We partner with a secure submission system to handle manuscript submissions.
Please note:
You will need an account for the submission system, which is separate to your Cambridge Core account. For login and submission support, please visit the
submission and support pages.
Please review this journal's author instructions, particularly the
preparing your materials
page, before submitting your manuscript.
Click Proceed to submission system to continue to our partner's website.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Mandatory menu energy-labelling policy in restaurants has received increasing attention worldwide as a useful tool for promoting balanced energy intake and encouraging healthier food selection to reduce obesity prevalence. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the knowledge, views and observations of the public and restaurant owners towards the mandatory menu energy-labelling policy (introduced in August 2018) in restaurants in Saudi Arabia.
Design:
In February 2019, we conducted a cross-sectional study using an electronic questionnaire.
Setting:
Saudi Arabia.
Participants:
Saudi individuals (n 1228) aged 18–80 years and forty-one restaurant owners.
Results:
Most participants identified the correct daily energetic requirements for moderately active men (51 %) and women (69 %), but not for inactive adults (36 %). Although 40 % reported adequate knowledge to select low-energetic meals and 55 % perceived the policy as useful, 51 % reported they would be less likely to eat at restaurants displaying energy. Most participants (76 %) mentioned they would choose lower-energetic meals, and 79 % would feel guilty after consuming high-energetic meals. Moreover, 62 % of participants reported that the new labelling policy affected their food selections, prompting them to order different food items, eat less, change restaurants or eat at restaurants less frequently. Among restaurant owners, half were aware of the reason for the implementation of this policy and supported this measure. However, they did not consider modifying recipes to reduce energy. Sales of low- and high-energetic meals increased and decreased in 44 % and 39 % of restaurants, respectively.
Conclusions:
This policy may be an effective public health tool for promoting balanced energy intake and encouraging healthier food selection in Saudi Arabia.
National concerns over food insecurity and obesity have prompted legislation seeking to further restrict Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases. The objective of this study is to provide insight on the potential impact of proposed purchase restrictions by comparing SNAP participant and income-eligible non-participants’ expenditures on current SNAP-restricted foods, that is, hot foods, prepared foods, alcohol, vitamins and meal supplements.
Design:
Cross-sectional study. Bivariate analysis and multivariable regression analysis with an instrumental variables approach were employed to compare the probability of purchasing and expenditures on current SNAP-restricted foods among SNAP participants and income-eligible non-participants.
Setting:
National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey, 2012–2013.
Participants:
2513 households, of which 1316 were SNAP participants and 1197 were income-eligible non-participants.
Results:
Both the share of households purchasing and household expenditures on current SNAP-restricted foods were similar among SNAP participants and income-eligible non-participants.
Conclusions:
Results provide further empirical evidence that proposed SNAP purchase restrictions on sugar-sweetened beverages, snack foods and luxury foods are unlikely to have a meaningful effect on SNAP household food purchases.
