Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T12:53:41.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UK consumer attitudes, beliefs and barriers to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 1998

David N Cox ,
Annie S Anderson ,
Michael EJ Lean  and
David J Mela
David N Cox*
Affiliation:
Consumer Sciences Department, Institute of Food Research, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 682, UK
Annie S Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Glasgow, UK
Michael EJ Lean
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Glasgow, UK
David J Mela
Affiliation:
Consumer Sciences Department, Institute of Food Research, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 682, UK
*
*Corresponding author: E-mail: david.cox@bbsrc.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

To assess attitudes, predictors of intention, and identify perceived barriers to increasing fruit and vegetable (F&V) intakes.

Design:

UK nationwide postal survey utilizing the theory of planned behaviour.

Subjects:

Stratified (by social class and region) random sample of 2020 UK adults providing a modest response rate of 37% (n = 741).

Results:

Belief measures (e.g. health, cost, taste, etc.) were strongly associated with overall attitudes which were reported as being largely favourable towards fruit, vegetables and, to a lesser extent, vegetable dishes, and were strongly associated with reported intention to increase consumption. Subjects reported they could increase their consumption, but this was only weakly associated with intention to do so. Approximately 50% of respondents reported an intention to increase intakes. Social pressure was strongly associated with reported intention to increase; however, scores indicated low perceived social pressure to change. Evidence of unrealistic optimism concerning perceived intakes and the perceived high cost of fruit may also act as barriers.

Conclusions:

Results from this study suggest a lack of perceived social pressure to increase F&V intakes and suggests that public health efforts require stronger and broader health messages that incorporate consumer awareness of low present consumption.

Keywords

UKFruitVegetablesAttitudesBarriers
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 61 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1998

