Current trends in the US snack industryWritten by admin

Hot/Spicy Flavours "Heat Up" the Market

Within sweet and savoury snacks, manufacturers are introducing new products aimed at consumers' increasing affinity for hot/spicy flavours.

In April 2011, for instance, Frito-Lay partnered with the Tapatio hot sauce brand to release Tapatio-flavoured Doritos, Fritos, and Ruffles chips/crisps (tortilla, corn, and potato, respectively).

The company also launched its Cheetos Crunchy Fiery Fusion line in 2011, while other manufacturers worked with major hot sauce companies like McIlhenny Co (Tabasco brand) to produce spicy-flavoured snacks.

This trend follows what we have seen in related categories like spicy chili/pepper sauces, which have seen dramatic growth in recent years.

These spicy flavours are especially popular with younger consumers.

Unique Snack Formats Reshape the Industry

New product launches that offer consumers something new and unique in terms of format/taste continue to appeal to consumers.

The success of brands such as Stacy's Pita Chips (Frito-Lay Co) and Kettle Chips (Kettle Foods Inc) has generated new products such as "Popchips" and "Pretzel Crisps."

Frito-Lay also looked to capitalise on these trends by launching its Tostitos Artisan Recipes line in February 2011.

With innovative flavours like Roasted Garlic and Black Bean, Frito Lay hopes that this unique introduction can build on this trend and help spark sales for Tostitos.

"All-Natural" is Key

Frito-Lay, the dominant player in the US sweet and savoury snacks market, has made a push to convert half of its entire US snacks portfolio to a natural-ingredient-only composition in recent years.

Company advertisements featured a chef handcrafting Lay's chips from fresh/natural ingredients in a kitchen, and Frito-Lay even set up a "flavour kitchen" in New York's Times Square in which visitors were invited to observe the company's snack-creation process from natural ingredients and sample various new snack flavours.

Merger/Acquisition Activity Grows

The snacks industry has seen important M&A activity in recent years.

In 2010, a merger between Snyder's of Hanover and Lance Inc created a newly-formed Snyder's-Lance Inc, which was able to leverage its combined distribution

network to expand sales.

Then, in April 2011, Diamond Foods announced that it was acquiring Procter & Gamble's iconic Pringles brand in a multi-billion dollar deal.

For Diamond, this acquisition brings one of the largest and most important brands in sweet and savoury snacks to its portfolio and increases the company's stature.

These types of blockbuster deals have reshaped the competitive landscape of the snacks market.

Crunch Time: Salty Snacks

These treats were consumer go-to items right through the recession—and future prospects look good for continuing sales. But new challenges, including the increasing price of corn and public concern about nutrition, mean pressures and changes in this market.

by Eva Meszaros

As one of the most diverse categories in the consumer packaged goods industry, salty snacks generated $23.8 billion in total U.S. sales, according to Mintel International. The modest prices of most salty snacks give customers the image of an affordable indulgence, which kept sales up through the economic recession. The category has been growing continually since 2005, but, after garnering negative attention for its poor nutritional value and view as a contributor to the nation’s obesity epidemic, manufacturers and retailers are at a crossroads in finding a balance between offering fun, affordable treats and providing better-for-you snack options.

Mintel’s report defines salty snacks to include the following categories: potato chips, tortilla chips, snack nuts and seeds (including toasted corn nuts), pretzels, popcorn, extruded cheese snacks (e.g., Cheetos), corn snacks, meat snacks and “other” snacks (including pork rinds, onion rings, snack mixes and vegetable chips).

The Market

Key Points

Sales of salty snacks are at an all-time high, having actually peaked during the recession. Sales slowed in 2010 as the national focus shifted to health and nutrition, but the category is expected to pick up throughout 2011–2015.

Snack nuts and seeds and popcorn saw high numbers in product launches during 2005–2010; chips accounted for the largest number of flavor launches in this period. Cheese has become a

popular ingredient in new product launches and continues to appear in a variety of product types. As the overall population grows older and the number of households with children decreases, the

salty snack industry needs to ensure that it stays relevant to an older demographic while continuing to appeal to its core younger market.

The doubled price of corn, a key ingredient for many salty snacks, may force raised prices, leading to potential growth of private-label brands, or a drop-off of sales.

Potato chips remain the largest segment with $6.8 billion in sales in 2010; this segment shows the most willingness to develop new flavors to impress the young market. Corn snacks, already the smallest segment, was the only one to have a sales decline between 2008–2010.

Salty snacks face competition from healthier snacks (such as those containing fruit), as well as snack/cereal/energy bars, which accounted for the largest amount of snack introductions in 2005–2010.

The Consumer

Key Points

According to Mintel’s consumer survey, consumers generally stick to favorites or a usual flavor when it comes to buying salty snacks, followed by price and in-store marketing; few indicated being impacted by health claims.

Potato chips are the top pick in salty snacks among all age groups. Plantain chips are picking up,

with popularity among the 18–34 age group and low-income homes. Asian and Hispanic populations have been buying more salty snacks in the past year; this bodes

well for the category, as these are some of the fastest growing ethnic populations, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Name brands dominate over private label, but survey respondents switch among name brands. While healthier salty snacks have yet to resonate with consumers, it is important for manufacturers

to continue pushing the concept of healthier snacks to avoid losing a sizable portion of the snacking population.

A cluster analysis distinguishing three types of salty-snacks eaters—frequent, occasional and low—found that the frequent snackers care most about quality and healthy options, occasional snackers (the largest group) care about price and brand, and low snackers care about price and taste.

Multipack and bulk varieties have a slight edge in sales over single-serving packs across many demographics. They are more appealing and affordable for households with children. Men are more likely to buy single packs, while women are more likely to buy multipacks.

The recession has forced many consumers to cut back and spend more time at home. The salty snacks category has benefited from this, as the overwhelming majority of respondents indicate that increased home time whether alone or with family is why they are buying more salty snacks.

For consumers who have cut back on salty snacks, the overwhelming majority say that these products are simply an expense they choose to live without. The only other significant reason is related to a change in eating habits or diet. This is perhaps of more concern because the increased media attention on America’s obesity problem is likely to make a sizable percentage of consumers reconsider salty snacks as they look to eat better.

Recent Product Introductions

Chip

Late July Sea Salt by the Seashore Organic Multigrain Snack Chips Gourmet Basic Smart Fries Food Should Taste Good Blue Corn Tortilla Chips

Pretzels

Snack Factory Pretzel Crisps Garlic Parmesan Flavored Pretzel Snacks Mary’s Gone Cracker Sticks & Twigs Curry Stick Snack

Snack Nuts

Hammon Black & Gold Blend Dark Chocolate & Caramelized Black Walnuts

Seeds

Kaia Food Garlic & Sea Salt Sprouted Sunflower Seeds

Popcorn

Kernel Season’ Popcorn, in Aged White Cheddar, Chipotle Nacho, Butter, Kettle Corn

Meat Snack

Ford’s Foods Inc. We’re Talkin’ Serious Bone Suckin’ Beef Jerky

Editor’s Note: Specialty Food Magazine is pleased to be working with Mintel on Research Spotlight. Mintel is a leading supplier of competitive media, product and consumer data. A 33-year reputation for delivering dependable and original market information has allowed Mintel to maintain Business Superbrand status in the U.K. Mintel’s product line includes: Mintel Reports, a renowned market intelligence report series, publishing more than 600 reports annually covering the U.S. and Europe; and Mintel’s GNPD, the Global New Products Database, which monitors worldwide product innovation in consumer packaged goods markets. For more information call 312.943.5250 or visit www.mintel.com. NASFT members may purchase Mintel’s salty snacks report at a 10 percent discount.

Snack Market StatisticsCompiled by the Staff of the Ruth Emerson Research Library (Copyright 1992-2011, AIB International).

The following document is a compilation of information on snack market statistics and trends and related topics. These citations were recovered from AIB in-house databases, and represent original work by AIB personnel. Every effort is made to ensure accuracy, but AIB accepts no liability for content of this resource list.

Sources of information on publicly held companiesThe EDGAR database provides access to company documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Its primary purpose is to increase the efficiency and fairness of the securities market for the benefit of investors, corporations, and the economy by accelerating the receipt, acceptance, dissemination, and analysis of time sensitive corporate information filed with the agency. Please note that EDGAR filings are posted to the SEC site 24 hours after the date of filing.

http://www.sec.gov/edgarhp.htm

1992 U.S. Census of Manufactures

Census Reports include Baking, Sugar and Sweeteners, Fats & Oils, Miscellaneous Foods and Other Products (including some snack products), Flour Milling, and many others." 1992 Census of Manufactures : Bakery Products : Industries 2051, 2052, 2053.Washington : U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/prod/1/manmin/92mmi/92manuff.html.

1997 Economic Census Reports

Replaces the Census of Manufacturers reports.    Topics include: Retail Bakeries, Commercial Bakeries, Confectionery Manufacturing From Purchased Chocolate, Cookie and Cracker Manufacturing, Chocolate and Confectionery Manufacturing From Cacao Beans, Dry Pasta

Manufacturing, Flour Mixes and Dough Manufacturing From Purchased Flour, Frozen Cake, Pie, and Other Pastry Manufacturing, and Tortilla Manufacturing.  Reports on other categories are also available.

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/97ecmani.html

Sources of Recent Snack Trends Information

Statistical Analysis'

“Yogurt tops list of snacks,” by Karen Nachay in    Food Technology, July 2010, Vol. 64, No.  7, p. 12.  A survey by the NPD Group found that yogurt is the most popular snack among children ages 2-17. The rest of the top 10 snacks include potato chips, fresh fruit, string cheese and cheese cubes, hard candy, ice cream/fudge pops, chewy candy, corn ships, donuts, and snack pies/pastries.

“Building healthier savory snacks.” by Mark Anthony in  Wellness Foods insert in Food Processing , June 2010, Vol. 71, No.  5, p.  WF3-WF11 (Insert begins on p. 38).   Business Insights projects that the savory snack industry will grow to $10 billion by 2012. Top trends include all-natural choices, organic, multi and whole grain, portion control, soy proteins, vitamins, iron, fiber, and healthy fats. Novel ingredients include beans, vegetables, seeds and nuts.

"Consumers Continue to Find Time For Snacking," in The Food Instiute Report, June 21, 2010, p. 6-7.  According to the Mintel Menu Insights report consumers are snacking more often during the day. Restaurant menu items aimed at "snackers" has increased 170% in the last three years. The report also indicates that consumers spend an average of $4.26 per person. New product introductions in the salsa and dip category include products that are all-natural, fresh and restaurant -inspired with new flavors that are spicy, smoky, tangy and combinations of sweet-and-hot. Includes tables that appeared in Snack World  with dollar and unit sales for the top tortilla/tostada brands, the top cheese snack brands, the top salsa and dip brands and the top other salted snack brands for the year ending March 21, 2010.

2009 Snack Food Statisics

"Food Bars Go Nutty, Natural and Small."  in Baking Management, November 2008, Vol. 12, No. 11, p. 14., 16-17. Options in the cereal food bar category continue to grow with new products the addition of raw and natural options moving away for products that are "protein-heavy and low-carbohydrate" products. Further trends in the category include the addition of macadamia nut and chia seed to products. Includes table listing the top 10 brands according to dollar sales, the top 10 brands according to unit sales and a bar graph depicting the top 10 brands according dollar market share. The Cliff brand holds the top spot in all three categories. Includes tables for sales of bakery products for the 52 weeks ending October 5, 2009 for the fresh, frozen and refrigerated categories. Brand names that increased in sales from the same time period a year ago are Clif, Clif Luna, Kelloggs Special K, Balance, Power Bar Protein Plus, and Pure Protein.

