RESEARCH

Research Paper

Food Marketing Practices of Major Online

Grocery Retailers in the United States,
2019-2020
Alyssa J. Moran, ScD, MPH, RD; Gabby Headrick, MSPH, RD; Crystal Perez, MPH; Alexandra Greatsinger, MSc; Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD;
Laura Zatz, ScD, MPH; Sara N. Bleich, PhD; Eric B. Rimm, ScD; Neha Khandpur, ScD, MSc

ARTICLE INFORMATION ABSTRACT

Article history: Background Food marketing influences consumers’ preferences for and selection of
Submitted 1 August 2021 marketed products. Although a substantial body of research has described food-
Accepted 7 April 2022 marketing practices in brick-and-mortar stores, no research has examined food market-
ing in online grocery retail despite its growing importance as a source of food-at-home
purchases.
Keywords: Objective To develop and apply a coding instrument to describe food marketing and
Marketing
the nutritional quality of marketed products in online grocery stores.
Online retail
Supermarket Design Quantitative content analysis and review of product Nutrition Facts labels and
Food environment ingredients lists to calculate nutrient density and level of processing using the NOVA
Food industry classification system.
Supplementary materials: Participants/setting Foods and beverages (n ¼ 3,473) marketed in the top revenue-
Table 5 and Figure 2 are available at www.jand.org generating online grocery retailers and those participating in the US Department of
Agriculture Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Online Purchasing Pilot (n ¼ 21)
in 2019-2020.
2212-2672/Copyright ª 2022 by the Academy of
Nutrition and Dietetics. Main outcome measures Use of marketing mix strategies (ie, product, placement,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2022.04.003 promotion, and pricing) across retailers and nutritional quality of marketed products.
Products were considered of poor nutritional quality in the case that they were ultra-
processed (NOVA category 4) and excessive in sodium, saturated fat, free sugars, and/or
other sweeteners. Products were also classified into 13 mutually exclusive food groups.
Statistical tests performed The proportion of retailers using each marketing strategy,
proportion of products of poor nutritional quality, and proportion of products in each
food group were calculated.
Results Retailers commonly used product recommendations, search result ordering,
branded website content, user-generated content, and social media engagement to
market products online. Candy, sweets, and snacks made up the largest percentage of
marketed products (17.3%), followed by fruit, vegetables, and legumes (16.7%). Most
(62%) marketed products were of poor nutritional quality. Staple food categories such as
fruits, vegetables, and grains were frequently marketed, particularly through price re-
ductions and product recommendations.
Conclusions Online grocery retailers use a variety of customizable food marketing
strategies on their websites. Although most marketed products are of poor nutritional
quality, there is potential for marketing of staple food categories online that is not
feasible in a brick-and-mortar store.
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2022;122(12):2295-2310.

S
INCE THE START OF THE CORONAVIRUS DISEASE
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, participation in online
grocery shopping has risen dramatically. In 2019, e-
commerce accounted for only 3.4% of the US gro-
cery market; by 2020, that number had grown to 10.2%.1
Industry projections estimate that 90% of current online
grocery shoppers will continue to shop online after the
pandemic, with online sales accounting for more than 20%
of the grocery market by 2025. Although online grocery
shopping has been most popular among higher-income,
younger shoppers, stores are expanding to populations
historically underserved by access to healthy food.2 For
example, Amazon offers discounted Prime memberships to
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) partici-
pants,3 and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
recently expanded the Online Purchasing Pilot, which al-
lows online payment with SNAP, from five states in March
2020 to 47 states and Washington, DC, by March 2021.4
Despite the rapid growth in online purchasing, very little is
known about food marketing in US online grocery stores, or

ª 2022 by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 2295
about the nutritional quality of marketed products. In brick-
and-mortar stores, food manufacturers and distributors pay
incentives (“trade fees”), amounting to more than $50 billion
each year, to market predominantly unhealthy products
through in-store advertising, price discounts, and displays.5-7
This in-store marketing is effective, and has been shown to
increase preference for and selection of advertised foods.6,7 In
contrast, online platforms lend themselves to food marketing
that is highly flexible and customizable at the individual
level.8 In this setting, consumer data can be leveraged to
create personalized price discounts, product recommenda-
tions, and web content.8-11 This targeted online marketing
may increase the effectiveness of traditional strategies to
influence consumer decisions, resulting in increased
spending and, depending on the nutrition profile of marketed
products, increased selection of unhealthy food. Online food
retail marketing may also encourage unhealthy purchases in
new ways. For example, e-commerce sites have been found to
use tactics such as sneaking (adding items to the cart without
users’ consent), scarcity (eg, low stock messages), and social
norms (eg, “27 people are looking at this product right now”)
to manipulate shoppers into making purchases they other-
wise would not make.12 Online retailers have also used
strategies such as placing products in the first row of search
results, suggesting product substitutions, and offering
personalized recommendations at checkout (so-called cart
intercepts) to steer consumers toward certain products or
brands.8,9,11,13
Prior work describes a framework for how the online food
retail environment may influence food choices.8 But, there
has been little research documenting the nature or extent of
marketing strategies or the types or nutritional quality of
marketed products in major US online grocery retailers.9,11,14
This project had two aims: to develop an instrument to code
website features and marketing practices of online grocery
retailers; and to apply the coding instrument to describe the
volume and content of food and beverage marketing, as well
as the nutritional quality of marketed products, in 21 major
US online food retailers and retailers authorized for the USDA
SNAP Online Purchasing Pilot.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Selection of Online Grocery Retailers
Retailers were purposively sampled to reflect the range of
web features and marketing practices used by full-service
supermarkets that have an e-commerce platform and were
on Euromonitor’s list of the top-20 revenue-generating re-
tailers in 2018,15 or were approved for the Online Purchasing
Pilot as of September 2019.16 The Online Purchasing Pilot was
originally authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill and included
eight retailers at the time of this study.4 Twenty-one chain
retailers were included. Because a specific store location must
be selected to place an online order, the store closest to the
address of the retailer’s headquarters that also had a food
pantry accepting donations within its delivery area was
selected for inclusion (Table 1). The food pantry’s address was
used to complete the shopping task and provided an anon-
ymous location for grocery delivery.
Measure Development: The Online Grocery Retail
Environment Coding Instrument
Step 1: Identification of website features. A structured
coding instrument was developed to assess the online gro-
cery retail environment, including website features and
2296 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
RESEARCH SNAPSHOT
Research Question: What are the marketing strategies used
by the top revenue-generating online grocery retailers in
the United States to promote food and beverages to
consumers, and what is the nutritional quality of these
products?
Key Findings: Online grocery retailers commonly combined
marketing strategies such as product recommendations,
paid product placements, and branded website content to
promote products to US consumers. Nearly two-thirds (62%)
of marketed foods and beverages were ultraprocessed
(NOVA 4) and excessive in nutrients to limit; although fruits,
vegetables, and grains were frequently marketed online
through price reductions and product recommendations.
marketing strategies.18 Codebook items were selected in
alignment with Khandpur and colleagues’s8 conceptual
framework describing the influence of the online food retail
environment on consumer behavior and included four do-
mains: retailer policies and practices, food marketing, web-
site customization, and equity and transparency. The
Khandpur and colleagues8 framework describes constructs
and examples of website characteristics within each domain
based on an extensive review of the academic and industry
literature, key informant interviews, a mock shopping exer-
cise, and expert discussion. For example, retailer policies and
practices includes constructs such as site access (ability to
sign-up and cancel memberships online, incentives for free
trials, and mobile-friendly websites), privacy and data
sharing (use of personal data), inventory management
(product availability and price point), and grocery collection
and payment (delivery availability and fees and accepted
payment methods). Food marketing includes constructs
organized into four subdomains based on the classic mar-
keting mix: product, price, placement, and promotion. The
product subdomain includes product mix (ie, assortment of
products that can be viewed on the site); the price sub-
domain includes discounts, rewards, and time-limited details
(eg, a weekly flyer); the placement subdomain includes
production recommendations, the order in which search re-
sults are presented on the site, product advertisements, and
other branded site content; and the promotion subdomain
includes user feedback (ratings and reviews), social media
interaction, and point-of-purchase information (eg, food la-
beling). The website customization domain includes con-
structs such as product information display (sort and filter
features that allow customers to view products according to
certain attributes), site navigation (eg, features that allow
customers to customize the look and feel of the site), and
shopping tools (eg, shopping lists). Equity and transparency is
a cross-cutting domain that refers to the differential influence
of web features on historically marginalized populations and
information disclosure by the retailer. For example, reduced
membership fees for SNAP participants is a feature falling
within the equity domain, whereas disclosure of product
sponsorship is a feature falling within the domain of trans-
parency. The two lead researchers reviewed this framework
and several popular online food retail websites to develop a
list of product marketing features to include in the coding
instrument. Each marketing domain included dichotomous
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12
 Table 1. Characteristics of stores included in a content analysis of 21 US grocery retail websites, 2019-2020
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12

Demographics of Store Zip codeb

Median White Black Hispanic
E-commerce Specific store location Median household High school Povertyd population population population
Retailer name platforma (city, state, Zip code) c
age (y) income ($) or higher (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ%ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ!
Albertsonse Instacart Boise, ID, 83705 35.1 46,045 92.3 19.4 81.8 1.6 11.3
e
Aldi Instacart Aurora, IL, 60506 35.0 61,231 79.8 14.5 62.8 12.7 39.7
Amazon Fresh/ N/Ag Seattle, WA, 98126 38.0 80,142 92.1 14.4 66.5 10.9 7.0
Primef
Amazon Whole N/A Austin, TX, 78744 29.4 49,633 71.8 22.8 67.8 7.9 75.3
Foodse
Dash’s Marketf Rosie Buffalo, NY, 14206 39.8 37,946 84.6 22.9 80.0 11.8 7.1
e
Food Lion N/A Charlotte, NC, 28206 33.2 31,617 80.2 29.3 17.5 72.4 11.8
Fred Meyere N/A Portland, OR, 97211 36.0 78,154 94.4 12.1 71.3 16.2 6.8
f
FreshDirect N/A Bronx, NY, 10459 31.3 27,687 65.6 34.3 11.6 34.4 67.9
Giante Peapod Washington, DC, 20017 37.0 77,560 90.1 14.3 29.2 63.3 8.9
e
H-E-B N/A San Antonio, TX, 78227 34.1 40,779 70.2 22.5 91.7 2.4 88.2
JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

Hy-Veeef N/A Des Moines, IA, 50316 31.9 44,599 76.4 21.1 63.4 18.6 26.3
e
Kroger N/A Cincinnati, OH, 34205 33.9 63,502 92.6 22.0 64.9 28.6 2.4
Meijere N/A Comstock Park, MI, 49321 36.8 53,686 91.1 10.5 88.5 5.2 8.5
Publixe Instacart Tampa, FL, 33605 35.0 26,954 73.2 35.5 40.2 53.9 27.6
Safewayef N/A Pleasanton, CA, 94566 44.0 153,684 95.9 4.4 64.2 1.9 10.4
ef
ShopRite N/A Hillside, NJ, 07205 37.5 71,102 86.8 10.0 29.2 55.7 19.1
Stop & Shope Peapod Quincy, MA, 02169 38.2 70,248 90.3 11.8 64.8 6.2 3.9
e
Target N/A St. Paul, MN, 55109 37.0 62,858 91.0 10.3 70.4 10.6 6.6
Walmarte,f N/A Bethel Heights, AR, 72764 29.9 47,245 70.6 20.2 61.2 2.4 40.0
Wegmanse Instacart Rochester, NY, 14615 35.8 39,995 84.9 21.7 66.7 23.7 15.0
Wright’s Marketf N/A Auburn, AL, 36832 23.7 27,638 89.3 40.9 63.7 29.6 4.8
a
When different from retailer website.

RESEARCH
b
2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.17
c
Among population older than age 25 years.
d
Percent of the population below the federal poverty level.
e
Euromonitor 2018 top-20 revenue-generating retailer (7-11 excluded because classified as convenience store; Trader Joe’s excluded because no online ordering; Walmart Supercenters and Neighborhood Stores included on the Euromonitor list as
two separate retailers but operate through the same e-commerce platform, Walmart.com, which was included in this study).15
f
US Department of Agriculture Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Online Purchasing Pilot store (authorized at time of study).16
2297

g
N/A ¼ not applicable (ie, the retailer uses their website as their e-commerce platform).
 RESEARCH
2298

Table 2. Description, prevalence, and website location of food and beverage marketing strategies used by 21 US online grocery retailers, 2019-2020
JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

Anywhere Department Search Product During

Marketing strategy Description on website Homepage page results pagea pageb checkout

ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒn (%)ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ!
Product
Personalized Option to view a customized assortment of 13 (62) N/Ac N/A N/A N/A N/A
storefront products recommended by the retailer
Option to view, shop, Option to allow the retailer to display only 8 (38) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
or reorder past previously
purchases purchased products or favorites
Link to loyalty Option to view previous purchases by linking 7 (33) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
program online and
in-store accounts
Express shopping list Option to view a list of common products 3 (14) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
recommended by
the retailer
Analysis of past Option to allow retailer to analyze past purchases 2 (10) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
purchases and make recommendations
Retailer Option to view only products recommended 2 (10) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
recommendations specifically for
you by the retailer
Site filters Option to view only products with certain 20 (95) 1 (5) 19 (90) 17 (81)d N/A N/A
characteristics
(eg, brand, nutritional attributes)
Price
Any reduced price Homepage links to a page of products offered at a 21 (100) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12

offer reduced price

Coupons Discounts that can be redeemed at checkout 14 (67) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Weekly flyer Link to PDF of flyer showing discounted products 11 (52) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
this week
Other time-limited Discounts of a limited duration 11 (52) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
savings
Points or vouchers Accrual of rewards that can be redeemed for 6 (29) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
savings

(continued on next page)

 Table 2. Description, prevalence, and website location of food and beverage marketing strategies used by 21 US online grocery retailers, 2019-2020 (continued)
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12

Anywhere Department Search Product During

Marketing strategy Description on website Homepage page results pagea pageb checkout

ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒn (%)ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ!
Markdowns Instant product markdowns 6 (29) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Loyalty program Savings only for loyalty program members 2 (10) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
exclusives
Any personalized Any of the above explicitly described as 8 (38) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
reduced price offer personalized or
“made for you”
Placement
Product Products recommended by the retailer that can be 21 (100) 18 (86) 6 (29) 11 (52) 19 (90) 13 (62)
recommendations instantly added to the shopping cart (eg, popular
near you)
Disclosure of Any of the above explicitly described as sponsored, 12 (57) 8 (44) 0 (0) 3 (27) 7 (37) N/A
sponsorship featured,
or paid ads
Any reduced price Any of the above offered at a reduced price 20 (95) 17 (94) 0 (0) 7 (64) 17 (89) N/A
offer
JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

Option to sort search Option to sort products based on certain product 19 (90) N/A 18 (86) 16 (76)d N/A N/A
results characteristics
Best match Best match or most relevant items are shown first 17 (89) N/A 4 (22) 13 (81) N/A N/A
by default
Most popular Most popular items are shown first by default 9 (47) N/A 8 (44) 1 (6) N/A N/A
Featured Featured items are shown first by default 5 (26) N/A 3 (14) 2 (13) N/A N/A
Promotion
Title cards Large panel of imagery and text at the top of the 11 (52) 5 (24) 7 (33) 7 (33) 1 (5) N/A
page featuring foods or beverages, typically
below page headers
Any reduced price Title card includes any food or beverage offered at 4 (36) 1 (20) 0 (0) 3 (43) 1 (100) N/A
offer a reduced price
Banner Rectangular Internet display advertising format 12 (57) 4 (19) 4 (19) 8 (38) 4 (19) N/A

RESEARCH
advertisements driving visitors to a post-click landing page,
featuring food or beverages
3 (25) 1 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (50) N/A

(continued on next page)

2299
 RESEARCH
2300

Table 2. Description, prevalence, and website location of food and beverage marketing strategies used by 21 US online grocery retailers, 2019-2020 (continued)

Anywhere Department Search Product During

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

Marketing strategy Description on website Homepage page results pagea pageb checkout

Disclosure of Any banner advertisement is explicitly described as

advertising “advertising” or “sponsored”
Any reduced price Any banner advertisement contains a food or 4 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (50) 1 (25) N/A
offer beverage offered at a reduced price
Branded product Branded product images are displayed on the site 6 (55) 6 (55) N/A N/A N/A N/A
imagery to illustrate grocery categories or departments
Branded interactive Dynamic site content such as pop-ups, splash 5 (24) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (24) N/A
content pages, videos, tutorials, or games contain
branded products
Branded recipes or Instructions to make a meal, recommended foods 11 (52) 1 (5) 1 (5) 0 (0) 4 (19) N/A
meal solutions to eat together as a meal, or meal kits contain
branded products
Product ratings Quantitative customer review (eg, on a 5-star Likert 7 (33) 4 (19) 4 (19) 4 (24) 7 (33) N/A
scale)
Product reviews Qualitative customer review (eg, description of 6 (29) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (29) N/A
satisfaction with a product)
Labels Image on or near a product indicating certain 5 (24) 2 (10) 3 (14) 2 (10)d 4 (19) N/A
product characteristics
Calorie labels Calories displayed next to product 2 (40) 0 (0) 1 (33) 0 (0) 2 (50) N/A
Guiding Stars Products are rated 0-3 stars with 0 indicating least 2 (40) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (50) N/A
healthy
and 3 indicating healthiest
Warning labels Warnings are displayed next to product to indicate 2 (40) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (50) N/A
poor nutritional quality
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12

Traffic light labels Traffic light labels are displayed next to product to 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) N/A
indicate nutritional quality (red is least healthy,
green is healthiest)
Other nutrition labels Other nutrition labels are displayed next to product 4 (80) 2 (100) 2 (67) 2 (100) 3 (75) N/A
(eg, whole grain, non-GMO,e low-fat)
Link to retailer’s Button to link to retailer’s social media page 14 (67) 14 (67) N/A N/A N/A N/A
social media
Facebook 14 (100) 14 (100) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Twitter 13 (93) 13 (93) N/A N/A N/A N/A

(continued on next page)

 Table 2. Description, prevalence, and website location of food and beverage marketing strategies used by 21 US online grocery retailers, 2019-2020 (continued)
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12

Anywhere Department Search Product During

Marketing strategy Description on website Homepage page results pagea pageb checkout

YouTube 11 (79) 11 (79) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pinterest 11 (79) 11 (79) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Instagram 8 (57) 8 (57) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Option to interact Button allowing consumer to share opinions about 19 (90) N/A N/A N/A 19 (90) N/A
with the product a product, generate content related to the
product, or move the product to a shopping list
or other saved location
Add to shopping list Button to add the product to a shopping list or 14 (67) N/A N/A N/A 14 (67) N/A
save for later
“Like” product Button to “like” the product 10 (48) N/A N/A N/A 10 (48) N/A
Share product on Button to share product on shopper’s social media 2 (10) N/A N/A N/A 2 (10) N/A
social media page
Upload video Button to upload a video about the product to the 1 (5) N/A N/A N/A 1 (5) N/A
site
a
At each retailer, 15 searches were conducted using the following terms: bread, canned fish, entrée, cheese, chips, canned corn, salad dressing, juice, apples, cookies, pizza, soda, cereal, oil, milk. Values indicate that promotional strategy was present
on at least one search result page unless otherwise noted.
JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

b
At each retailer, 15 products were added to the cart: Nature’s Own 100% Whole Wheat Bread (20 oz) (Flowers Foods), StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Water (5 oz) (StarKist Co), Kraft Blue Box Macaroni and Cheese Dinner (7.25 oz) (Kraft Heinz), shredded cheddar
cheese (8 oz, own brand or lowest unit price), Doritos Nacho Cheese Flavored Tortilla Chips (9.75 oz) (PepsiCo), Del Monte Canned Fresh Cut Golden Sweet Kernel Corn (15.25 oz) (Del Monte Pacific Limited), Hidden Valley Ranch Dressing (16 oz) (The Clorox
Company), Tropicana 100% Orange Juice, No Pulp (52 oz) (PepsiCo), Honeycrisp apples, nonorganic (10 count), Double Stuff Oreo (15.35 oz) (Nabisco), Di Giorno Original Rising Crust Pepperoni Pizza (27.5 oz) (Nestlé), Coca-Cola (2 L) (Coca-Cola Company,
Honey Nut Cheerios (15.4 oz) (General Mills), Crisco Pure Canola Oil (48 fl oz) (B&G Foods Inc), 2%/reduced fat cow’s milk (1 gallon, own brand or lowest unit price). Values indicate that promotional strategy was present on at least one product page.
c
N/A ¼ not applicable.
d
Assessed on first search page only (bread).
e
GMO ¼ genetically modified organism.

RESEARCH
2301
RESEARCH
measures for the presence or absence of features on the site.
Researchers also indicated whether each feature was present
in specific locations on the site, including the store home
page, department home page (eg, “breakfast cereal” depart-
ment), search results page, product page, and at checkout. A
detailed description of the measures within each domain is in
Table 2.
Step 2: Development of Coding Protocol. A protocol for
website coding was developed using an adapted version of
McMillan’s framework for conducting web content analyses,
which includes six steps: drawing a sample for analysis,
identifying a time frame; defining a context unit (ie, section
of the site, such as the home page, that will be coded),
defining content categories (ie, features of the content, such
as price reductions, that will be coded), training coders and
checking reliability, and analyzing and interpreting the
data.19 To capture the complexity and continuous change of
internet content, websites were coded in real-time rather
than downloading web content or coding screenshots of
static content.20 This approach had limitations, in that two
coders could not independently code each site. However,
coding in real-time accounted for the interactive nature of
web content and provided a description of the online food
retail environment that mimics a real-life shopping experi-
ence. In addition, many features of the online food retail
environment are not revealed unless the consumer interacts
with the site. Coding in real-time was important to capture
the breadth of marketing strategies and features that a con-
sumer may encounter along the online path to purchase.
A protocol was developed to prevent researchers’ personal
information, search histories, and locations from introducing
biased site content. Procedures were developed in consulta-
tion with experts in computer science and involved: con-
necting to the e-commerce site using a virtual private network
service, viewing the website in private browsing mode (eg,
Chrome Incognito [Google LLC], and opening a new browsing
session for each retailer), setting up an account profile at each
retailer with an anonymous e-mail address and pay-as-you-go
mobile telephone number, paying for groceries and fees using
anonymous, prepaid debit cards (preferred) or institutional
credit cards (when prepaid debit not accepted), and delivering
groceries to a nearby food pantry.
To code each website, researchers completed an activity
intended to mimic an authentic online grocery shopping
experience. This involved logging into the account profile and
completing tasks in the following sequence: navigating to the
grocery home page and select pages linked to the home page
(eg, weekly flyer); navigating to the breakfast cereal depart-
ment page; searching for a list of 15 generic foods and bev-
erages in random order (eg, “bread”) (Figure 1); searching for
a specific brand, size, and variety of these 15 foods and
beverages, clicking on each product, and adding each product
to the shopping cart; and paying for the order. Throughout
the shopping activity, researchers captured images of the site
content. Food categories were selected to reflect a typical and
varied shopping basket, based on the USDA list of most
frequently purchased commodity categories.21 Specific food
items were selected based on Amazon’s list of top-selling
items by category to ensure availability across stores and
regions.22 The list of food categories, specific items, and terms
2302 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
used in the search are listed in in the sequence in which they
were searched. One of each item was added to the cart, with
additional apples added at the end of the shopping trip to
meet minimum order requirements, when needed. If a spe-
cific item was unavailable, researchers selected an item with
the same description in a different size or, if an item in a
different size was unavailable, researchers selected the most
relevant item in the specific search results (ie, the first item in
the search results list sorted by relevance or best match).
Step 3. Expert Review. Before data collection, the Online
Grocery Retail Environment Coding Instrument and website
coding protocol were reviewed and piloted by an expert
advisory committee, which included members of the Healthy
Food Retail Working Group—a group of researchers with
expertise in healthy food retail convened by the Nutrition and
Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network.23 The
expert advisory committee was asked to complete an
abridged version of the shopping activity on a food retail
website of their choice, to code the website using Qualtrics,24
and to provide written feedback on their experience. A 60-
minute teleconference call was held to discuss feedback. On
this call, the two lead researchers asked the expert commit-
tee questions about the feasibility of completing the shop-
ping task in the retailer they chose, clarity of measures
included in the coding instrument, clarity of the coding
protocol, gaps in the list of measures collected, and general
impressions of how well the research captured key features
of the online food retail marketing environment. The re-
searchers took notes on this call and used these notes as well
as feedback provided through Qualtrics24 and via e-mail to
refine the coding instrument and procedures.
Step 4. Website Coding. Using the final coding instrument
and protocol, two graduate-level researchers were randomly
assigned to each code half of the websites in the sample. Data
were collected at one point in time before the COVID-19
pandemic, from December 12, 2019, to January 2, 2020. Re-
searchers were trained by participating in an initial 3-hour
training about the Online Grocery Retail Environment Cod-
ing Instrument and then independently pilot coding the
website of a retailer not included in the study sample. To
assist with coding, researchers were provided with defini-
tions of codebook items, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and
examples. The pilot coding was reviewed by a senior member
of the research team and results were discussed to identify
points of disagreement and areas of confusion. This process
was repeated using a different retailer and materials were
refined until consensus between the two coders was reached.
Step 5. Assessment of Product Nutritional Quality. While
coding websites, researchers collected the brand and product
description of food and beverages marketed using each price,
placement, and promotion strategy.
Price. Information for the first five foods and beverages
shown on the homepage or linked to the homepage of each
retailer (from Task 1) was recorded: weekly flyer, coupons
(discounts redeemed at checkout), markdowns, loyalty ex-
clusives (products discounted only for loyalty program
members), points (products that earn rewards for later
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12

redemption), and other time-limited savings (discounts
offered for a limited time only).
Placement. Information for the first five products recom-
mended (ie, products grouped under headings such as
“popular near you” that were not part of the search results
and could be instantly added to the shopping cart) on the
homepage, department page, and checkout page, as well as
on each of the 15 generic search results pages and 15 specific
product pages (the search results themselves were not
considered recommendations) (from Tasks 1 through 5) was
recorded. On all pages except at the checkout, information for
the first five recommended products that were described as
“sponsored,” and the first five recommended products
offered at a reduced price were also recorded.
Promotion. Information for the first five products shown in
title cards (large panels of imagery and text at the top of the
page), banner advertisements (rectangular advertisements
driving visitors to a postclick landing page), interactive site
content (eg, videos and games), and recipes on the home
page, department page, search results pages, and product
pages (from Tasks 1 through 4) was recorded. Researchers
also recorded information for the first five products shown in
title cards and banner advertisements at a reduced price, and
recorded information for branded product imagery used to
illustrate grocery categories on the homepage. On each
generic search results page, the brand and product descrip-
tion for the first five products in the list of search results was
recorded to assess the degree to which results matched the
intent of the search (eg, does a search for chicken return
chicken nuggets or fresh poultry).
For each product recorded, researchers entered informa-
tion from the Nutrition Facts label and ingredients list into a
database using information from the store website. Products
were defined as “poor nutritional quality” in the case that
they were ultraprocessed and were excessive in key nutri-
ents. Procedures for determining nutritional quality are
described in detail below.
- Two researchers categorized food and beverages as
ultra-processed or not using the NOVA classification
system.25 A third researcher independently coded all
products and discrepancies were resolved by the
principal investigator. Products were assigned to NOVA
category 4 (ultraprocessed) or NOVA categories 1-3
(not ultraprocessed) by reviewing the product’s in-
gredients list. More information about this methodol-
ogy has been published previously.25 The decision to
classify products as ultra-processed or not was based
on global evidence that high consumption of ultra-
processed foods (ie, NOVA 4) is associated with
increased risk of poor health outcomes, including
weight gain and related comorbidities, in children and
adults.26 There have been several global calls to action
to reduce consumption of these products.27,28
- Because there is variation in nutritional quality among
foods even within the ultraprocessed foods category,29
the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) Nutrient
Profile Model (NPM) was used to further classify foods
according to nutrient density based on information
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12
RESEARCH
from the Nutrition Facts label and ingredients list.30 The
PAHO NPM can be used to identify products subject to
regulation (eg, labeling and taxation) and was feasible
to apply based on information from the product label.
Foods and beverages were classified as excessive in so-
dium (ratio of sodium to energy 1), excessive in free
sugars, which include added sugars and sugars naturally
occurring in honey, syrup, and fruit juices (energy from
free sugar 10%), containing other sweeteners (artificial
or natural noncaloric sweeteners), and/or excessive in
saturated fats (energy from saturated fats 10%).
Because free sugars are not listed on the Nutrition Facts
label, methods for estimating free sugars from total
sugars were used. Like in the PAHO NPM, it was
assumed that total sugars were equal to free sugars if
the product contained added caloric sweeteners. If the
product was a milk, yogurt, or processed fruit with
added caloric sweeteners, free sugars were estimated as
half the total sugar content of the product.
- Products were also classified into 13 food groups
based on a coding scheme developed by Franckle and
colleagues.31 A detailed description of items included
in each group is available in Figure 2 (available at
www.jandonline.org).
Data Analysis
First, the proportion of retailers using each marketing strat-
egy anywhere on the website and at different points along
the path to purchase (ie, home page, department page,
search results page, product page, and checkout) was
tabulated. Second, the proportion of marketed products
that fell into each of 13 food groups was tabulated. Third,
the proportion of marketed products that were ultra-
processed and of poor nutritional quality overall and by
marketing strategy was calculated. Data were analyzed
using Stata SE version 15.1.32
Human Subjects Protections
This study was deemed nonhuman subjects research by the
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institu-
tional Review Board.
RESULTS
Retailer Characteristics
Retailers (N ¼ 21) were located in all nine US census regions
in areas serving socioeconomically, racially, and ethnically
diverse populations (Table 1). Median household income
within the Zip code of each store’s location ranged from
$26,954 (Publix) to $153,684 (Safeway) and percent poverty
ranged from 4.4% (Safeway) to 40.9% (Wright’s Market). The
proportion of the population identifying as Black ranged from
1.6% (Albertson’s) to 72.4% (Food Lion) and the Hispanic
population ranged from 2.4% (Kroger) to 88.2% (H-E-B).
Marketing Strategies
Product. Two marketing strategies intended to alter the
product mix available to consumers were identified:
personalized storefronts and website filters (see Table 2 for a
glossary of terms). Personalized storefronts allowed con-
sumers to opt-in to one of several options to view a
JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 2303
RESEARCH
customized assortment of products recommended by the
retailer. Thirteen (62%) retailers offered this option, either by
displaying products previously ordered online or “favorites,”
linking online and in-store accounts to display past pur-
chases, displaying a list of “commonly purchased” or “pop-
ular” products, analyzing past purchases and making
personalized recommendations, or displaying only products
recommended “for you” by the retailer. Nearly all retailers
(95%) offered website filters, or the option to view only
products with certain characteristics (eg, brand). Filters were
infrequently offered on the home page (5%) but were often
offered on the department page (90%) or search results page
(81%).
Price. All retailers offered products at a reduced price, either
through digital coupons (67%), a weekly flyer (52%), time-
limited savings (52%), rewards (29%), instant product mark-
downs (29%), and/or loyalty program exclusives (10%). Eight
retailers (38%) offered price reductions that were explicitly
personalized (ie, described as made “for you”). Price re-
ductions were often paired with other strategies, including
product recommendations (95%), title cards (36%), and ban-
ner advertisements (33%).
Placement. All retailers offered recommendations for
products that could be instantly added to the cart. This
strategy was most common on the home page (86%) and
product page (90%) but was also prevalent on the department
page (29%), search results page (52%), and at checkout (62%).
Recommended products were grouped under themes, which,
in some cases, were explicitly personalized (eg, “popular near
you,” “you might also like,” or “recommended for you”). Just
more than half of retailers in the sample (57%) disclosed
when product recommendations were sponsored; for others,
sponsorship was unknown. Nearly all retailers (90%) allowed
customers to sort products by certain characteristics, such as
price or nutritional quality. By default, products were most
commonly sorted by relevance (89% of retailers offering a sort
option), popularity (47%), or featured items (26%).
Promotion. A wide variety of promotional strategies were
used by retailers to increase visibility or appeal of certain
products. Most retailers (52%) used title cards to feature food
or beverages on the home page (24%), department page
(33%), search results page (33%), and/or product page (5%).
Banner advertisements were also popular (57%); only three
retailers explicitly described these as sponsored advertise-
ments. Some retailers used images of specific, branded
products to designate grocery categories or departments
(55%), in dynamic site content such as pop-ups, splash pages,
videos, and/or tutorials (24%), or in recommended recipes
(52%). Some retailers enabled peer-to-peer communication,
including product ratings (33%) and reviews (29%). Most re-
tailers enabled customer interaction with products (90%) by
adding products to a shopping list, “liking” a product, sharing
a product on social media, or uploading a product video re-
view to the site. Most retailers provided links to their own
social media pages (67%) such as Facebook or Twitter. Food
labels were relatively unpopular (24%). Of retailers displaying
labels, most (80%) used their own labeling system to high-
light nutrition-related attributes of products (eg, whole grain,
nongenetically modified, or low-fat); fewer used evidence-
2304 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
based rating systems such as Guiding Stars (40%), calorie la-
bels (40%), or traffic light labels (0%).
Nutritional Quality of Marketed Products
When the nutritional quality of the first five foods or bever-
ages marketed across all retailers was examined, 64% were
found to be ultraprocessed (NOVA category 4); 36% were not
ultraprocessed (NOVA categories 1 through 3); and 62% met
the criteria for “poor nutritional quality” (ultraprocessed and
exceeding at least one PAHO criterion) (Table 3). Of the
ultraprocessed foods, 69% were excessive in sodium, 49%
were excessive in free sugars, 40% were excessive in saturated
fats, and 4% contained low- or no-calorie sweeteners. Prod-
ucts marketed through banner advertisements (87%) and
sponsored product recommendations (76% on the home
page, 71% on the search results page, and 66% on the product
page) were more likely to be of poor nutritional quality
compared with products marketed through other means.
When marketed products were examined by food group, the
top-five marketed categories were: candy, sweets, and snacks
(17.3%); fruit, vegetables, and legumes (16.7%); bread, cereal,
and grains (10.8%); milk, yogurt, and cheese (9.7%); and
sugary drinks (6.9%) (Table 4). There was some variation by
marketing type, with bread, cereal, and grains accounting for
the largest proportion of price reductions (18.4%); fruit,
vegetables, and legumes accounting for the largest propor-
tion of product recommendations (17.1%); and candy, sweets,
and snacks accounting for the largest proportion of other
promotions (36.4%). When searching for foods, the nutri-
tional quality of the first five search results varied by cate-
gory. Although few results for oil (1%) (eg, oil-based salad
dressing), apples (2%) (eg, sliced apples with caramel dip),
and milk (11%) (eg, chocolate milk) were of poor nutritional
quality, most results for cereal (99%), salad dressing (97%),
and bread (95%) were unhealthy (ie, ultraprocessed and
excessive in key nutrients to limit) (Table 5, available at www.
jandonline.org).
DISCUSSION
This research examined the volume and content of food and
beverage marketing, as well as the nutritional quality of
marketed products, in 21 US online grocery stores, including
major chain retailers and those participating in the SNAP
Online Purchasing Pilot.
A wide variety of marketing strategies were employed,
individually and in combination, across the online grocery
stores surveyed. These included the strategic placement of
certain products, and strategies to alter the assortment of
products, reduce their price, and increase their visibility and
appeal. Most retailers offered personalized storefronts and
nearly all enabled filtering of web pages by product charac-
teristics, such as brand, price, or nutrition-related attributes.
All 21 retailers offered products online at a reduced price—a
pricing strategy that was frequently combined with other
marketing strategies, such as product recommendations and
banner advertisements. Retailers used product recommen-
dations and search result ordering to increase consumers’
exposure to certain products and brands. Some of these
recommendations were explicitly personalized (eg, “made for
you”), or paid product placements (eg, “sponsored” prod-
ucts), and others were likely, but not explicitly, paid (eg,
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12
 RESEARCH

Table 3. Nutritional quality of food and beverages marketed by 21 US online grocery retailers, 2019-2020, by marketing strategy
(n ¼ 3,473)a

Total Poor Contains Excessive

products nutritional Ultra-processed Excessive Excessive other saturated
Marketing strategy assessed qualityb product sodium free sugars sweeteners fats

ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒn (%)ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ!
Overall 3,473 2,155 (62) 2,214 (64) 1,519 (69) 1094 (49) 95 (4) 877 (40)
Price
All reduced price offers 212 123 (58) 127 (60) 86 (68) 85 (67) 5 (4) 51 (40)
Weekly flyer 47 19 (40) 20 (43) 12 (60) 12 (60) 1 (5) 10 (50)
Other time-limited 52 30 (58) 30 (58) 22 (73) 20 (67) 0 (0) 13 (43)
savings
Coupons 65 45 (69) 47 (72) 29 (62) 33 (70) 1 (2) 21 (45)
Markdowns 16 12 (75) 13 (81) 9 (69) 8 (62) 3 (23) 2 (15)
Loyalty program 23 15 (65) 15 (65) 12 (80) 12 (80) 0 (0) 3 (20)
exclusives
Points or vouchers 9 2 (22) 2 (22) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (100)
Placement
All product 2,744 1,659 (60) 1,704 (62) 1,252 (73) 767 (45) 77 (5) 619 (36)
recommendationsc
Homepage product 100 61 (61) 62 (62) 39 (63) 36 (58) 8 (13) 26 (42)
recommendations
Sponsored 17 13 (76) 13 (76) 10 (77) 4 (31) 2 (15) 5 (38)
Reduced price 74 45 (61) 46 (62) 24 (52) 29 (63) 6 (13) 19 (41)
Department page 25 12 (48) 14 (56) 7 (50) 8 (57) 0 (0) 1 (7)
product
recommendations
Sponsored 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Reduced price 7 3 (43) 5 (71) 3 (60) 2 (40) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Search results page 711 377 (53) 388 (55) 286 (74) 195 (50) 16 (4) 119 (31)
product
recommendations
Sponsored 139 99 (71) 106 (76) 59 (56) 56 (53) 8 (8) 35 (33)
Reduced price 172 98 (57) 99 (58) 86 (87) 53 (54) 5 (5) 32 (32)
Product page 1,202 744 (62) 760 (63) 568 (75) 306 (40) 28 (4) 294 (37)
recommendations
Sponsored 109 72 (66) 77 (71) 57 (74) 26 (34) 12 (16) 22 (29)
Reduced price 404 295 (73) 306 (76) 221 (72) 126 (41) 14 (5) 118 (39)
Checkout page product 49 24 (49) 24 (49) 18 (75) 12 (50) 0 (0) 10 (42)
recommendations
Promotion
All other promotions 517 373 (72) 383 (74) 181 (47) 242 (63) 13 (3) 207 (54)
Title cards 104 54 (52) 57 (55) 38 (67) 31 (54) 3 (5) 15 (26)
Reduced price 42 15 (36) 16 (38) 11 (69) 11 (69) 0 (0) 6 (38)
Banner advertisements 299 259 (87) 261 (87) 99 (38) 186 (71) 6 (2) 174 (67)
Reduced price 16 16 (100) 16 (100) 16 (100) 3 (19) 2 (13) 2 (13)
(continued on next page)

December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 2305
RESEARCH
Table 3. Nutritional quality of food and beverages marketed by 21 US online grocery retailers, 2019-2020, by marketing strategy
(n ¼ 3,473)a (continued)
Total Poor
products nutritional
Marketing strategy assessed qualityb
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒn (%)ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ!
Branded product imagery 23 8 (35)
Branded interactive 21 14 (67)
content
Branded recipes 12 7 (58)
a
Dataset of products compiled by recording nutrition information for the first five foods and beverages marketed using each marketing strategy on each webpage of 21 grocery retailers.
b
Products are defined as of poor nutritional quality in the case that they are ultra-processed and excessive in sodium, excessive in free sugars, ontaining other sweeteners, or excessive in
saturated fats. Values are presented as % of ultraprocessed product.
c
The search results themselves were not included.
“featured” products). Other promotional strategies varied
widely by retailer and included banner advertisements (some
of which were labeled “sponsored”), peer-to-peer commu-
nication, branded content, interactive product features, user-
generated content, and social media engagement.
This is one of the first studies to examine the types of
marketing strategies or the prevalence of their use within
online food retail platforms in the United States. Previous
work has suggested that product price promotions, front-of-
package labeling, and availability of nutrition information on
packaged foods differ between online and physical super-
markets.14,33e35 For example, a study of six UK supermarkets
found that front-of-package labels were present on 74% of
products from physical stores, compared with 42% of iden-
tical products in online stores.14 By contrast, more price
promotions were available in physical supermarkets (32% of
products) compared with online stores (24%). Three studies
surveying online grocery retailers in the United States found
that many packaged products lacked conspicuous, legible
nutrition information required on all packaged foods sold in
the United States, including Nutrition Facts labels, allergen
information, and ingredients lists.33-35 Researchers have
found that federal agencies overseeing food labeling and
online advertising, such as the Food and Drug Administration
and Federal Trade Commission, have authority to require that
online food retailers alter their practices in support of
nutrition equity and informed consumer decision making
online.35 Congress and USDA could also leverage SNAP-
authorized retailers to set rules about the display of nutri-
tional information, product recommendations, or other
product marketing techniques.
Of nearly 3,500 products examined in this study, two-
thirds were ultraprocessed (64%) and of poor nutritional
quality (62%). Candy, sweets, and snacks made up the largest
percentage of food and beverage promotions (17.3%), fol-
lowed by fruit, vegetables, and legumes (16.7%). That most
food and beverages marketed in online grocery stores are of
poor nutritional quality is not surprising. A report from
Center for Science in the Public Interest, a national nutrition
advocacy group, examined product marketing in six online
grocery retailers and found that, on average, half (51%) of
products marketed on retailer home pages and search result
2306 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
Contains Excessive
Ultra-processed Excessive Excessive other saturated
product sodium free sugars sweeteners fats
10 (43) 5 (50) 4 (40) 0 (0) 3 (30)
16 (76) 7 (44) 5 (31) 2 (13) 5 (31)
7 (58) 5 (71) 2 (29) 0 (0) 2 (29)
pages did not meet the National Alliance on Nutrition and
Activity (a coalition that advocates for healthy eating policies)
nutrition guidelines.9 One study of cereal marketing on
manufacturer websites targeting children found that 64% of
advertised products fell short of the National Academy of
Medicine guidelines for competitive school foods.36 One
reason for these differences in marketing by food category
may be that consumers are concerned about the quality of
fresh and refrigerated foods and prefer to purchase these
items in-person—a trend that may change as customers
become more comfortable shopping for groceries online.37 In
addition, compared with producers of fresh foods, manufac-
turers of packaged foods and beverages have larger market-
ing budgets to pay high trade fees for prime placement in the
store.5,6,38 Retailers have also cited difficulty cross-promoting
fresh foods due to structural limitations (eg, lack of refriger-
ation), perishability, and coordination across departments (ie,
produce and grocery are often run by different category
managers).39 Although information about the fees paid for
product placement in online stores is proprietary, the online
setting can overcome many of the structural constraints of
the brick-and-mortar store. Indeed, in this study, the fruit,
vegetable, and legume category accounted for 16.7% of mar-
keted products overall and was the category most likely to be
recommended to consumers along the path to purchase, ac-
counting for 17.1% of product recommendations.
This research is subject to several limitations and strengths.
First, despite using multiple methods to ensure researchers’
personal information and browsing histories did not influ-
ence product display on retailer websites, we cannot know if
this was entirely prevented. Second, websites were captured
at one point in time and observed product marketing may
have been influenced by seasonal marketing trends. Third,
the types of products purchased and the order in which
products were searched may have influenced marketing on
the site; however, the goal of the study was to understand
what a typical consumer might see; efforts were made to
select a representative basket of food and beverages, and
items were selected in random order. Fourth, researchers
made a one-time purchase of 15 items at each store; we
cannot comment on marketing strategies that may be
revealed or become more sophisticated with repeat
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12
 RESEARCH