References

1WHO. Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Technical Report Series 797. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1991.Google Scholar
2The Scottish Office. Scotland's Health: a Challenge to Us All: The Scottish Diet. Report of a Working Party to the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland. London: HMSO, 1993: 54–76.Google Scholar
3Block, G, Patterson, B, Subar, A. Fruit, vegetables and cancer prevention: a review of the epidemiological evidence. Nutr. Cancer 1992; 18: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Ferro-Luzzi, A, Cialfa, E, Leclercq, C, Toti, E. The Mediterranean diet revisited: focus on fruit and vegetables. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 1994; 45: 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Morris, DM, Kritchevsky, SB, Davis, CE. Serum carotenoids and coronary heart disease: the Lipid Research Clinic's Coronary Primary Prevention trial and follow-up study. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1994; 274: 1439–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Potter, JD. Content with a Vegetable Love: Plant Foods and Cancer Risk. The Caroline Walker Lecture. London: The Caroline Walker Trust, 1994.Google Scholar
7National Research Council. Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. Washington DC: National Academy press, 1989.Google Scholar
8DHHS. Healthy People 2000 National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1991 DHHS publication PHS 91.50213.Google Scholar
9Cardiovascular Review Group Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. Report on Health and Social Subjects: 46 Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease. London: HMSO, 1994 19–21, 133–6.Google Scholar
10Havas, S, Heimendinger, J, Damron, D et al. 5 a day for better health – nine community research project to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. Public Health Rep. 1995; 110: 68–79.Google Scholar
11Heirnendinger, J, Van Duyn, MAS. Dietary behavior change: the challenge of recasting the role of fruit and vegetables in the American diet. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995; 61(S): 1397S–1401S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Health Education Authority. Enjoy Fruit and Vegetables Campaign. London; HEA, 1992.Google Scholar
13Health Education Board for Scotland. Enjoy Fruit and Vegetables Campaign. Edinburgh: HEBS, 1992.Google Scholar
14Bean, A. 5-a-day Eating Plans. London: Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Information Bureau, 1993.Google Scholar
15Gregory, J, Foster, K, Tyler, H, Wiseman, M. The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults. London: OPCS/HMSO, 1990: 123–52.Google Scholar
16Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. National Food Survey 1994. London: HMSO, 1995: 10–16.Google Scholar
17Anderson, AS, Hunt, K, Ford, G, Finnigan, F. One apple a day? Fruit and vegetable consumption in West of Scotland. Health Educ. Res. 1994; 9: 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Anderson, AS, Lean, MEJ, Foster, A, Marshall, D. Ripe for change: fruit and vegetables in Scotland – current patterns and potential for change. Health Bull. 1994; 52: 51–64.Google Scholar
19Williams, C. Healthy eating: clarifying advice about fruit and vegetables. Br. Med. J. 1995; 310: 1453–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Ajzen, I. From intentions to action: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhle, J, Beckman, J, eds. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelburg: Springer, 1985: 11–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Lloyd, HM, Paisley, CM, Mela, DJ. Changing to a low fat diet: attitudes and beliefs of UK consumers. Euro. J. Clin. Nutr. 1993; 47:361–73.Google ScholarPubMed
22Sparks, P, Hedderley, D, Shepherd, R. Expectancy-value models of attitudes: a note on the relationships between theory and methodology. Euro. J. Soc. Psycho. 1991; 21: 261–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Ajzen, I, Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1980.Google Scholar
24Williams, C. Healthy Eating: the Need to Clanify Advice about Fruit and Vegetables. Discussion Document. London: the Association of Consumer Research, 05 1994.Google Scholar
25Shutz, HG. Appropriateness as a measure of the cognitive-contextual aspects of food acceptance. In: MacFie, HJH, Thomson, DMH, eds. Measurement of Food Preferences. London: Blackie, 1994: 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Office of Population Census and Statistics. 1991 Census National Monitor for Great Britain. London: OPCS/HMSO, 1992.Google Scholar
27Office of Population Census and Statistics. Appendix A. Allocation of standard classification occupational unit groups to social classes and socio-economic groups. In: Standard Occupational Classification. London: HMSO, 1990.Google Scholar
28Saunders, RP, Rahilly, SA. Influence on intention to reduce dietary intake of fat and sugar. J. Nutr. Educ. 1990; 22: 169–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Anderson, AS, Shepherd, R. Beliefs and attitudes toward ‘healthier eating’ among women attending maternity hospital. J. Nutr. Educ. 1998; 21: 208–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Shepherd, R. Attitudes and beliefs as determinants of food choice. In: McBride, RL, MacFie, HJH. eds. Psychdogicai Basis of Sensoy Evaluation. New York: Elsevier. 1990: 141–61.Google Scholar
31Shepherd, R, Sparks, P. Modelling food choice. In: MacFie, HJH, Thomson, DMH, eds. Measurement of Food Preferences. London: Blackie, 1994: 202–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Dittus, DL, Hilliers, VN, Beerman, KA. Benefits and barriers to fruit and vegetable intake: relationship between attitudes and consumption. J. Nutr. Educ. 1995; 27: 120–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Brug, J, Lechner, L, de Varies, H. Psychosocial determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption. Appetite 1995; 25: 285–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Brug, J, Glanz, K, Kok, G. The relationship between self-efficacy, attitudes, intake compared to others, consumption, and stages of change related to fruit and vegetables. Am. J. Health Promot. 1997; 12: 25–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Glanz, K, Patterson, RE, Kriital, AR et al. Stages of change in adopting healthy diets: fat, fiber and correlates of nutrient intake. Health Educ. Q. 1994; 21: 499–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Reicks, M, Randall, JL, Hayes, BJ. Factors affecting consumption of fruits and vegetables by low-income families. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 1994; 94: 1309–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Ritson, C, Hutson, R. The consumption revolution. In: Slater, JM, ed. Fifty Years of The National Food Survey 1940–1990. London: HMSO, 1991: 35–54.Google Scholar
38Sparks, P, Shepherd, R, Wieringa, N, Zimmermanns, N. Perceived behavioural control, unrealistic optimism and dietary change: an exploratory study. Appetite 1995; 24: 243–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Brug, J, van Assema, P, Kok, E, Landerlink, T, Glanz, K. Self rated dietary fat intake: association with objective assessment of fat, psychosocial factors, and intention to change. J. Nutr. Educ. 1994; 26: 218–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Sparks, P, Hedderly, D, Shepherd, R. An investigation into the relationship between perceived control, attitudes variability and the consumption of two common foods. Euro. J. Soc. Psycho. 1992; 22: 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Lechner, L, Brug, J, De Vries, H. Determinants of the objective and subjective consumption of fruit and vegetables. Appetite 1995; 24: 55–71.Google Scholar
42Stibbald, B, Addingtonhall, J, Brenneman, D, Freeling, P. Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners – methodological considerations. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 1994; 44: 297–300.Google Scholar
43Dickinson, JR, Faria, AJ. Refinements of charitable contribution incentives for mail surveys. J. Market Res. Soc. 1995; 37: 447–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Worsley, A, Baghurst, KI, kitch, DR. Social desirability response bias and dietary inventory responses. Hum. Nutr. Appl. Nutr. 1984; 38A: 29–35.Google Scholar
45Kristiansen, CM, Harding, CM. The social desirability of preventative health behavior. Publ. Health Rep. 1984; 99: 384–8.Google Scholar
46Heimendinger, J, Subar, AF, Patterson, BH, Pivonka, E. Using food frequency questionnaires to estimate fruit and vegetable intake: association between the number of questions and total intakes. J. Nutr. Educ. 1995; 27:80–5.Google Scholar
47Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults – Further Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994.Google Scholar
48Keynote publications. Fruit and Vegetables – Report. Hampton: Keynote Publications, 1994: 1–29.Google Scholar
49Brug, J, Debie, S, van Assema, P, Weijts, W. Psychosocial determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among adults: results of focus group interviews. Food Qual. Pref. 1995; 6: 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar