AF, Rigby S, Betterley C, Park S, Kurtz H, Johnson MA, et al. Store type and demographic influence on the availability and price of healthful foods, Leon County, Florida, 2008. Prev Chronic Dis 2011;8(6):A140. PubMedexternal icon
- Pereira RF, Sidebottom AC, Boucher JL, Lindberg R, Werner R. Assessing the food environment of a rural community: baseline findings from the Heart of New Ulm project, Minnesota, 2010–2011. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:E36. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
- Lee-Kwan SH, Kumar G, Ayscue P, Santos M, McGuire LC, Blanck HM, et al. Healthful food availability in stores and restaurants — American Samoa, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64(10):276–8. PubMedexternal icon
Table 1. Availability of Healthier Food Options and Promotion of Healthier Choices and Less-Healthy Choices, by Store Size — Guam, 2015
|Survey Item||All Stores, %a||By Store Size|
|Large Stores,b %a||Small Stores,c %a|
|Availability of Food Item|
|Grains (n = 110)d|
|100% whole-wheat bread||11.4||30.3e||1.3e|
|Whole-grain cereal (<7 g sugar per serving)||25.4||57.6e||8.2e|
|Meat (n = 113)d|
|Lean ground meat (≤10% fat)||7.5||21.9e||0.0e|
|Reduced-fat hot dogs (≤9 g fat per serving)||27.5||47.4e||17.2e|
|Fish (frozen or fresh, not breaded)||60.3||91.6e||44.0e|
|Canned tuna in water||58.8||82.6e||46.4e|
|Reduced-fat Spam (≤8 g fat per serving)||75.3||85.3e||70.1e|
|Fruits and vegetables (n = 114)d|
|>2 varieties of fresh fruit (n = 71)d,f||46.9||71.6e||22.9e|
|Fruit canned in water or 100% juice||61.5||80.7e||51.3e|
|>2 varieties of fresh vegetables (n = 70)d,f||57.9||81.0e||34.1e|
|Vegetables canned without sauce||94.8||96.5||94.0|
|Beverages (n = 108)d|
|Low-fat (1%) or skim milk||20.6||49.2e||6.0e|
|100% fruit juice||89.7||96.2e||86.4e|
|Condiments or snacks (n = 112)d|
|Coconut milk (≤4.5 g fat per serving)||5.6||15.8e||0.0e|
|Salad dressing (≤3 g fat per serving)||23.1||40.8e||13.4e|
|Baked chips (≤3 g fat per serving)||18.6||26.2||14.4|
|Messages and Practices|
|Healthy promotion and placement practices (n = 112)g|
|Promotion of healthy eating through signs or displaysh||10.7||21.5e||4.8e|
|Healthier foods present at the point of purchase||7.6||9.8||6.4|
|Healthier foods present at the ends of aisles||20.8||27.0||17.5|
|Less-healthy promotion and placement practices (n = 112)g|
|Promotion of less-healthy eating through signs or displaysi||57.1||69.9e||50.1e|
|Less-healthy foods present at the point of purchase||96.6||96.4||96.7|
|Less-healthy foods present at the ends of aisles||91.5||91.2||91.6|
Table 2. Availability of Healthy and Regular Food Options and Promotion of Healthy and Less-Healthy Choices, by Restaurant Type — Guam, 2015a
|Survey Item||All Restaurants (n = 63), %||By Restaurant Type|
|Sit-Down (n = 43), %||Fast-Casual/Fast-Food (n = 20), %|
|Entrées and salads on adult menu|
|≥1 healthy entréesb||12.6||9.1||20.9|
|≥1 healthy main saladsb||39.4||35.5||48.9|
|≥1 healthy entrées or main salads||43.7||39.9||53.0|
|≥1 healthier-preparation entréesc||92.7||90.1||99.3|
|Sides and healthy alternatives on adult menu|
|≥1 healthy fruit sided||29.6||37.0||11.4|
|≥1 healthy vegetable sidee||61.5||72.5f||34.8f|
|Baked chips (n = 14)g||9.0||0.0||14.4|
|100% whole-wheat bread (n = 40)g||5.6||8.0||0.0|
|Brown rice (n = 52)g||11.6||11.1||12.9|
|≥1 healthier or low-calorie beveragesh||100.0||100.0||100.0|
|≥1 sugar-sweetened beveragesi||96.9||95.6||100.0|
|Free refills on sugar-sweetened beverages||58.8||61.2||53.0|
|Low-fat (≤1%), unflavored milk||9.8||4.5||22.8|
|Kids’ menu available (n = 63)||32.7||39.0||17.5|
|≥1 healthy entrées (n = 20)j,k||62.8||59.6||80.5|
|≥1 healthy sides (n = 20)j,l||77.8||77.3||80.5|
|≥1 healthy desserts (n = 20)j,m||12.0||0.0||76.4|
|Healthier drinksh are default beverage (n = 18)n||48.8||44.9||65.1|
|Free refills on unhealthy drinks (n = 20)j,i||50.2||56.7||15.4|
|Calorie content information||4.1||0.0||14.1|
|Fat content information||3.9||0.0||13.4|
|Calorie and fat content information||3.9||0.0||13.4|
|“Healthy” menu icons or lighter fare section||15.7||9.7||30.2|
|Fat and calories content information or “healthy” menu icons or lighter fare section||18.8||9.7||40.9|
|Messages and Practices|
|Messages promoting healthy choiceso|
|Highlight healthy menu options||17.7||11.4||32.9|
|Encourage healthy eatingp||19.2||14.7||30.2|
|Promote free refills on healthier or low-calorie drinks||11.0||9.9||13.4|
|Messages promoting less-healthy choiceso|
|Encourage unhealthy eatingq||29.1||16.7f||59.1f|
|Promote free refills on sugary drinks||14.9||19.9||2.7|
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.