Table 4. Food groups marketed by 21 US online grocery retailers, 2019-2020a

All marketing Price Placement Promotion

All price, placement, and All reduced-price All product All other
Food group promotional strategies offers recommendations promotions

ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒn (%)ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ!
Total 3,473 (100) 212 (100) 2,744 (100) 517 (100)
Candy, sweets, and snacks 602 (17.3) 37 (17.5) 377 (13.7) 188 (36.4)
Fruit, vegetables, and 581 (16.7) 38 (17.9) 469 (17.1) 74 (14.3)
legumes
Bread, cereal, and other 472 (13.6) 39 (18.4) 397 (14.5) 36 (7.0)
grains
Mixed dishes and prepared 375 (10.8) 17 (8.0) 318 (11.6) 40 (7.7)
foods
Milk, yogurt, and cheese 338 (9.7) 10 (4.7) 276 (10.1) 52 (10.1)
Sugary drinks 241 (6.9) 14 (6.6) 189 (6.9) 38 (7.4)
Seafood, meat, poultry, and 195 (5.6) 30 (14.2) 142 (5.2) 23 (4.5)
eggs
Condiments and sauce 167 (4.8) 5 (2.4) 154 (5.6) 8 (1.6)
Unsweetened drinks 163 (4.7) 7 (3.3) 137 (5.0) 19 (3.7)
100% juice 106 (3.1) 0 (0) 100 (3.6) 6 (1.2)
Low-calorie drinksb 79 (2.3) 4 (1.9) 63 (2.3) 12 (2.3)
Fats and oils 77 (2.2) 1 (0.5) 68 (2.5) 8 (1.6)
Otherc 77 (2.2) 10 (4.7) 54 (2.0) 13 (2.5)
a
Dataset of products compiled by recording nutrition information for the first five foods and beverages marketed using each marketing strategy on each webpage of 21 grocery retailers.
b
Includes drinks sweetened with low- or no-calorie sweeteners.
c
Includes alcohol, processed meat and soy, and other cooking ingredients (eg, flour and sugar).

purchases. Fifth, we did not capture personalized marketing
unless personalization was explicit. Although personalization
is an important characteristic of online food retail marketing,
this construct was not captured in this study because there
are many factors that may contribute to variation between
sites other than dimensions that researchers intentionally
vary, such as geolocation or prior purchases. For example,
two search queries from the same IP address may be directed
to different data centers, resulting in variation in site content
that is not caused by intentional personalization.40 Other
algorithms, A/B testing on the site, or unknown site archi-
tecture may also cause variation in site content. Thus,
personalization was deemed outside the scope of this study.
Sixth, this study did not assess how marketing affects con-
sumer behavior, or if the decision-making process differed
online vs in-store. Lastly, these data were collected before the
COVID-19 pandemic, during which time the online grocery
sector grew substantially. New marketing practices may be
introduced as grocery e-commerce sites become more so-
phisticated and as new, third-party vendors enter the market.
This research is the first to capture the variety and relative
volume of marketing strategies used at different points along
the path to purchase in 21 US grocery chains. The stores
included in the research were located in areas serving soci-
odemographically diverse populations, increasing generaliz-
ability of results. Other strengths include analysis of more
than 1,000 unique pages across a diverse group of online
grocery retail websites, use of a validated conceptual frame-
work specific to online food retail in codebook development,
assessment of the nutritional quality of marketed products
using several methods, and the development of a robust
methodology for assessing marketing in online retail.
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
Online grocery has the potential to address healthy food access
and support healthy purchases. One randomized trial in a food
pantry offering online grocery shopping found that a prefilled,
nutritionally balanced online shopping cart increased pur-
chases of fruit, vegetables, and whole grains compared with
nutrition education alone.41 A randomized crossover trial of-
fering personalized price reductions for targeted healthful
foods saw a small increase in purchases of these foods over 6
months compared with a control condition in which price re-
ductions were not personalized or targeted.42 Another ran-
domized trial in an experimental online supermarket in the
United Kingdom found that providing a shopping list in which
items were ranked in ascending order of saturated fat content
reduced energy from saturated fat in food purchases by 5%
compared with no intervention.43 Although these results are
promising, they may be threatened by the marketing of un-
healthful products. No study, to our knowledge, has assessed

December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 2307
RESEARCH

Product Generic
category Product description, size search terms Specific search terms
a
Bread Nature’s Own 100% Whole Wheat, 20 oz (Flowers Foods; Bread Nature’s Own Whole
Thomasville, GA) Wheat Bread
Canned fish Starkist Chunk Light Tuna in Water,b 5 oz (Starkist Co; Reston, VA) Canned fish StarKist Chunk Light
Tuna
Mixed dish, Kraft Blue Box Macaroni and Cheese Dinner,c 7.25 oz (Kraft Heinz Entrée Kraft Macaroni and
entrée Co; East Hanover, NJ) Cheese
Cheese Generic brand shredded cheddar, 8 oz Cheese Shredded cheddar
d
Salty snacks Doritos Nacho Cheese Flavored Tortilla Chips, 9.75 oz (PepsiCo; Chips Doritos
New Brunswick, NJ)
Canned Del Monte Canned Fresh Cut Golden Sweet Kernel Corn,e 15.25 oz Canned corn Del Monte Corn
vegetables (Del Monte Foods; Bloomfield, NJ)
Salad Hidden Valley Ranch Dressing,f 16 fl oz (Hidden Valley; Fullerton, Salad Hidden Valley Ranch
dressing CA) dressing
Juice Tropicana Orange Juice 100% Juice, No Pulp,d 52 fl oz (PepsiCo) Juice Tropicana Orange
Juice
Fresh fruit Honeycrisp apples, conventionally grown, 10 count Apples Honeycrisp apples
Cookies Nabisco Double Stuf Oreo,g 15.35 oz (Nabisco; East Hanover, NJ) Cookies Double Stuf Oreo
h
Frozen pizza DiGiorno Original Rising Crust Pepperoni Pizza, Pizza DiGiorno Pizza
27.5 oz (Nestle; Vevey, Switzerland)
Soda Coca-Cola,i 2 L (Coca-Cola Co; Monmouth Junction, NJ) Soda Coke
j
Cereal General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios, 15.4 oz (General Mills Inc; Cereal Honey Nut Cheerios
Dresher, PA)
Fats and oils Crisco Pure Canola Oil,k 48 fl oz (B&G Foods; Parsippany, NJ) Oil Crisco Canola Oil
Cow’s milk Generic brand 2% reduced fat milk, unflavored, nonorganic, 1 gal Milk 2% milk
a
Flowers Foods.
b
StarKist Co.
c
Kraft Heinz.
d
PepsiCo.
e
Del Monte Pacific Limited.
f
The Clorox Company.
g
Nabisco.
h
Nestlé.
i
The Coca-Cola Company.
j
General Mills.
k
B&G Foods Inc.
Figure 1. Description of products included in the grocery basket and search terms used in the online grocery shopping task

how retailer marketing practices influence consumer food
choices in real-world e-commerce settings. Research of this
nature could inform policy changes that shift marketing to-
ward more healthful products, such as marketing re-
quirements for SNAP-authorized retailers.
If online grocery marketing affects dietary behaviors,
personalized marketing may exacerbate longstanding health
inequities. A recent report highlights how Black, Latinx, and
low-income individuals may become more reliant on online
retailers to overcome poor access to healthful foods in their