2008 Nutritional Health Bar Statistics

"Brownies Show Potential, " in Modern Baking, June 2007, Vol. 21, No. 6: p. 20.  According to the Perishables Group, in-store sales of brownies and dessert bars were 1.3 percent of in-store bakery sales. Weekly sales for the 52 weeks ending February 24, 2007 were reported as $107 per week per store. Sales of brownies and dessert bars were highest in the East Region with sales reported at $170.00 per week per store this is an increase of $11.00 a week compared to

the same time period a year ago. Includes a pie graph depicting the percent of sales that subcategories contributed to overall sales. Products included are: blondies, dessert bars, gourmet/large brownies, mini/two-bite brownies and regular brownies.

Statistical Analysis section of the  Bakery Production and Marketing Redbook 2005  Gives tables with the dollar sales , changes in dollar sales in a year, dollar share of product, changes in dollar share in year unit sales, change in unit sales for the year for  the top 10 vendors of fresh bread, the top 10 brands of dinner rolls, top 10 vendors of fresh cake, top 10 brands of fresh cake, top 10 vendors  of frozen pies, top 10 brands of frozen pies, top 10 vendors of fresh pie, top 10 brands of fresh pie, top 10 brands of fresh coffee cakes, top 10 brands of fresh snack cakes, top 10 vendors of fresh cookies, top 10 brands of fresh cookies, top 10 brands of fresh donuts, to p10 brands of fresh Danish, top 10 vendors of crackers, top 10 brans of crackrs,   analyses of top 100 U. S. and Canadian bakeries by output & product type, regional analysis, intermediate wholesale bakeries, top 100 bakery headquarters, wholesale bakeries by state, top in-store headquarters. $295.

Periodic "Industry Update" reports in Baking and Snack.  Related Topics:           "Tortilla Chips," March 2001, p. 53-54, 56, 58           "Potato Chips," May 2001, p. 33-37"           "Private Label Grain-Based Foods Industry Perspective," February 4, 2003, p. 24-26           "Snack Cakes Industry Perspective," January 18, 2000, p. 26-28

Periodic "Product Perspective" analyses in Milling and Baking News weekly. Examples:

2004"Snack Cakes," March 9, 2004, p. 19-20, 22-23"Cookie Industry Perspective," April 13, 2004, p. 25-26, 30-33"Frozen Pizza," May 4, 2004, p. "Granola Bars," June 29, 2004, p. 21-22, 24-25  "Low Carb," July 6, 2004, p. 1, 41-2, 44, 46, 49-50, 52, 54"Cracker Industry Perspective, October 12, 2004, p. 23-24, 26-27.   

2003"Crackers," April 29, 2003, p. 24-26, 28-29"Tortillas,"June 10, 2003, p. 28, 30, 32-33"Snack Cakes," July 1, 2003, p. 26, , 28, 30, 32."Snack/Health Bars," July 8, 2003, p. 28-30, 32, 34, 36

2002"Snack Cake," January 29, 2002, p. 24-27 "Frozen Pizza," February 19, 2002, p. 1, 26-28, 30"Cracker," April 16, 2002, p. 1, 24-26, 28"Cookies," October 22, 2002, p. 28,30,32,-33"Cookies Industry Perspective," April 11, 2000, p. 30, 32, 34,36"Frozen Pizza Perspective," May 23, 2000, p. 1, 28-30"Cracker Industry Perspective," July 11, 2000, p. 24-26, 28-29"Cookies," August 8, 2000, p. 1, 28-30, 32"Pie Industry Perspective,"  October 10, 2000, p. 32, 34-36, 38

1999"Snack Food," April 27, 1999, p 30-32, 34-35

"Tortilla Industry Perspective," July 27, 1999, p. 1, 27-28"Cookie," August 31, 1999, p. 32-34, 36"Sweet Goods," December 28, 1999, p. 30-32 (Profiles the Pie Category)

1998"Sweet Goods," July 28, 2000, p. 24, 28, 32, 34, (Profiles pies, snack cakes and donuts)"Cookie Industry Perspective," September 1, 1998, p. 30, 34-36"Snack Products," September 15, 1998, p. 1, 28, 30, 32, 34"Tortilla Industry Perspective," January 28, 1997, p. 26, 30-31, 34"Pizza Industry Perspective," March 17, 1997, p. 32-33, 36-37"Cookie," April 1, 1997, p. 38, 42, 44, 46"Tortillas," June 24, 1997, p. 28, 30, 32

Similar reports in previous years.  For purchase of reprints of these special supplements contact:

Sosland Publishing Company4800 Main Street, Suite 100Kansas City, MO 64112816-756-1000

Reports can also be accessed by subscription on the website located at: http://www.bakingbusiness.com

Monthly "Market Watch (formerly Market Sweep) Reports" and related reports in Snack & Bakery Foods (formerly Snack Food). Recent reports include:

2005"Energy Bars," January 2005, p. 12, 14, 16"Pizza," February 2005, p. 12-15"Pie," March 2005, p. 16, 18"Fresh Bread," April 2005, p. 18-22"Cookie," May 2005, p. 16, 18-21"Tortillas," July 2005, p. 14, 16, 18.

2004"Energy Bars," January 2004, p. 14, 16, 18, 20."Frozen Baked", March 2004, p. 10, 12. "Sweet Goods (includes donuts and muffins), April 2004, p. 14, 16-17"Premium Bread," August 2004, p. 14"Tortillas", August 2004, p. 18, 20-21"Cookies," November 2004, p. 12, 14, 16-17"Crackers," December 2004, p. 14-16.

2003"Sweet Goods (includes snack cakes and fresh sweet goods)," September 2003, p. 14, 16, 18"Artisan Breads," November 2003, p. 14, 16-17."Pretzels & Crackers," December 2003, p. 14, 16.

2001"Snack Mixes," February 2001, p. 18, 20."Snack Cakes," March 2001, p. 20, 22."Pretzels,"  April 2001, p. 18, 20."Snack Bars," May 2001, p. 18-20.

2000"Crackers," January 2000, p. 16, 44"Snack Mixes, February 2000, p. 18 "Corn Snacks," March 2000, p. 20"Cookies," April 2000, p. 18, 20, 22"Toaster Pastries," May 2000, p. 16"Top 10 Products," July 2000, p. 14-15"Donuts," August 2000, p. 16, 68

1999"Pretzels," January 1999, p. 20, 22"Sweet Goods," February 1999, p. 18, 20 (Includes statistics for Snack Cakes, Pastry/Danish/coffeecakes and Snack Pie)"Pizza," March 1999, p. 20-21"Energy Bars," April 1999, p. 18"Pies," May 1999, p. 18-19"Top 10 New Products," July 1999, p. 13 "Potato Chips," August 1999, p. 14"Tortilla Trends," August 1999 (Supplement)"Bagels," September 199, p. 22, 24"Tortilla/Tostada Chips," November 1999, p. 13"Snack Cakes,"  December 1999, p. 18

1998"Tortilla Chips," March 1998, p. 16"Sandwich Crackers," April 1998, p. 18"English Muffins," May 1998, p. 16-17"Breads," July 1998, p. 16-17"Tortillas," August 1998, p. 18, 45"Dips & Salsas," September 1998, p. 16, 18"Chips & Crisps," November 1998, p. 18-19"Cookies," December 1998, p. 16"Top 125 Snack & Bakery Cos," December 1998, p. 30-33

Contact:

Stagnito Publishing Company1935 Shermer Road, Suite 100Northbrook, IL, 60062-5354708-205-5660

          Website: http://www.stagnito.com

"Statistical Analysis of  Top Brands and Vendors for Major Grain Based Foods" in Bakery Redbook 2006 (Annual).  Includes statistical data for the top 10 suppliers of fresh bread, top 10 brands of hamburger/hot dog buns, top 10 brands fresh cake, top 10 brands of snack cake, top 10 brands of fresh pie, top 10 brands of frozen pie,  instore bakery cakes (comparies sales for 2004 to 2005), instore bakery breads and rolls, top 10 suppliers of fresh cookies, top 10 brands of fresh cookies, top 10 brands of fresh donuts, top 10 brands of fresh coffee cake/Danish, top 10 suppliers of crackers, 10 top brands of crackers, top 10 brands of fresh bagels, to 10 brands of frozen bagels, top ten brands of fresh muffins, top ten brands of frozen muffins, top 10 brands of cheese snacks, top 10 brands of corn snacks, top ten brands of pretzels, top 10 brands of other salted snacks, top 10 brands of refrigerated tortillas, top 10 brands of hard/soft tortilla/taco kits, to 10 brands of ready to eat popcorn/caramel corn.  top 10 brands of tortilla chips, top 10 brands of potato chips, top 10 brands of pork rinds, top 10 brands of granola bars, top 10 brands

of nutritional bars, top 10 brands of cold cereal, and top 10 brands of breakfast cereal bars. Data for the tables obtained from by Information Resources for the 52 weeks ending May 21, 2006 and A.C. Nielsen for the time period beginning January 1, 2004 through November 30, 2005.   Provides company information for the top wholesale bakery companies, key instore bakery companies, key multi-unit retailers and distributors.

"Snack Food: Annual State of the Industry Report" in Snack Food magazine, June issue. (Contact: Stagnito Publishing Co., 1935 Shermer Road, Suite 100, Northbrook, IL 60062-5354, tel. 708-205-5660 for purchase of reprints of this special supplement, $50). Notes growth of products covered in this report to $60 billion in 1996, based on Nielsen Marketing Service data. Reports on candy & gum, cookies & crackers, specialty snacks and condiments, snack cakes and pies, potato chips, corn & tortilla chips, snack nuts, frozen pizza, imports and exports, hot snacks, pretzels, dried food snacks, extruded snacks, granola snacks, dips and salsa, popcorn, etc. Provides comparison chart of dollar sales by category (1985-1995), figures and discussion for significant product increases or introductions, market leaders by sales, leading brand products ranked by $ sales, profiles of major players in market, index to processors.

Annual "Snack Food Association State-of-the-Industry Report," in Snack World magazine, last published. (Contact: Snack Food Association, 1711 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, tel.703-836-4500 for purchase of reprints of this special report). 1996 report provides data on market segments which total $15.09 billion. Discusses major industry trends and changes.Gives extensive figures for retail dollar sales and pound volume for potato chips, tortilla chips, corn chips, rte popcorn, microwavable popcorn, unpopped corn, extruded snacks, pretzels, nuts, others. Total per-capita snack food consumption table and summary given on page SW-7, includes per capita dollar sales and pound consumption from 1988 through 1995.

Market Analysis, Forecasts, and Projections

"Snack-and-go Demands Include Indulgent, Healthful Cakes," in Baking Management, May 2007, (Vol. 11, No.5), p. 14-15.  Trends driving sales in the snack cake category include consumer indulgence, portion control, trans-fat free cakes and products that are "better for you. New product launches include 100-calorie portions products introduced by Flowers Foods, Freshley's, Blue Bird and Tasty Baking Co. Includes comments on the category from Brent Bradshaw, brand manager at Flowers Bakeries Group, Thomasville, Ga., and Jon Silvon, director of marketing, Tasty Baking Company.

Snack Trends 2006," in The Food Institute Report, Vol. 79, No. 2 (January 16, 2006), p. 1, 8.  Highlights the Future Food Trends report from the market research company Technomic. According to this report common snack occasions include workplace treats, movies, while driving, cold leftovers, meeting break times, cocktail time, shopping treat time, after school, and food store sampling. Notes that cereal bars are now a $600 million market which adds to the growing "on-the-go breakfast" products available. Many restaurants are adding mini portions as part of the menu as more consumers are having snacks as meals. Article available online with paid subscription at:http://www.foodinstitute.com

"Uneven Bars," by Lynn Petrak in Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery, January 2006, p. 34-36.  Sales in the overall snack/granola bar category are a mixture of wide range of manufactures in the sub categories of this market segment. Includes tables with data obtained from the market research company Information Resources Inc. for the 52 week period of time ending November 27, 2005 for Snack/Granola Bar overview, Top 3 Brands of Granola Bars , and Top 5 Brands of Nutritional/Intrinsic Health Bars.

"Hey Your Chocolate Bar is in My Health Category," in Milling & Baking News Food Business News Edition (June 28, 2005). According to data obtained from ACNielsen, sales of Granola/yogurt bars have increased their sales margin over breakfast bars to $926,931,351 for the 52 week period of time that ended May 14, 2005. Sales of breakfast bars for the same time

period were posted at $499,214,242. A bar graph illustrates how the profit margins for these two product categories have changed form 2001-2005. New product introductions in the granola/yogurt bar segment is credited with increasing category sales. Comments are included from key individuals in this category including: Keith Parle, director of functional foods sales and strategic development at Kerry Sweet Ingredients; Diane Carnell, research and development director at Kerry Sweet Ingredients; Rich Ball, senior food scientist for Kerry Sweet Ingredients; Jean Storlie, senior manager of the General Mills' Bell Institute of Health and Nutrition; and Hilary Hursh, food and nutrition scientist at Orafti Active Food Ingredients. Also includes table with sales data obtained from the market research company Information Resources Inc., for the 52 week time period that ended May 15, 2005 for brands and vendors of nutritional/intrinsic health value bar and granola bar. Notes that new entries in this category "resemble chocolate candy bars" with the top ingredient being chocolate.

2005 Granola Bar Statistics

"U.S. Confectionery Sales 2004." in Manufacturing Confectioner, Vol. 85, No. 4 (April 2005), p. 23-30.  Provides data obtained from the market research company Information Resources Inc., for the grocery, chain drugstores and mass merchadinsing segments of the retail industry.  The data obtained from the mass merchandisers does not include sales at Wal-Mart.  Includes tables with category sales for the 52 weeks ending December 26, 2004.  Sales by brand and company are provided in the following categories: chocolate candy nonseasonal, chocolate candy seasonal, nonchocolate candy nonseasonal, chocolate candy box/bag>3.5 oz, chocolate candy bar<3.5 oz, chocolate candy snack/fun size, gift box candies, hard sugar candy, sugarfree/sugarless candy, noncholate chewy candy, novelty nonchocolate candy, licorice box/bag>3.5 oz, specialty nut/coconut candy, breath fresheners, plain mints, cough drops/squares, regular gum, sugarfree/sugarless gum, nutritional health bars, granola bars, breakfast/cereal/snack bars, fruit snacks, ready-to-eat popcorn/caramel corn, marshmallows, chocolate-covered salted snack, chocolate Christmas candy, chocolate Easter candy, chocolate Halloween candy, chocolate Valentine's candy, caramel/taffy apples/kits/dips, nonchocolate Christmas candy, nonchocolate Easter candy, nonchocolate Halloween candy, nonchocolate Valentines candy, and novelty chocolate candy.

2004 Breakfast/Cereal/Snack Bars Statistics2004 Confectioner Statistics2004 Granola Bar Statistics2004 Nutritional Health Bar Statistics

"Beyond Cereal," by Shane Whitaker in Baking & Snack, Vol. 26, No. 10 (November 2004), p. 41-42, 44-45.  The market update focuses on the breakfast food category of the market.   Includes statistics obtained from the market research companies NDP Group and Information Services Inc.   Tables provide data from Information Resources Inc., for the 52 weeks that ended October 4, 2004 for shelf-stable toaster pastries, frozen waffles, and breakfast/cereal/snack bars. According to NDP Group the most popular breakfast food is RTE cereal with sales of $6 billion per year.  The cereal/breakfast/snack bar category had sales of $452.3 million according to Information Resources Inc.  The top selling product in this category was Nutri-Grain bars with sales of $86.4 million.  Pop Tarts was the top selling brand  in the shelf stable toaster pastry category with dollar sales of $317.8 million.  Comments on breakfast trends are given by Sharon Gerdes, technical support consultant at Dairy Management Inc., and David Neuman, vice-president of sales and marketing at Nature's Path Foods.

"Low-carb Takes Root in Food Bars" in Baking Management, Vol. 8, No. 2 (February 2004), p. 18-20. The one bakery category where sales are increasing as a result of the low carbohydrate diet trend is the food bar segment. Many companies have introduced low-carbohydrate products in this category. Includes a chart with the dollar and unit sales of the top 10 Nutritional/Intrinisic Health Value Bars which include the following brands: Slimfast Meal on the Go, Atkins Diet

Advantage, Zone Perfect, Clif Luna, Carb Solutions, Balance Gold, Power Bar, Atkins Endulge, EAS Carb Control, and Clif. Combined sales of the top 10 brands for the 52 week period that ended November 23, 2003 increased 18.6% to $401,537,038.

"U.S. Confectionery Sales" in The Manufacturing Confectioner, Vol. 84, No. 1 (January 2004), p. 39-42,44, 46,  Provides tables with data from Information Resources Inc., for U.S. confectionery sales in grocery, chain drugstores and mass merchandiser (excluding Wal-mart) for the 52 week ending November 2, 2003.  Total category sales  reported as $536,769,664.

"Sports and Energy Bars," in The Manufacturing Confectioner, Vol. 83, No. 10 (October 2003), p. 15-17.Profiles changes that are occurring in the sports and energy market segment. Sports and energy bars are now distributed not only in natural- or health-food stores but in supermarkets and convenience stores. The wider distribution opportunities have greatly affected their sales. Prior to 1997 these products were primarily sold in natural-and health-food stores. That segment of the market has declined from 38.7% in 1998 to 8% in 2002. It is predicted that sports and energy bar sales will have annual sales of $2.3 billion by 2008.

"U.S. Confectionery Sales" in The Manufacturing Confectioner, Vol. 83, No. 1 (January 2003), p. 19-24.  Reports U.S. confectionery sales obtained from grocery, chain drugstores and mass merchandisers scanner data for the 52 week time period  that ended October 6, 2002.   According to the data obtained from the InfoScan Service of Information Resources Inc., total  category sales was $9,972,485,156   with $6,203, 796,841 of the sales from Food/Grocery stores.  Sales of Snack Bars/Granola bars for the same time period increase 18.8% to $1,574,719,488.

          2002 Snack Bar/Granola Bar Brands

"U.S. Confectionery Sales" in Manufacturing Confectioner, Vol. 84, No. 1 (January 2004), p. 39-42, 44, 46, 48..Reports U.S. confectionery sales for the 52 weeks ending November 2, 2003. Statistics were acquired through scanner data from grocery, chain drugstores and mass merchandisers (excluding Wal-Mart) obtained from Information Resources Inc. Reports that total snack bar sales for this time period was $1,874,095,248, an increase of 16% from a year ago.  Other categories that statistics are provided for include: chocolate candy box/bag >3.5 oz, chocolate candy bar < 3.5 oz, chocolate candy snack/fun size, gift box chocolates, ready-to-eat popcorn,/caramel corn, marshmallows, hard sugar candy/package & roll candy, sugarfree/sugarless candy, nonchocolate chewy candy, novelty nonchocolate candy, licorice box/bag > 3.5 oz, specialty nut/coconut candy, breath fresheners, plain mints, oral strips, cough drops/squares, regular gum, sugarfree/sugarless gum, nutritional health bars, granola bars, breakfast/cereal/snack bars, and fruit snacks.

2003 Breakfast/Cereal Snack Bars Brands and Manufacturers   2003 Granola Bar Brands and Manufacturers   2003 Nutritional Health Bars Brands and Manufacturers

"Twist & Shout," in Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery, December 2003 (Vol. 92, No. 12), p. 14, 16.   This market sweep report focuses on pretzels and crackers.   According to data from the market research company Information Resources Inc., dollar sales of pretzels for the 52 week period that ended October 5, 2003, were $574.8 million or an increase of 0.9%  Crackers sales for the same time period were $3,423 million.   Sales are from supermarkets, drug stores and mass merchandisers (not including Wal-Mart).

Top Ten Pretzel Brands

Brand Name Dollar Sales (in millions)

Rold Gold $176.1

Snyders of Hanover 153.1

Private Label 61.3

Utz 28.2

Combos 20.6

Bachman 15.5

Herrs 13.2

Pepperidge Farm Godfish Pretzels 10.4

Jays 8.6

Anderson 7.6

Source: Information Resources Inc., supermarkets and mass merchandisers excluding Wal-Martin Snack and Wholesale Bakery, December 2003, p. 14

"The Take on Tortillas," in Milling & Baking News, Vol. 82, No. 15 (June 10, 2003), p. 28, 30, 32-33.    According t the Census Bureau of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Hispanic population in the United States the highest ranked ethnic group comprising 13% of  total U.S. population.  As a result of the increased in population the sales of typically Hispanic products have shown significant increases.   Data released from the AC Nielsen Co. reports sales of tortillas for the 52-week time period ending October 5, 2002 as $822 million and increase of 2% from 2001 and an 18% increase from 1999.   According to the market research company Information Resources Inc. the Refrigerated Tortilla segment continued to show positive results with the top brand in this category selling $95,037,088 million dollars.    Other categories profiled in this product perspective include the tortilla/tostada chip category and the hard/soft tortillas/taco kits segment.

Sales of the Top Ten Tortilla/Tostada Chip Brands

Brand Name Dollar Sales Unit Sales

Doritos $714,157,248 363,177,440

Tostitos 506,028,864 166,582,320

Tostitos Scoops 114,306,656 37,605,164

Santitas 57,526,216 31,236,252

Mission Estilo Casero 48,836,344 19,368,360

Baked Doritos 27,927,266 9,187,039

Doritos Extremes 27,830,706 13,286,805

Baked Tostitos 25,163,204 8,504,472

Torengos 24,785,740 11,902,834

Private Label 89,494,880 52,394,024

Milling & Baking News, June 10, 2003, p. 30

"Exciting Flavors, New Consumers Key to Growing Pretzel Sales," in Snack & Wholesale Bakery, Vol. 90, No. 1 (January 2001), pp. 42, 44, 46.  In a presentation given at the Snack Food Association's Pretzel Seminar on November 15, 2000, Ann Prybyla Wilkes reported that pretzels sales increased by 19% in mass merchandisers. Sales were for the 52 week period of time that ended September 10, 2000. Ms. Wilkes obtained her data from Information Resources Inc. Article includes a table that lists the top 20 brands of pretzels.

"Baked Snack Tracking" by Jennifer Brown in Baking & Snack, Vol. 18, No. 10 (November 1996), pp. 34-36. Cites number of new food product introductions in 1995, including 1,914 low-fat products. Provides statistics based on Snack Food Association Industry Report for 1995, cites drop in pound volume of snacks, with only slight (0.4%) increase in dollar sales. Notes that potato chips, tortilla chips, and pretzels are leaders in the category, with market segments of 30.5%, 23.2%, and 12.2% respectively. Discusses dollar and percentage sales by product, including low-fat and no-fat potato chips, rice-based snacks, tortilla chips, pretzels. Provides estimates of new product introductions for 1996. For purchase of reprints contact:

Sosland Publishing Company4800 Main Street, Suite 100Kansas City, MO 64112816-756-1000

"Interbake C.E.O. Urges New Product Innovation" in Milling & Baking News, Vol. 75, No. 38 (November 19, 1996), p. 1, 16-18. Raymond A. Baxter, president and c.e.o. of Interbake foods, points out that there is a critical need for product differentiation within the cookie and cracker business, since many existing products are simply copies of market leaders. This problem is one cause of the 3.7% one year drop in cookie sales, and the 0.3% decline in cracker sales over the same period. Previous growth in the industry was largely fueled by innovation in the no-fat / low-fat cookie category, but the industry is now plagued with over capacity. Further discussion covers the effects of demand factors, demographics, health concerns, consumer financial concerns, industry consolidations, category management. Mr. Baxter also cites five critical requirements for company success. For purchase of reprints contact:

Sosland Publishing Company4800 Main Street, Suite 100Kansas City, MO 64112816-756-1000

"The Cookie Jar Staple" by Margaret Littman in Bakery Production and Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 14 (October 15, 1996), p. 46-53. Notes recent decline in low-fat and fat-free cookie market for preceding 52 weeks, especially notes 17.7 decline in sale of Snackwell™ cookies as indicative of this trend. Emerging trends include sugar free cookies to target the 16 million diabetics and older adult population segments, the growth in the "gourmet" full fat cookie market, and the

increasing popularity of single-serve portion-control packs. For purchase of back issues contact:

"Soft Cookie Sales May Get Crisp" by Dennis P. Mitchell in Baking & Snack, Vol. 18, No. 7 (August 1996), pp. 32-38. Attributes 1995's lackluster sales performance on poor consumer interest and fewer new cookie items, but states that industry may rebound in 1966. Also cites industry mergers, acquisitions, etc., as part of problem. Tabular data names top cookie producers and cookie and cracker brands, gives % of change in poundage and dollar sales in comparison to 1994. Provides brief discussion of some co-branding, licensing, and product expansion activities by company, brand, and product. For purchase of reprints contact:

Sosland Publishing Company4800 Main Street, Suite 100Kansas City, MO 64112816-756-1000

"Global Taste of Savory Snacks" by Gabriel Sinki, Jerome Lonbard, and Hugo Felix in Baking & Snack, Vol. 18, No. 6 (July 1996), pp. 50-55. Examines snack type and flavor preferences in the U.S., U.K., Germany, France, and Japan. Notes market dominance of "first-offered" flavors for snack types, and concludes that line extensions do not detract from the market share of the dominant type / flavor. Discusses effects of product diversification, recent concept of alignment of snack shape with flavor, emergence of combo flavors and "main dish" flavors. For purchase of reprints contact:

Sosland Publishing Company4800 Main Street, Suite 100Kansas City, MO 64112816-756-1000

"Brand Ho!" by Doug Krumrei in Bakery Production and Marketing, Vol 31, No. 7 (May 15, 1996), p. 24-31. States that wholesale bakery sales will increase to an estimated $33.49 billion by the end of 1996, a 2.1% increase over the past year. Provides data for both shelf stable and frozen bakery products in supermarkets from 1993, and notes impact of rapidly rising prices in cost of ingredients, packaging, and fuel on consumer prices. Discusses trends in the cookie and snack market,re-emergence of bakery advertising as a major trend. Presents upgraded estimate of sales performance based on positive impact of branded products. For purchase of back issues contact:

Cahners Publishing1350 E. Touhy AvenueDes Plaines, IL 60018800-446-6551847-390-2445 fax

"Surviving in snacks" by Dennis P. Mitchell in Baking & Snack, Vol. 17, No. 11 (December 1995), p. 22-24, 26, 28-30. Discusses change and growth in the 1995 snack market. Tables give brand name, rank, dollar share, % change, poundage volume for top ten from each category, including: potato chips, tortilla chips, corn chips, pretzels. For purchase of reprints contact:

Sosland Publishing Company4800 Main Street, Suite 100Kansas City, MO 64112816-756-1000

"Baking Census report" in Milling & Baking News, Vol. 74, No. 11 (May 16, 1995), p. 1, 21-30, 34-40. Tables give product category of market, top producing states, value of shipments and value added, historical statistics 1977-1992 for all industry segments, key operating ratios,

increase in plant totals, market share by plant size, shipment value by plant size, market share for variety bread & rolls, changes in poundage and values by product, value of unfrozen vs. frozen product shipments, product shipment value by type, capital expenditures, flour utilization, rapid increase in number of frozen bakery food plants, consumption of ingredients for frozen bakery industry, historical statistics from 1987, key operating ratios. See similar information for Cookie & Cracker market in Milling & Baking News, Vol. 74, No. 20 (July 18, 1995), p. 1, 21-27.

"Grain-based foods rank favorably in Census study" in Milling & Baking News, Vol. 74, No. 2 (March 14, 1995), p. 1, 30-1. Notes that Bread, Cake & Related Products lead all others in value added ($11.4 billion) in 1992 Census of Manufactures, while Breakfast Foods ranked 4th ($7.3 billion) and Cookies & Crackers ranked 11th ($5.5 billion). Tables give value added compared to total value of shipments for 12 food groups, profile of grain-based food industries and food plants, labor cost intensity for grain-based foods. Discussion in text includes reference to Food & Kindred products (total value of shipments $404 billion) as first in dollar value of all industries, up 22% from 1987. Discusses growth of plant numbers, use of value-added ratios, annual payroll per employee, materials/shipments ratio.

"Cookie market rebounds" in Bakery Production & Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Feb. 24, 1995), p. 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32. Notes growth of "healthful" cookie market to more than $625 million in 1994, estimated growth to $850 million for current year. Cites Nielsen's scanner-based report that supermarket sales of cookies reached $3.599 billion in September of 1994, the leading brand being Snackwell brands. Discusses impact of reduced and fat-free cookies on market, growth of "gourmet" cookies in foodservice environment, impact of baby "boomlet" on market growth, potential entry of private label producers in the fat-free market. Notes that cookies account for $588 million or 6% of in-store bakery sales, and $531 million or 9% of retail sales, and that growth continues in the foodservice arena.

"Marketing to kids" in Milling & Baking News weekly, Oct. 4, 1994, p. 1, 20-26. Notes role of children in influencing $100 billion in food sales, 17% to 20% growth yearly in this influence, effects of changing roles of women combined with greater responsibility of children for their own food consumption decisions. Notes beginnings of brand loyalty among children as early as age 2, introduction of at least 650 food and grocery products for children over past five years. Cites growth of strategic alliances between child-oriented foods and media events or products such as movies, television programs, sportswear, and use of special child-oriented packaging and promotions. Notes influence of Food Guide Pyramid graphic in schools.

"Bakers' challenge: lower the fat, keep the taste," in Milling & Baking News, August 16, 1994, p. 22-29. Notes challenge to industry in making low-fat foods taste good, along with increased consumer demand for low-fat and no-fat foods in pursuit of more healthful lifestyle. Provides new FDA definitions for labeling of fat content of foods. Notes decline of dieting and concentration by consumers on consumption of lower-fat foods.

"Bakers find acquisition is now the recipe for growth," in Wall Street Journal,June 16, 1994 (Industry Focus Section). Notes that due to the maturity of the wholesale baking market, acquisition has become the chief method of achieving market share. Briefly discusses acquisitions, joint ventures, consolidation among largest wholesale bakers of bakery products in U.S., due to high fixed costs, overcapacity in industry, sales losses for premium brands, effects of high levels of unionization, competition from private label brands. Gives sales figures for packaged bread, rolls, buns, croissants, snack cakes & pies, packaged doughnuts, packaged English muffins, frozen bagels, packaged muffins, packaged bagels & bialys, frozen muffins.

Financial RatiosTroy, Leo. Almanac of Business and Industrial Ratios, 199-. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, annual. (Gives financial ratios by size of enterprise, compares those enterprises which make a profit to those that do not operate at a profit). $69.95

Database ServicesFIND/SVP Market Research provides limited access to food market and other general economic reports through the Internet. They also publish a range of printed food research market reports, and provide custom research on a retainer or contract basis.

INMAGIC database printouts available for some bakery and snack foods. Give bibliographic information and short abstracts of articles dealing with food technology, baking technology, marketing, product trends. $10 to $25, MC / VISA. Contact:

Information ServicesAmerican Institute of Baking1213 Bakers WayManhattan,KS 66502785-537-4750information@aibonline.org

Journal of Nutrition

Skip to main page content

HOME CURRENT ISSUE EMAIL ALERTS ARCHIVES SUBSCRIPTIONS SEARCH FOR ARTICLES

CUSTOM PUBLICATION FAQ

Search JN Submit

Advanced Search

Expand +

The Journal of Nutritionjn.nutrition.org

1. First published December 2, 2009, doi: 10.3945/jn.109.112763 J. Nutr.

yes

February 2010 vol. 140 no. 2 325-332

© 2010 The American Institute of Nutrition

Snacking Increased among U.S. Adults between 1977 and 20061–3

1. Carmen Piernas and2. Barry M. Popkin *

+ Author Affiliations

1. Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599

1. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: popkin@unc.edu.

Next Section

Abstract

This study built on limited knowledge about patterns and trends of adult snacking in the US. We selected adults aged 19 y and older (n = 44,754) between 1977–1978 and 2003–2006 with results weighted and adjusted for sample design effects. Differences testing, by a Student's t test, used STATA 10 (P ≤ 0.01). We defined a snacking event as intake of foods over a 15-min period and excluded food defined as snacks but eaten at a meal. Dietary data were obtained from the first 2 d for the 1977–1978 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS 77) and the 1989–1991 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII 89); and 2-d dietary data from the 1994–1996 CSFII (CSFII 96) and the NHANES from 2 consecutive surveys: NHANES 2003–2004 and NHANES 2005–2006 (NHANES 03–06). Results showed that snacking prevalence increased significantly from 71 to 97% in 2003–2006 with increases in both the 1989–1994 and the 1994–2006 periods. In all adults, snacking occasions increased 0.97 events over this time period (P < 0.01) and the contribution of snacks to total energy intake increased from 18 to 24% (P < 0.01). The energy density of snacks (food plus beverages) also increased progressively over the time period studied. Important changes in snacking food sources were found among desserts, salty snacks, candies, and sweetened beverages. More research is needed to gain a better understanding of the implications for overall energy intake and energy imbalance.

Previous Section Next Section

Introduction

Obesity among U.S. adults has increased markedly over the past few decades. Approximately 29% of 20- to 39-y olds, 37% of 40- to 59-y olds, and 31% of those aged >60 y are obese (1). Different dietary factors, including intake of energy beverages, away from home eating, portion sizing, and snacking have been related to the excess of energy intake and obesity at different life stages (2–18).

Meal and snack patterns, including the frequency of daily eating occasions, are suspected to affect health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease and glucose intolerance (19,20). However, the contribution of meal frequency and snacking to overeating and body weight remains unclear. Many studies in adults of all age groups have reported higher values of BMI related to lower eating frequency (4,11,21,22), whereas others have found no relation (23,24)

or gender differences to BMI (25,26). Snacking, usually defined as eating occasions different from main meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner/supper), has been commonly regarded as contributing to excess weight (26,27). Late night eating, greater intake of energy-dense salty snacks and energy beverages, or increased portion sizes of snacks are among other behaviors noted (28–32). Other studies on snacking related to BMI have shown inconsistent results (21,33,34). These inconsistencies may be due to underreporting (35) of energy-dense snack and dessert-type foods (36,37), especially among obese people. Recent research among adults has found a higher BMI is associated with a higher total daily energy intake and a higher energy intake at all eating occasions (38). Moreover, energy intake has been found to increase with snacking frequency in both males and females, irrespective of physical activity. This increase is markedly higher in obese individuals (26). According to these results, increased snacking may be associated with a greater risk of energy imbalance and increased overweight and obesity.

Previous studies among young adults and children reported large increases in snacking frequency and higher contribution of snacking to total energy intake between 1977 and 1994 (28,29). Among U.S. adults, only 1 paper examined this topic and did not find large increases in eating frequency or snacking from 1971 to 2002 (39). This previous study used very precise food- and meal-based measures of snacking and adjusted as much as possible for some measurement differences by linking foods and food composition tables over the full period studied. We examined systematically overall patterns of snacking, shifts in energy intake from snacking, snacking occasions, and energy intake per snacking event. We also examined the shifts in snacking food and beverage sources, in addition to the overall trends of the energy density of snacks and meals.

Previous Section Next Section

Participants and MethodsSurvey design and sample.

We used data collected from 4 nationally representative surveys of food intake in the U.S. population. The sample selected for analysis consisted of 44,754 adults aged 19 y and older who reported 1 or 2 d of intake. The USDA data come from 17,464 respondents from the 1977–1978 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS)4 77; 8340 from the 1989–1991 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) 89, and 9460 from the 1994–1996 CSFII (CSFII 96). From the NHANES, there were 9490 respondents from 2 consecutive surveys: NHANES 2003–2004 and NHANES 2005–2006 (NHANES 03–06). The USDA and NHANES surveys are based on a multistage, stratified area probability sample of noninstitutionalized U.S. households. Detailed information about each survey and its sampling design has been published previously (40–44). The major difference is that although the NHANES sampling system is nationally representative, it does not represent each region by season and is not randomly distributed over the days of the week as the earlier USDA surveys were (45). By utilizing secondary USDA and NHANES data, we were exempt from institutional review board concerns for this paper.

Dietary data.

All dietary survey data utilized a comparable food composition table and collection methods developed by the USDA. The NFCS 77 and CSFII 89 surveys contain information on dietary intake that was collected over 3 consecutive days using a single interviewer-administered 24-h recall followed by a self-administered 2-d food record. Dietary data from NFCS 77 and CSFII 89 surveys consisted of all foods eaten at home and away from home during the previous day (24-h recall) and the records of the foods eaten on the day of the interview and the following day (2-d records). The CSFII 1994–96 (CSFII 96) survey collected interviewer-administered 24-

h recalls on 2 nonconsecutive days (3–10 d apart). The NHANES 03–06 surveys (a survey integrating USDA dietary methodology into the NHANES system) included 2 nonconsecutive days of 24-h dietary recall data. The d 1 interview is conducted by trained dietary interviewers in the Mobile Examination Center and the d 2 interview is collected by telephone 3–10 d following the Mobile Examination Center interview. For NHANES 03–06, the USDA's Automated Multiple Pass Method, a 5-step computerized dietary recall instrument, was used for collecting 24-h dietary recalls, either in person or by telephone. For our purpose of studying snacking behavior over time, the first 2 d of dietary intake from each survey have been included in this analysis to provide fairly comparable measurement periods and protocols. In the cases where either d 1 or 2 results were not obtained, the individuals with only the other day were included.

Snack vs. meal definitions.

The USDA and NHANES surveys collected information on eating occasions, such as snacks and meals. Each eating occasion was determined by the respondent in each survey. Respondents were asked to name the type of each eating occasion. The time when the eating or drinking event began was recorded for each food or beverage. The snack category included those eating occasions defined by the respondent as “snack,” plus the occasions related to snacking, such as food and/or coffee/beverage breaks. Meals were defined by the respondent as breakfast/brunch, lunch, and dinner/supper. People often consume more than 1 food item when having a snack. Therefore, we combined all snack foods consumed within 15 min of each other as a single snacking occasion. To determine whether participants were snackers or not, we classified them as snackers if they snacked on any day of intake. For those individuals who snacked on d 1 and 2, we computed the contribution of snacking for each day and then averaged these contributions. Also, some people defined foods eaten at the same time as both snack and meal. We changed them all to meal if any were defined as a snack, as in all cases most of the foods were identified as 1 of 3 meals (e.g. eating chips with a lunch). In NCFS 77, CSFII 89, and CSFII 96, we found eating occasions defined as “other” or “no answer.” If a person did not have 3 meals, the missing values were recoded as meals according to the eating time. The remaining eating occasions were assigned to meals if the person did not eat 3 meals. Finally, the remaining missing eating occasions were considered as snacks. In summary, we have set 3 principal meals, if possible, and then we have studied the snacking behavior outside them in all the years surveyed.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill food grouping system.

To determine those food items contributing to energy intake, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) food grouping system was used. This food grouping system links all foods from 1965 to the present. Comparable food composition Latin names and nutrient compositions are used to link the same foods in each food group over time. All the foods reported in the USDA surveys were assigned to the 107 UNC-CH food groups. First, we assigned the major food groupings designated by the USDA and then further classified them according to fat and fiber content. The UNC-CH food grouping system has been previously described (46). For all individuals, the amount of snacking energy provided by each UNC-CH food group was calculated and then divided by the total energy from snacking of all individuals. Those food groups contributing the most to snacking energy intake are reported. Diet soft drinks and sweetened or unsweetened coffee/tea were excluded as snacks from analysis of shifts in energy in the food group analysis. These food items accounted for a very low percent of energy of the total snacking daily energy.

Water as a beverage was collected differently across the surveys. Because plain water was added as a food item in 2003, we determined that water accounted for up to 5% of all the reported foods in 2003–2006 compared to 0% in all the other previous surveys. Water was

deleted as a food item in all the years studied.

Statistical analysis.

Data are presented as means ± SE. Snacking trends were studied dividing the population into 3 groups: 19–39 y old, 40–59 y old, and 60 y and older. We used survey commands to account for survey design, weighting, and clustering (47,48). The proportion of adults (19 y and older) consuming 0–2 snacks/d, 3–5 snacks/d, and >6 snacks/d within each sociodemographic characteristic and classified by BMI was determined in NHANES 03–06. The proportion of snackers within each age group by key sociodemographic groups was also determined in NHANES 03–06 but varied little between all subpopulations (Supplemental Table 1). For each survey year, the percentage of individuals who reported snacking on d 1, 2, or both was determined. For snackers, we computed each survey year by age group. We used both the mean number of snacking occasions per day, mean energy intake (kJ and kcal), and g consumed per snacking occasion for this computation. The contribution of snacking to total energy intake was also determined. The energy density of snacks (food and beverages or both) and meals (food and beverages or both) was calculated dividing the total energetic content of each category by the total amount of g consumed from them. Differences testing, by a Student's t test, used STATA, version 10 (47), to weight the results and control SE for sample design effects. A P-value ≤ 0.01 was considered significant.

Previous Section Next Section

ResultsProportion of adults by snacking groups.

Some sociodemographic characteristics were related to a higher snacking habit defined in terms of number of daily snacking events (Table 1). Males, non-Hispanic Whites, and people with higher income level and education were mainly included in the group with 3–5 snacks/d (P < 0.01). Other descriptive characteristics such as BMI classified a higher proportion of normal and obese individuals in the group of 3–5 snacks/d, although these proportions did not differ from the group of 0–2 snacks/d.

View this table:

In this window In a new window

TABLE 1

Proportion of adults (≥19 y) over a 2-d period by sociodemographic characteristics in the NHANES, 2003–20061–2

Dynamic increases in snacking behavior.

The prevalence of snackers over a 2-d period increased over all adults (≥19 y) from 71% in 1977 to 97% in 2003–2006 (percent of snackers on d 1, 2, or both) (Fig. 1). For the same period and age group, the percentage of snacking on both d 1 and d 2 increased from 42 to 78% (data not shown).

View larger version:

In this page In a new window

Download as PowerPoint Slide

FIGURE 1 

Percent of U.S. individuals consuming snacks over a 2-d period (% of snackers on d 1, 2, or both).

Behavioral changes in snacking habits.

Snacking occasions increased in all adults from 1977–1978 to 2003–2006 (∼1 snack more) (P < 0.01) (Table 2). The middle-aged group (40–59 y) accounted for the highest number of snacks per day in 2003–2006 (2.35 ± 0.03). The age group with >60 y experienced the highest increase in the number of snacks per day, around 1.12 occasions more over the 1977–2006 time period. Regarding the energy intake per snacking event, changes between 1977–1978 and 2003–2006 were significant and large (P < 0.01) (Table 2). We found the largest increase in the energy intake per snacking event in the younger group (19–39 y) between 1977–1978 and 2003–2006 (∼416 kJ more). Moreover, people between 19 and 39 y had more energy per snack than the others in 2003–2006 (1105 ± 20.60 kJ). The total g per snacking occasion increased across all age groups (P < 0.01) and participants aged 19–39 y had the highest amount of g per snacking occasion in 2003–2006 (374 ± 9.78). Finally, for total energy from snacks, the amount increased across all groups between each year (except 1994–2006 for those aged 19–30 y) (P < 0.01).

View this table:

In this window In a new window

TABLE 2

Number of snacks consumed per day and amount and energy consumed per snacking occasion by U.S. individuals from the 1977–1978, 1989–1991, 1994–1996, and 2003–2006 surveys by age group1

The increase in the total percentage of energy intake from snacking occasions in all age groups between 1977 and 2006 was significant (P < 0.01) (Fig. 2). There was also an increase between each time period in all age groups (P < 0.01), except for an insignificant change for young adults in the 1994–2006 time period. The percent of daily energy from snacks increased progressively in adults aged >19 y (∼922 kJ/d more), contributing almost one-fourth of energy intake by 2006. Energy from snacks increased between 6 and 7 percentage points for all age groups over the 1977–2006 time period.

View larger version:

In this page In a new window

Download as PowerPoint Slide

FIGURE 2 

Contribution of snacking to total daily energy intake by year and age group. Numbers within solid dark bars in the bottom represent the mean percent of energy from snacks. *Different from the previous year, P < 0.01; **different between 1977–78 and 2003–06, P < 0.01 (t test).

Snacking food and nutritional impact.

Table 3 presents the energy density of snacks and meals (foods, beverages, and both combined) in adults. Over the time period studied, we found a significant increasing trend for total snacking (food plus beverages) in all the age groups studied. The energy density of snacking beverages also increased in all the adults aged >19 y. Meals food also showed a significant increasing trend in all the adults for the studied periods.

View this table:

In this window In a new window

TABLE 3

Trends in energy density of meals and snacking (food, beverages, or both) occasions in U.S. adults aged ≥19 y old

The top 5 sources of energy were desserts, salty snacks, other snacks, sweetened beverages, and juices/fruit (Fig. 3). The major increase from 1997–1978 to 2003–2006 was found in low-fat and high-fat salty snacks, with small increases also in candies, nuts/seeds, alcoholic beverages, fruit drinks, and sport drinks. We found decreases for overall desserts (although low-fat desserts increased), milk/dairy, and juices/fruit.

View larger version:

In this page In a new window

Download as PowerPoint Slide

FIGURE 3 

The proportion of snacking energy from food groups in U.S. adults aged 19 y and older. Colored bars represent percents of energy from snacking energy intake. The UNC-CH Food Grouping System was used to select the main food groups. Desserts include cakes, cookies, pies, bars, ice cream, and gelatin desserts. High-fat desserts were defined as those with >5 g fat/100 g of food. Salty snacks include crackers, chips, popcorn, and pretzels. High-fat salty snacks were defined as those with >5 g fat/100 g of food.

Previous Section Next Section

Discussion

Over the past 2 decades, U.S. adults have steadily increased the number of daily snacking occasions. The percentage of energy intake from snacking occasions has increased to 24%. Interestingly, our results show significant shifts in snacking between the 1977–1978 period

and the mid-1990s and again in the past decade. Not only do we find major increases in snacking behavior, but food sources of snacks have changed. Major shifts toward increased intake of salty snacks, chips, and nuts have occurred along with smaller shifts toward reduced amounts of desserts, dairy products, and fruit.

Snacking occasions and snacking foods for this study are based on a definition that focuses on self-selected snacking events but removes as snacks the foods that were eaten at meals. We also utilize food groups based on foods that are linked over time so the same foods are in the same food groups (48). Nevertheless, we differ from other scholars. For example, one recent study reported across the 4 NHANES surveys [I (1971–1975), II (1976–1980), III (1988–1994), and 1999–2002)] a decline in snacking prevalence (39). That we used only surveys with 2 d of dietary data may have been one reason for the different interpretation. Another may be our exclusion of snack foods such as chips consumed at a meal. NHANES collected only 1 d of dietary intake data before the integration in 2003 with the USDA and a combination of 1 d of direct face-to-face recall with a subsequent telephone interview. Other earlier research, with slightly less restrictive definitions of snacking events, found increased snacking patterns and a higher contribution to total daily energy over the 1977–1996 period (28,29). In a previous survey (mid-1990s) of U.S. individuals aged from 18 to 54 y, <1% reported no snacks (49). By focusing across all adults, utilizing the same food composition table, and using 2 da of dietary data in all time periods, we attempted to provide a more consistent measurement over time.

Small English snacking studies based on mid-1990s data found that adult snacking provided 17–29% of the total daily energy with younger and middle-aged adults consuming a larger proportion of energy from snacks (27,50). Our study, consistent with this last approach, states that the young adults (19–39 y old), and especially the middle-aged adults (40–59 y old), present critical snacking trends as was shown in the last periods (1989–1996 and 1996–2006).

This study is based on nationally representative data and found increased portion sizes in terms of both energy per snacking occasion and g per eating occasion. Our findings are consistent with others that reported increased portion sizes in U.S. surveys (13,14). Higher portion sizes might be linked to increased energy intake (51,52). Another component of possible sources of increased energy intake (along with number of occasions and portion sizes) is energy density, defined as the energy content per g of the eating event (snack or meal) that includes beverages, foods, and both combined (53–55). This study shows important trends toward higher energy density of snacks (meals plus beverages) and meals food over the 1977–2006 period.

There are limitations to our analysis of snacking trends. Different methodologies were used in the dietary surveys, particularly the shift into the 1990s from the 1980s. Subsequent changes have been much smaller. To capture more accurately the total diet, both USDA and NHANES, and later the combined system of the 2003–2006 period, increased the number of passes through the day with repeated queries on what has been eaten in the 1990s. The most important subsequent change, a shift to a second day of dietary intake data for NHANES, started after the merger with the USDA survey system in the 2003–2006 period. The introduction of the multiple pass method in the 1990s may have added additional snacks in that period; however, the methodological changes between the 1990 and most recent data are smaller. Furthermore, the consequences of these methodological changes have not been measured with a bridging study as was done between shifts in methods in the 1970s to the1980s (56). Also, for NHANES in particular, different nutrient databases have been used for each survey. For both, shifts in the measurement and accuracy of data for foods and the changes in the food supply could affect the composition of these nutrient databases. We addressed these food composition table concerns by using the system developed by this UNC

team. This allowed us to link food coded and collected in the last survey with foods consumed by respondents in earlier surveys and ensure consistently high-quality estimates of nutrient values over time (57). There were also a different number of days of data collection in each survey. While NFCS 77 and CSFII 89 collected 3 d of intake, in CSFII 96 and NHANES 2003–2006 only 2 d of intake were recorded. Using 3 d of data would create noncomparable information. Further, the record data for d 3 provides surprisingly distinct and less believable results (only 4% of participants reported snacking on d 3) (28). Selection of comparable 2-d periods seemed the best way to provide comparable data. Using 2 d is a closer approximation of usual intake, although it would be better if these days were always measured randomly many days apart.

We developed a restrictive approach to the definition of snacking. We combined all the snacks consumed within 15 min of each other and we recoded those foods defined as snacks, but eaten as part of a meal, as a meal only. There have been different considerations of snacking, based on the name occasions reported by the participants, and/or counting each snack food eaten at a unique time interval as 1 snacking occasion (39,58). Others defined snacks according to the time of day or type of foods consumed (49,50,59,60). To date, there is no consensus about the snack foods or meal foods definitions. However, we think self-identification of a snacking occasion provides some consistency over time, particularly with the large variance in time at which identified meals are consumed over time and across our age groups.

This study shows important shifts in the number of snacking occasions, foods consumed, and total contribution of snacks to overall energy intake across 3 age groupings of U.S. adults. The implications of these changes for overall energy intake, energy imbalance, and metabolic functioning need to be understood.

Previous Section Next Section

Acknowledgments

We thank Frances L. Dancy for administrative assistance, Tom Swasey for graphics support, and Phil Bardsley for exceptional assistance in the programming work necessary to create all of these snacking measures and tables. B.P. and C.P. designed and conducted research; C.P. and P.B. analyzed data and performed statistical analysis; B.P. and C.P. wrote the paper; B.P. had primary responsibility for final content. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Previous Section Next Section

Footnotes

↵ 1 Supported by the NIH (R01-CA109831, R01-CA121152 for B.M.P.) and the University of North Carolina and University Cancer Research Fund (for C.P.).

↵ 2 Author disclosures: C. Piernas and B. M. Popkin, no conflicts of interest.

↵ 3 Supplemental Tables 1 and 2 are available with the online posting of this paper at jn.nutrition.org.

↵ 4 Abbreviations used: CSFII, Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals; NFCS, Nationwide Food Consumption Survey; UNC-CH, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Manuscript received: July 9, 2009. Initial review completed: August 21, 2009.

Revision accepted: November 8, 2009.

Previous Section

LITERATURE CITED

1. 1.↵

Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, McDowell MA, Tabak CJ, Flegal KM. Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999–2004. JAMA. 2006;295:1549–55.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

2. 2.↵

Kant AK, Schatzkin A, Graubard BI, Ballard-Barbash R. Frequency of eating occasions and weight change in the NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1995;19:468–74.

Medline

3. 3.

Rolland-Cachera MF, Deheeger M, Bellisle F. Nutrient balance and body composition. Reprod Nutr Dev. 1997;37:727–34.

CrossRef Medline

4. 4.↵

Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997;77 Suppl 1:S57–70.

CrossRef Medline

5. 5.

Kant AK, Schatzkin A, Ballard-Barbash R. Evening eating and subsequent long-term weight change in a national cohort. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997;21:407–12.

CrossRef Medline

6. 6.

Roberts SB. High-glycemic index foods, hunger, and obesity: is there a connection? Nutr Rev. 2000;58:163–9.

Medline

7. 7.

Roberts SB, Williamson DF. Causes of adult weight gain. J Nutr.

2002;132:S3824–5.

8. 8.

Roberts SB, McCrory MA, Saltzman E. The influence of dietary composition on energy intake and body weight. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002;21:S140–5.

9. 9.

McCrory MA, Suen VM, Roberts SB. Biobehavioral influences on energy intake and adult weight gain. J Nutr. 2002;132:S3830–4.

10. 10.

Hays NP, Bathalon GP, McCrory MA, Roubenoff R, Lipman R, Roberts SB. Eating behavior correlates of adult weight gain and obesity in healthy women aged 55–65 y. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;75:476–83.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

11. 11.↵

Ma Y, Bertone ER, Stanek EJ III, Reed GW, Hebert JR, Cohen NL, Merriam PA, Ockene IS. Association between eating patterns and obesity in a free-living US adult population. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:85–92.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

12. 12.

Guthrie JF, Lin BH, Frazao E. Role of food prepared away from home in the American diet, 1977–78 versus 1994–96: changes and consequences. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2002;34:140–50.

CrossRef Medline

13. 13.↵

Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM. Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977–1998. JAMA. 2003;289:450–3.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

14. 14.↵

Smiciklas-Wright H, Mitchell DC, Mickle SJ, Goldman JD, Cook A. Foods commonly eaten in the United States, 1989–1991 and 1994–1996: are portion sizes changing? J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:41–7.

CrossRef Medline

15. 15.

Bray GA, Paeratakul S, Popkin BM. Dietary fat and obesity: a review of animal, clinical and epidemiological studies. Physiol Behav. 2004;83:549–55.

CrossRef Medline

16. 16.

Kant AK, Graubard BI. Eating out in America, 1987–2000: trends and nutritional correlates. Prev Med. 2004;38:243–9.

CrossRef Medline

17. 17.

Popkin BM. Global nutrition dynamics: the world is shifting rapidly toward a diet linked with noncommunicable diseases. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84:289–98.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

18. 18.↵

Popkin BM. The world is fat: the fads, trends, policies, and products that are fattening the human race. New York: Avery; 2009.

19. 19.↵

Fabry P, Fodor J, Hejl Z, Geizerova H, Balcarova O. Meal frequency and ischaemic heart-disease. Lancet. 1968;2:190–1.

Medline

20. 20.↵

Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Vuksan V, Brighenti F, Cunnane SC, Rao AV, Jenkins AL, Buckley G, Patten R, et al. Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:929–34.

Medline

21. 21.↵

Summerbell CD, Moody RC, Shanks J, Stock MJ, Geissler C. Relationship between feeding pattern and body mass index in 220 free-living people in four age groups. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996;50:513–9.

Medline

22. 22.↵

Metzner HL, Lamphiear DE, Wheeler NC, Larkin FA. The relationship between

frequency of eating and adiposity in adult men and women in the Tecumseh Community Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977;30:712–5.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

23. 23.↵

Edelstein SL, Barrett-Connor EL, Wingard DL, Cohn BA. Increased meal frequency associated with decreased cholesterol concentrations; Rancho Bernardo, CA, 1984–1987. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;55:664–9.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

24. 24.↵

Hampl JS, Heaton CL, Taylor CA. Snacking patterns influence energy and nutrient intakes but not body mass index. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2003;16:3–11.

CrossRef Medline

25. 25.↵

Drummond SE, Crombie NE, Cursiter MC, Kirk TR. Evidence that eating frequency is inversely related to body weight status in male, but not female, non-obese adults reporting valid dietary intakes. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998;22:105–12.

CrossRef Medline

26. 26.↵

Berteus Forslund H, Torgerson JS, Sjostrom L, Lindroos AK. Snacking frequency in relation to energy intake and food choices in obese men and women compared to a reference population. Int J Obes (Lond). 2005;29:711–9.

CrossRef Medline

27. 27.↵

Drummond S, Crombie N, Kirk T. A critique of the effects of snacking on body weight status. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996;50:779–83.

Medline

28. 28.↵

Jahns L, Siega-Riz AM, Popkin BM. The increasing prevalence of snacking among US children from 1977 to 1996. J Pediatr. 2001;138:493–8.

CrossRef Medline

29. 29.↵

Zizza C, Siega-Riz AM, Popkin BM. Significant increase in young adults' snacking between 1977–1978 and 1994–1996 represents a cause for concern! Prev Med. 2001;32:303–10.

CrossRef Medline

30. 30.

Wansink B. "Snack attack Don't be tricked by low fat labels. It's easy to overeat when you think treats are 'good' for you." 2007 Mar 9. Available from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17469445/.

31. 31.

Tholin S, Lindroos A, Tynelius P, Akerstedt T, Stunkard AJ, Bulik CM, Rasmussen F. Prevalence of night eating in obese and nonobese twins. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009;17:1050–5.

CrossRef Medline

32. 32.↵

Stunkard AJ, Allison KC, O'Reardon JP. The night eating syndrome: a progress report. Appetite. 2005;45:182–6.

CrossRef Medline

33. 33.↵

Basdevant A, Craplet C, Guy-Grand B. Snacking patterns in obese French women. Appetite. 1993;21:17–23.

CrossRef Medline

34. 34.↵

Andersson I, Rossner S. Meal patterns in obese and normal weight men: the 'Gustaf' study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996;50:639–46.

Medline

35. 35.↵

Schoeller DA. Limitations in the assessment of dietary energy intake by self-report. Metabolism. 1995;44:18–22.

Medline

36. 36.↵

Heitmann BL, Lissner L, Osler M. Do we eat less fat, or just report so? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:435–42.

CrossRef Medline

37. 37.↵

Poppitt SD, Swann D, Black AE, Prentice AM. Assessment of selective under-reporting of food intake by both obese and non-obese women in a metabolic facility. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998;22:303–11.

CrossRef Medline

38. 38.↵

Howarth NC, Huang TT, Roberts SB, Lin BH, McCrory MA. Eating patterns and dietary composition in relation to BMI in younger and older adults. Int J Obes (Lond). 2007;31:675–84.

Medline

39. 39.↵

Kant AK, Graubard BI. Secular trends in patterns of self-reported food consumption of adult Americans: NHANES 1971–1975 to NHANES 1999–2002. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84:1215–23.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

40. 40.↵

Rizek R. The 1977–78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. Fam Econ Rev. 1978;4:3–7.

41. 41.

USDA ARS, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Group FSR. Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals 1989–91 and Diet and Health Knowledge Survey 1989–91: documentation (csfii8991_documentation.pdf). Beltsville, MD [cited 2009 May 6]. Available from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14541.

42. 42.

USDA ARS, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Group FSR. Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals 1994–96, 1998 and Diet and Health Knowledge Survey 1994–96: documentation (csfii9498_documentationupdated.pdf). Beltsville, MD [ cited 2009 May 6]. Available from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14521.

43. 43.

USDA ARS, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Group FSR. What We Eat in America, NHANES 2003–2004. Beltsville, MD. [cited 2009 May 15]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003–2004/dr1tot_c.xpt.

44. 44.↵

USDA ARS, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Food Surveys Research Group. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services CfDCaP, National Center for Health Statistics (Hyattsville, MD). What We Eat in America, NHANES 2005–2006. [cited 2009 May 15]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2005–2006/dr1tot_c.xpt. 2005.

45. 45.↵

Haines PS, Hama MY, Guilkey DK, Popkin BM. Weekend eating in the United States is linked with greater energy, fat, and alcohol intake. Obes Res. 2003;11:945–9.

Medline

46. 46.↵

Duffey KJ, Gordon-Larsen P, Ayala GX, Popkin BM. Birthplace is associated with more adverse dietary profiles for US-born than for foreign-born Latino adults. J Nutr. 2008;138:2428–35.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

47. 47.↵

Stata Corp. STATA V.X. College Station (TX): Stata Corp.; 2009.

48. 48.↵

Popkin BM, Haines PS, Siega-Riz AM. Dietary patterns and trends in the United States: the UNC-CH approach. Appetite. 1999;32:8–14.

CrossRef Medline

49. 49.↵

Cross AT, Babicz D, Cushman LF. Snacking patterns among 1,800 adults and children. J Am Diet Assoc. 1994;94:1398–403.

CrossRef Medline

50. 50.↵

Summerbell CD, Moody RC, Shanks J, Stock MJ, Geissler C. Sources of energy from meals versus snacks in 220 people in four age groups. Eur J Clin Nutr.

1995;49:33–41.

Medline

51. 51.↵

Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Meengs JS. Reductions in portion size and energy density of foods are additive and lead to sustained decreases in energy intake. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83:11–7.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

52. 52.↵

Rolls BJ, Morris EL, Roe LS. Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76:1207–13.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

53. 53.↵

Rolls BJ, Drewnowski A, Ledikwe JH. Changing the energy density of the diet as a strategy for weight management. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:S98–103.

Medline

54. 54.

Drewnowski A. The role of energy density. Lipids. 2003;38:109–15.

CrossRef Medline

55. 55.↵

Stubbs RJ, Whybrow S. Energy density, diet composition and palatability: influences on overall food energy intake in humans. Physiol Behav. 2004;81:755–64.

CrossRef Medline

56. 56.↵

Guenther P, Perloff B. Effects of procedural differences between 1977 and 1987 in the nationwide food consumption survey on estimates of food and nutrient intakes: results of the USDA 1988 Bridging Study. Washington, DC: USDA, Human Nutrition Information Service; 1990.

57. 57.↵

Popkin BM, Haines PS, Reidy KC. Food consumption trends of US women: patterns and determinants between 1977 and 1985. Am J Clin Nutr.

1989;49:1307–19.

Abstract / FREE Full Text

58. 58.↵

Bigler-Doughten S, Jenkins RM. Adolescent snacks: nutrient density and nutritional contribution to total intake. J Am Diet Assoc. 1987;87:1678–9.

Medline

59. 59.↵

Devaney BL, Gordon AR, Burghardt JA. Dietary intakes of students. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995;61:S205–12.

60. 60.↵

Ezell JM, Skinner JD, Penfield MP. Appalachian adolescents' snack patterns: morning, afternoon, and evening snacks. J Am Diet Assoc. 1985;85:1450–4.

Medline

Articles citing this article

Eating patterns and type 2 diabetes risk in men: breakfast omission, eating frequency, and snacking Am J Clin Nutr 2012 95: 5 1182-1189

o Abstract o Full Text o Full Text (PDF)

Long-term consumption of high energy-dense snack foods on sensory-specific satiety and intake Am J Clin Nutr 2012 95: 5 1038-1047

o Abstract o Full Text o Full Text (PDF)

Implementing Heart Healthy Dietary Guidelines: Moving From Ideal to Real AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LIFESTYLE MEDICINE 2012 6: 2 96-112

o Abstract o Full Text (PDF)

Increased portion sizes from energy-dense foods affect total energy intake at eating occasions in US children and adolescents: patterns and trends by age group and sociodemographic characteristics, 1977-2006 Am J Clin Nutr 2011 94: 5 1324-1332

o Abstract o Full Text o Full Text (PDF)

Food Portion Patterns and Trends among U.S. Children and the Relationship to Total Eating Occasion Size, 1977-2006 J. Nutr. 2011 141: 6 1159-1164

o Abstract o Full Text o Full Text (PDF)

Trends in carbohydrate, fat, and protein intakes and association with energy intake in normal-weight, overweight, and obese individuals: 1971-2006 Am J Clin Nutr 2011 93: 4 836-843

o Abstract

o Full Text o Full Text (PDF)

The Role of Snacking in Energy Balance: a Biobehavioral Approach J. Nutr. 2011 141: 1 158-162

o Abstract o Full Text o Full Text (PDF)

The Standard American Diet and Its Relationship to the Health Status of Americans Nutr Clin Pract 2010 25: 6 603-612

o Abstract o Full Text o Full Text (PDF)

Does hunger and satiety drive eating anymore? Increasing eating occasions and decreasing time between eating occasions in the United States Am J Clin Nutr 2010 91: 5 1342-1347

o Abstract o Full Text o Full Text (PDF)

« Previous | Next Article » Table of Contents

This Article

1. First published December 2, 2009, doi: 10.3945/jn.109.112763 J. Nutr. February 2010 vol. 140 no. 2 325-332

1. AbstractFree2. » Full TextFree3. Full Text (PDF)Free4. Online Supplemental Material5. All Versions of this Article:

1. jn.109.112763v12. 140/2/325 most recent

1. Purchase Article2. Add to Custom Publication

- Classifications

1.o Nutritional Epidemiology

- Services

1. Email this article to a colleague2. Alert me when this article is cited3. Alert me if a correction is posted4. Article Usage Statistics5. Similar articles in this journal6. Similar articles in PubMed7. Download to citation manager8. Reprints and Permissions

+ Citing Articles

1. + Google Scholar

1. + PubMed

1. + Related Content

1. Navigate This Article

1. Top

2. Abstract3. Introduction4. Participants and Methods5. Results6. Discussion7. Acknowledgments8. Footnotes9. LITERATURE CITED

Current Issue1. July 2012, 142 (7)

1.

1. Alert me to new issues of J. Nutr.

About JN Instructions for Authors Manuscript Submission Editorial Board Reprints Permissions Advertising Feedback Advances in Nutrition AJCN Nutrition Notes

Journal of Nutrition®Copyright © 2012 by the American Society for Nutrition

9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814; Phone: 301-634-7050; Fax:301-634-7892

Print ISSN: 0022-3166 Online ISSN: 1541-6100

For an alternate route to JN Online use this URL: http://intl-jn.nutrition.org

CHANTILLY, Va. -- Ahold USA here has consolidated the private-label, salty-snack lines at each of its six operating companies into a new unified program.

The nationwide rollout means all the operating companies will carry the same salty-snack brands. It follows Ahold's introduction of common private labels in other Center Store categories, including carbonated soft drinks and coffee.

The new salty-snack line is comprised of five brands: Pretzelwerks pretzels; Che-Bangos cheese puffs; Tat 'Ums potato chips; Gustados nacho tortilla chips; and Festingos corn tortilla chips.

Pretzelwerks and Che-Bangos retail for 99 cents each; the others, two for $3.

Twenty-seven stockkeeping units are offered, according to Rick Stockwood, spokesman for Ahold's Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., Quincy, Mass., division. Eight of these are new items, including bite-size tortilla chips; sour cream & onion and salt & vinegar potato chips; and sourdough pretzels.

"It's key to offer the consumer a variety of choices," Stockwood told SN.

Stop & Shop and Ahold's other operating companies -- Giant Food, Landover, Md.; Giant Food Stores, Carlisle, Pa.; Bi-Lo, Greenville, S.C.; Tops Friendly Markets, Williamsville, N.Y.; and Bruno's Supermarkets, Birmingham, Ala. -- are aggressively promoting the line.

"Stop & Shop salty snacks have a brand new look and a great new taste," a store circular read, in part. "Try them for yourself and see just how good they are."

Stop & Shop also conducted a chainwide sampling event on Sept. 7

"We used in-store sampling as a way to show our customers that this is a high-quality product," Stockwood said.

The salty-snack line is one of a growing number of Center Store categories undergoing branding unification at Ahold. Last year, Ahold introduced nationwide private-label coffee and carbonated soft-drink brands.

Common private labels are also planned for other categories, although Ahold has not announced what they are.

Read More: http://supermarketnews.com/archive/ahold-takes-bite-salty-snack-business#ixzz1z5yvwHrp

Chicago (February 2, 2012)—We’ve made it a month into the 2012 resolution-season…and you have to wonder, who is still sticking to their New Year’s healthy eating resolution…and who has fallen off the wellness wagon?

According to recent Mintel research, among healthy snackers, 44% say

they tend to eat healthfully most of the time and 42% make it a point to snack on foods that are healthy. At the same time, indulgence can be part of a well-rounded lifestyle, as 39% of healthy snackers say they use less-healthy nibbles as an occasional treat.

“Eating healthy snacks can offer many benefits to consumers, such as increased energy and feeling fuller longer, so there is a big opportunity for the makers and marketers of snacks to leverage these connections to maximize health positioning,” says Molly Maier, senior wellness analyst at Mintel. “The number of snackers who only consume healthy treats is a relatively small one, but one that shouldn’t be ignored by snack-food manufacturers.”