2308 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12

communities.11 This reliance exposes individuals to greater
collection of personal data and predatory marketing of foods
and beverages based on presumed preferences and past be-
haviors. The types of products and services advertised are
informed by algorithms, which may be rooted in systemic bia-
ses that disproportionately influence already disadvantaged
groups and can entrench existing inequities.44 More research is
needed to understand the degree to which the marketing
practices identified in this study are personalized, and the in-
fluence of such personalization on the dietary behaviors of
populations at highest risk of diet-related chronic diseases.
CONCLUSIONS
Online grocery retailers commonly use a variety of strategies—
personalized storefronts, price reductions, product recom-
mendations, search result ordering, banner advertisements,
branded site content, and interactive media—to market food
and beverages on their websites. This marketing is prominent
on the home page, search results page, department page,
product page, and at checkout and predominantly features
food and beverages of poor nutritional quality. Future research
should examine the extent to which this marketing is
personalized on the basis of consumer characteristics, and its
influence on food choices and dietary behaviors.
References
1. Redman R. Online grocery to more than double market share by
2025. Supermarket News. September 18, 2020. Accessed May 26,
2021. https://www.supermarketnews.com/online-retail/online-
grocery-more-double-market-share-2025
2. 2020 online grocery shopping statistics: pre and post covid-19.
Superfood.com. April 16, 2020. Accessed May 26, 2021. https://
superfood.digital/online-grocery-store-ecommerce-statistics/
3. Prime is just $5.99/month* for qualifying government assistance
recipients. Accessed May 26, 2021. https://www.amazon.com/58f8
026f-0658-47d0-9752-f6fa2c69b2e2/qualify
4. Moran A, Headrick G, Khandpur N. Promoting equitable expansion of
the SNAP Online Purchasing Pilot. July 2021. Accessed November 30,
2021. https://healthyeatingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/
07/HER-Online-Purchasing-Brief-FINAL.pdf
5. Rivlin G. Rigged: Supermarket shelves for sale. September 2016.
Accessed May 26, 2021. https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/
attachment/Rigged%20report_0.pdf
6. Hecht AA, Perez CL, Polacsek M, Thorndike AN, Franckle RL,
Moran AJ. Influence of food and beverage companies on retailer
marketing strategies and consumer behavior. Int J Environ Res Public
Health. 2020;17(20):7381.
7. Glanz K, Bader MD, Iyer S. Retail grocery store marketing strategies
and obesity: an integrative review. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(5):503-
512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.01.013
8. Khandpur N, Zatz L, Bleich S, et al. Supermarkets in cyberspace: a
conceptual framework to capture the influence of online food retail
environments on consumer behavior. Int J Environ Res Public Health.
2020;17(22):8639. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228639
9. McCarthy J, Minovi D, Wootan M. Scroll and shop: Food marketing
migrates online. January 2020. Accessed June 19, 2020. https://
cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/Scroll_and_Shop_report.
pdf
10. Jilcott Pitts SB, Ng SW, Blitstein JL, Gustafson A, Niculescu M. Online
grocery shopping: promise and pitfalls for healthier food and
beverage purchases. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(18):3360-3376.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018002409
11. Chester J, Kopp K, Montgomery KC. Does buying groceries online put
SNAP participants at risk? How to protect health, privacy, and equity.
July 2020. Accessed May 26, 2021. https://www.democraticmedia.org/
sites/default/files/field/public-files/2020/cdd_snap_report_ff_0.pdf
December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12
RESEARCH
12. Mathur A, Acar G, Friedman MJ, et al. Dark patterns at scale: findings
from a crawl of 11K shopping websites. Proc ACM Hum Comput
Interact. 2019;3(81):1-32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359183
13. Chester J, Montgomery KC, Kopp K. Big food, big tech, and the global
childhood obesity pandemic. May 12, 2021. Accessed May 26, 2021.
https://www.democraticmedia.org/article/big-food-big-tech-and-
global-childhood-obesity-pandemic
14. Bhatnagar P, Scarborough P, Kaur A, Dikmen D, Adhikari V,
Harrington R. Are food and drink available in online and physical
supermarkets the same? A comparison of product availability,
price, price promotions and nutritional information. Public Health
Nutr. 2021;24(5):819-825. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898002000
4346
15. Euromonitor International. Top U.S. supermarkets by revenue.
February 2021. Accessed May 26, 2021. https://www.euromonitor.
com/supermarkets-in-the-us/report#
16. US Dept of Agriculture. USDA launches SNAP Online Purchasing Pi-
lot: Participants may buy groceries online in New York. April 18,
2019. Accessed May 26, 2021. https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelea
se/2019/fns-000319
17. US Census Bureau. American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year
estimates now available. December 19, 2019. Updated October 8,
2021. Accessed May 26, 2021. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/
press-releases/2019/acs-5-year.html
18. Moran A, Perez C, Headrick G Taillie LS, Khandpur N. Capturing
marketing and policy practices of online food retailers: a codebook.
Accessed April 21, 2022. https://doi.org/10.17605.OSF.IO/VY9T
19. McMillan SJ. The microscope and the moving target: the challenge of
applying content analysis to the world wide web. Journal Mass
Commun Q. 2001;77(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699000077
00107
20. Kim I, Kuljis J. Applying content analysis to web-based content.
J Comput Inf Technol. 2010;18(4):369-375.
21. Garasky S, Mbwana K, Romualdo A, Tenaglio A, Roy M. Foods typi-
cally purchased by SNAP households: Appendices. November 2016.
Accessed May 26, 2021. https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased.pdf
22. Best sellers grocery gourmet food. Updated November 19; 2021.
Accessed September 1, 2019. https://www.amazon.com/Best-
Sellers-Grocery-Gourmet-Food/zgbs/grocery. 2021
23. Nutrition & Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network (NOP-
REN). Healthy Retail Work Group. Accessed May 26, 2021. https://
nopren.org/working_groups/healthy-food-retail/
24. Qualtrics. Qualtrics; 2020.
25. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB, et al. Ultra-processed foods: what
they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(5):
936-941. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018003762
26. Crimarco A, Landry MJ, Gardner CD. Ultra-processed foods, weight
gain, and co-morbidity risk. Curr Obes Rep. 2021:1-13. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13679-021-00460-y
27. Popkin BM, Barquera S, Corvalan C, et al. Towards unified and im-
pactful policies to reduce ultra-processed food consumption and
promote healthier eating. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021;9(7):462-
470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00078-4
28. Khandpur N, Neri DA, Monteiro C, et al. Ultra-processed food
consumption among the paediatric population: an overview and
call to action from the European Childhood Obesity Group. Ann
Nutr Metab. 2020;76(2):109-113. https://doi.org/10.1159/00050
7840
29. Mozaffarian D, El-Abbadi NH, O’Hearn M, et al. Food Compass is a
nutrient profiling system using expanded characteristics for assess-
ing healthfulness of foods. Nat Food. 2021;2:809-818. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s43016-021-00381-y
30. Pan American Health Organization. Nutrient Profile Model; 2016.
Accessed October 26, 2021. https://www.paho.org/en/nutrient-
profile-model.
31. Franckle RL, Moran A, Hou T, et al. Transactions at a northeastern
supermarket chain: differences by Supplemental Nutrition Assis-
tance Program use. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59(2):305. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.amepre.2017.06.019
32. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. StataCorp LP; 2017. www.stata.
com
JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 2309
RESEARCH

33. Headrick G, Khandpur N, Perez C, Taillie LS, Bleich SN, Rimm EB,
Moran A. Content analysis of online grocery retail policies and
practices affecting healthy food access. J Nutr Educ Behav.
2022;54(3):219-229.
34. Olzenak K, Fresnch S, Sherwood N, Redden JP, Harnack L. How online
stores support consumer nutrition information needs. J Nutr Educ Behav.
2020;53(10):952-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2020.07.009
35. Pomeranz JL, Cash SB, Springer M, Del Guidice IM, Mozaffarian D.
Opportunities to address the failure of online food retailers to
ensure access to required food labelling information in the USA.
Public Health Nutr. 2022:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898002
1004638
36. Cheyne AD, Dorfman L, Bukofzer E, Harris JL. Marketing sugary ce-
reals to children in the digital age: a content analysis of 17 child-
targeted websites. J Health Commun. 2013;18(5):563-582. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.743622
37. NielsenIQ. Which health and food segments are missing out on
the e-commerce boom? March 9, 2021. Accessed on May 26,
2021, https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2021/key-
consumer-needs-fuel-in-store-sales-during-covid-19-e-commerce-
boom/
38. Karpyn A, McCallops K, Wolgast H, Glanz K. Improving consumption
and purchases of healthier foods in retail environments: a systematic
review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(20):7524. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph17207524
39. Greene J. Understanding the value of academic research partner-
ships with food retailers. December 2020. Accessed May 26, 2021.
https://healthyeatingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/HER-
Academic-Research-Partnerships-3.pdf
40. Hannak A, Soeller G, Lazer D, Mislove A, Wilson C. Measuring price
discrimination and steering on e-commerce web sites. Paper pre-
sented at: IMC ’14: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Internet
Measurement. Vancouver, BC, Canada, November 5-7, 2014. https://
doi.org/10.1145/2663716.2663744
41. Coffino JA, Udo T, Hormes JM. Nudging while online grocery shop-
ping: a randomized feasibility trial to enhance nutrition in in-
dividuals with food insecurity. Appetite. 2020;152(1):104714.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104714
42. Vadiveloo M, Guan X, Parker HW, et al. Effect of personalized in-
centives on dietary quality of groceries purchased: a randomized
crossover trial. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(2):e2030921. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.30921
43. Koutoukidis DA, Jebb SA, Ordonez-Mena JM, et al. Prominent
positioning and food swaps are effective interventions to reduce
the saturated fat content of the shopping basket in an experimental
online supermarket: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr
Phys Act. 2019;16(1):50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-
0810-9
44. Eubanks V. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police,
and Punish the Poor. St Martin’s Press; 2018.

AUTHOR INFORMATION
A. J. Moran is an assistant professor and C. Perez is a doctoral degree candidate, Department of Health Policy and Management, and G. Headrick
is a doctoral degree candidate, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. A.
Greatsinger is a senior health care analyst, Analysis Group, Boston, MA. L. S. Taillie is an assistant professor, Department of Nutrition, Gillings
School of Global Public Health, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. L. Zatz is a senior advisor, The Behavioural
Insights Team North America, Washington, DC; at the time of the study, she was a doctoral degree candidate, Department of Nutrition, Harvard
TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. S. N. Bleich is a senior advisor for COVID, Office of the Secretary, US Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC; at the time of the study, she was a professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard TH Chan School of Public
Health, Boston, MA. E. B. Rimm is a professor, Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
N. Khandpur is a research scientist, Department of Nutrition, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and a visiting scientist, Department of
Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Address correspondence to: Alyssa J. Moran, ScD, MPH, RD Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Hampton House 363, Baltimore, MD 21205. E-mail: amoran10@jhu.edu
STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
FUNDING/SUPPORT
This research was supported by Healthy Eating Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank members of the Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network working group on Healthy Food Retail,
subcommittee on online retail (Lucia Leone, Diana Grigsby-Toussaint, Pasquale Rummo, Jared McGuirt, Alice Ammerman, Betsy Anderson
Steeves, and Stephanie Jilcott Pitts) for their contributions.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
A. J. Moran conceptualized the research, obtained funding, developed instruments and protocols, analyzed data, and drafted the manuscript. G.
Headrick, C. Perez, and A. Greatsinger contributed to protocol development, collected and analyzed data, and provided critical manuscript
revisions. L. S. Taillie, L. Zatz, S. N. Bleich, and E. B. Rimm conceptualized the research, obtained funding, developed instruments and protocols,
and provided critical manuscript revisions. N. Khandpur conceptualized the research, obtained funding, developed instruments and protocols,
drafted the manuscript, and provided critical revisions.

2310 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12
 RESEARCH

Table 5. Nutritional quality of the first fivea food and beverage items displayed in search results of 21 US online grocery retailers,
2019-2020

No. of Excessive Contains Excessive

products Poor Ultra-processed Excessive free other saturated
Search query recorded nutritional qualityb productc sodiumd sugarse sweetenersf fatsg

ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
ƒ n (%)ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
ƒ!
Bread 101 96 (95) 99 (98) 96 (97) 46 (46) 3 (3) 2 (2)
Canned fish 69 14 (20) 14 (20) 13 (93) 3 (21) 0 (0) 10 (71)
Entrée 97 94 (97) 95 (98) 93 (98) 23 (24) 0 (0) 57 (60)
Cheese 99 79 (80) 79 (80) 77 (97) 4 (5) 0 (0) 78 (99)
Chips 99 64 (65) 67 (68) 60 (90) 5 (7) 0 (0) 14 (21)
Canned corn 100 25 (25) 25 (25) 25 (100) 17 (68) 0 (0) 8 (32)
Salad dressing 95 92 (97) 92 (97) 91 (99) 38 (41) 1 (1) 52 (57)
Juice 95 36 (38) 42 (44) 3 (7) 36 (86) 1 (2) 0 (0)
Apples 91 2 (2) 2 (2) 0 (0) 2 (100) 0 (0) 1 (50)
Cookies 89 89 (100) 89 (100) 8 (9) 87 (98) 0 (0) 79 (89)
Pizza 99 97 (98) 99 (100) 97 (98) 5 (5) 0 (0) 87 (88)
Soda 101 99 (98) 100 (99) 16 (16) 80 (80) 19 (19) 0 (0)
Cereal 102 101 (99) 101 (99) 93 (92) 90 (89) 0 (0) 3 (3)
Oil 79 1 (1) 8 (10) 1 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Milk 100 11 (11) 11 (11) 4 (36) 10 (91) 1 (9) 5 (45)
a
Researchers recorded up to five products; in some categories, fewer than five search results were displayed.
b
Products are defined as “poor nutritional quality” in the case that they are ultraprocessed and excessive in sodium, excessive in free sugars, containing other sweeteners, or excessive in
saturated fats.
c
Ultraprocessed products were defined using the NOVA classification system as products meeting the definition for category 4 (“ultra-processed”).24 These products were identified by
reviewing each product’s Nutrition Facts label and ingredients list.
d
Excessive sodium was defined as a ratio of sodium to energy 1. Value is % of ultraprocessed product.
e
Excessive free sugars was defined as energy from free sugar 10%. Value is % of ultraprocessed product.
f
Contains other sweeteners means the product contains any artificial or natural noncaloric sweeteners, as listed on the product’s ingredients list. Value is % of ultraprocessed product.
g
Excessive saturated fats was defined as energy from saturated fats 10%. Value is % of ultraprocessed product.

December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 2310.e1
RESEARCH

Food and beverage category Franckle and colleagues31 categories

Bread, Cereal, and Other Grains Bread; Cereal; Pasta, Rice, or Other Grain
Candy, Sweets, and Snacks Candy; Cold or Frozen Dessert; Sweet or Salty Snack; Sweet Bread, Cake, or Cookie
Condiments and Sauce Condiments, Sauces, and Salad Dressings
Fats and Oils Fat or OileSolid; Fat or OileLiquid
Fruit, Vegetables, and Legumes Fruit; Vegetable; Bean; Nut or Seed
Juice 100% Fruit Juice
Low-Calorie Drinks Lower-Calorie Beverage
Milk, Yogurt, and Cheese Milk or Milk Substitute; Yogurt; Cheese
Mixed Dishes and Prepared Foods Soup, Pizza, Convenience Foods; Convenience Foods (Hot)
Other Other: Food, Processed Soy/Meat Alternatives, Alcohol
Seafood, Meat, Poultry, and Eggs Red Meat, Processed Meat, Poultry, Seafood, Eggs/Egg Dishes
Sugary Drinks Sugar-sweetened Beverage
Unsweetened Drinks Unsweetened Beverage

Figure 2. Food and beverage categories used in content analysis of 21 US online food retail websites, 2019-2020

2310.e2 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS December 2022 Volume 122 Number 12