The definition of “healthy” is very subjective, but Mintel respondents seem to have a good grasp on truly healthful foods. Fresh fruit is overwhelmingly (86%) considered healthy snacking, followed by raw vegetables (73%), and nuts/seeds (71%). However, a surprising number of people rated ice cream (12%) and cookies (9%) as healthy snacks…keep dreaming snackers!

Snacks are often an impulsive purchase, and one of convenience. As a result, people are at the mercy of the food choices most available. Nearly half (46%) of respondents say it’s hard to find healthy snacks in vending machines or other on-the-go locations while 16% believe it takes more time to prepare a healthy snack than other types. “Increasing accessibility and portability can help maximize usage,” adds Molly Maier.

It's confirmed: the recession really did make us chow down on potato chips and other salty snacks. A new report from market research firm Mintel shows that after years of mediocre sales increases, the potato chip market grew 22% during the economic downturn*.

In addition, other salty snacks experienced recession-fueled sales jumps. The tortilla chip market increased by 18% since 2007, while smaller segments like popcorn and cheese snacks saw similar gains (17% and 20%, respectively). Now that economic recovery is starting to take hold, however, Mintel expects sales increases to taper. Over the next five years, potato chip sales are expected to rise just above 3% annually, while tortilla chip sales should increase just above 4%.

“People bought more chips during the recession because they’re a good value,” explains Chris Haack, senior analyst at Mintel. “As the economy

gets stronger, we expect annual sales increases to slow, but we don’t expect markets to contract. New product innovations and the changed eating habits of many Americans will keep shoppers headed towards the snack aisle.”

Mintel’s Global New Products Database (GNPD) has already tracked over 350 new salty snack launches in the US this year.

A daily dose of chips?

It’s not the most healthy habit, but according to Mintel, 50% of kids, teens and 18-24s say they eat salty snacks five times a week or more. Even adults say they eat salty snacks 4.8 times per week on average, nearly once a day!

“Salty snacks are clearly embedded in American’s style of eating and they’re used by all ages as a way to curb off hunger between meals or after dinner,” explains Chris Haack. “But at the same time, there is growing interest in healthier snack options.”

Mintel’s survey shows that two in three (65%) adults say that they’re interested in healthier snacks, such as grain or baked varieties, while another 57% say they're interested in healthier alternatives to salty snacks, like pita chips or crackers. Admittedly however, half of survey respondents confess they think lower fat/sodium snacks don’t taste as good as the originals.

Crunch time for ready salted crisps

Once the nation's dependable favourite, latest research from Mintel* finds ready salted crisps

have fallen from the number one crisp slot as cheese & onion is crowned Britain's big cheese.

The market for cheese & onion crisps is now worth a lip smacking £256 million, sales having

increased an impressive 15% in the last two years alone. Valued at £244 million in 2006,

ready salted crisps have slipped into second place, despite an increase in sales of 5% over the

same two year period. Meanwhile, things are turning sour for salt & vinegar, as sales of this

classic fell 7% between 2006 and 2008.

And just to rub salt in the wound of the beleaguered ready salted crisp, sales of the meaty

favourite, beef, grew over 10% between 2006 and 2008. Meanwhile, another victim of the

nation's changing taste is the iconic Seventies flavour prawn cocktail - which saw sales

crumble almost 7% over the same two year period.

"Though in years past Brits have been loyal to the original crisp flavour ready salted, cheese

& onion has now overtaken it as the nation's favourite crisp," comments Emmanuelle

Bouvier, Senior Market Analyst.

"Interestingly, despite the on-going development of new and exciting flavours, the traditional

favourites still win hands-down. In fact, cheese & onion, ready salted and salt & vinegar, still

account for almost two thirds of sales of standard crisps. What is more, most new launches

continue to focus on ready salted and salt & vinegar, which were the most popular flavours in

terms of new product development last year," adds Emmanuelle.

Crisps - packing in the sales?

The market for crisps and snacks experienced a recovery during 2007 and 2008, following a

period of slowdown between 2003 and 2006. In the last year alone, sales grew by 5% as the

nation munched its way through £2.53 billion worth of crisps and snacks, an impressive

achievement in the current climate of healthy eating and better living. Last year crisps (£1.47

billion) accounted for almost 60% of total market value. Meanwhile, savoury snacks**

(£1.06 billion) made up the remainder of sales.

The market for crisps and snacks has benefited from an improved health profile, with the

development of baked crisps and the increased use of sunflower oil for crisp frying. The

introduction of alternative ingredients to the traditional potato such as vegetables or

wholegrain have made crisps more acceptable for everyday consumption.

Repositioning crisps and snacks as an indulgent treat for adult consumers using premium

ingredients has also helped market growth. This has resulted in the development of a

substantial market for premium crisps and snacks sold at higher prices.

"The rate of innovation in the crisps and snacks market remains high, and this is a driving

factor in sales growth. In recent years we have seen new products move away from a reduced

fat, salt and additives positioning towards 'natural' and 'premium' claims," comments

Emmanuelle.

Overall sales of crisps and snacks are likely to remain stagnant over the next five years as

money conscious consumers re-evaluate their purchases of premium products.

Mintel reveals consumer packaged goods trends for 2011

Mintel, the global leader in market and consumer intelligence, has predicted the worldwide

consumer packaged goods (CPG) trends set to make an impact in 2011.

“These annual predictions represent continuations of current big-picture trends, rather than

major changes in the marketplace and what companies are doing,” notes Lynn Dornblaser,

director of innovation and insight at Mintel. “Understanding the major trend areas and how

they change from year to year is essential for companies to be successful when developing

and launching new products.”

Mintel has predicted 12 CPG trends that will impact product development in 2011 spanning

across categories from health and wellness, the environment, demographics, marketing and

media, convenience and indulgence. Below are six of these core trends.

1) Quiet Reduction: Sodium, sugar and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) are three well

known ingredients that appear to be experiencing covert reductions in product formulations.

While sodium reduction has long been the focus of “quiet reduction,” sugar and HFCS are

jumping on board. As the media continue to demonise HFCS, what may start as covert

reduction is likely to end up as a key labeling issue, in the same way transfat-free has become

the norm in some parts of the world. The European region still awaits approval of stevia, but

we should expect to see sugar and stevia used in conjunction to achieve an overall lower

sugar content in new products. However, “stevia” will not always be part of the overt

communication. Instead we’ll see messaging like “naturally sweetened” or “reduced sugar.”

2) Redefining Natural: Get ready for a “natural shakedown”. While all types of natural

claims have grown in importance in all regions, and across all product categories, the term

“natural” is still ill-defined. Terms that are vague or not well understood will come under fire

and we are due to see an intervention of regulatory bodies. Also, expect to see a new focus

on accentuating the positives of what is in a product, rather than emphasising what is not in

it.

3) Professionalisation of the Amateur: Mainstream brands are getting into a more serious

“professional” arena, by bringing into the home what used to require a specialist service.

This trend arguably has its origins in personal care markets, with “salon-style” hair

treatments for home use, but continues to expand to include household (“professional

strength” cleaning products) and food (chef-endorsed, restaurant-style meals).

4) Sustainability stays focused on the basics: Sustainability is not slipping down the priority

list, but instead of seeing new developments, expect to see a continuation of what we have

seen, with a few twists. There will be a greater focus on reduced packaging that promotes

environmental responsibility in combination with uniqueness, such as boxless cereal bars or

more cereals without the inner bag. Also, expect water usage to become a hot, consumer-

facing issue in 2011. Companies will be looking for ways to conserve water and change their

consumption habits so that there is enough world supply.

5) Blurring Categories: How much more innovation can you get out of a category?

Manufacturers’ response to consumer needs is the driver to developing hybrid products.

Consumers don’t necessarily view products as being in one category or another, rather they

look for solutions that meet their needs, and that may be something that straddles multiple

categories. Sparkling beverages are appearing more and being positioned as a source of

refreshment, as well as sophistication. Beyond hybrid forms, we also see a blurring of how

consumers use products – with beverages consumed as snacks, snacks as meals, and personal

care and home care products that do more than one thing, as well.

6) New Retro: Over the last year, we have seen more big brands that revitalise old products

and old ad campaigns, tapping into the escalating trend of nostalgia. We anticipate more of

these in 2011. Companies are returning to a time when life seemed somehow easier, whether

that’s the 1980s for consumers in their 20s, or the 1970s or 1960s for older consumers.

You’ll see this with brands using old formulations, old package designs, re-runs of

advertising campaigns or new ads with a retro feel.

Snacking Increased among U.S. Adults between 1977 and 20061–3

1. Carmen Piernas and2. Barry M. Popkin*

+ Author Affiliations

1. Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599

1. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: popkin@unc.edu.

Next Section

Abstract

This study built on limited knowledge about patterns and trends of adult snacking in the US. We selected adults aged 19 y and older (n = 44,754) between 1977–1978 and 2003–2006 with results weighted and adjusted for sample design effects. Differences testing, by a Student's t test, used STATA 10 (P ≤ 0.01). We defined a snacking event as intake of foods over a 15-min period and excluded food defined as snacks but eaten at a meal. Dietary data were obtained from the first 2 d for the 1977–1978 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS 77) and the 1989–1991 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII 89); and 2-d dietary data from the 1994–1996 CSFII (CSFII 96) and the NHANES from 2 consecutive surveys: NHANES 2003–2004 and NHANES 2005–2006 (NHANES 03–06). Results showed that snacking prevalence increased significantly from 71 to 97% in 2003–2006 with increases in both the 1989–1994 and the 1994–2006 periods. In all adults, snacking occasions increased 0.97 events over this time period (P < 0.01) and the contribution of snacks to total energy intake increased from 18 to 24% (P < 0.01). The energy density of snacks (food plus beverages) also increased progressively over the time period studied. Important changes in snacking food sources were found among desserts, salty snacks, candies, and sweetened beverages. More research is needed to gain a better understanding of the implications for overall energy intake and energy imbalance.

Previous SectionNext Section

Introduction

Obesity among U.S. adults has increased markedly over the past few decades. Approximately 29% of 20- to 39-y olds, 37% of 40- to 59-y olds, and 31% of those aged >60 y are obese (1). Different dietary factors, including intake of energy beverages, away from home eating, portion sizing, and snacking have been related to the excess of energy intake and obesity at different life stages (2–18).

Meal and snack patterns, including the frequency of daily eating occasions, are suspected to affect health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease and glucose intolerance (19,20). However, the contribution of meal frequency and snacking to overeating and body weight remains unclear. Many studies in adults of all age groups have reported higher values of BMI related to lower eating frequency (4,11,21,22), whereas others have found no relation (23,24) or gender differences to BMI (25,26). Snacking, usually defined as eating occasions different from main meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner/supper), has been commonly regarded as contributing to excess weight (26,27). Late night eating, greater intake of energy-dense salty snacks and energy beverages, or increased portion sizes of snacks are among other behaviors noted (28–32). Other studies on snacking related to BMI have shown inconsistent results (21,33,34). These inconsistencies may be due to underreporting (35) of energy-dense snack and dessert-type foods (36,37), especially among obese people. Recent research among adults has found a higher BMI is associated with a higher total daily energy intake and a higher energy intake at all eating occasions (38). Moreover, energy intake has been found to increase with snacking frequency in both males and females, irrespective of physical activity. This increase is markedly higher in obese individuals (26). According to these results, increased snacking may be associated with a greater risk of energy imbalance and increased overweight and obesity.

Previous studies among young adults and children reported large increases in snacking frequency and higher contribution of snacking to total energy intake between 1977 and 1994 (28,29). Among U.S. adults, only 1 paper examined this topic and did not find large increases in eating frequency or snacking from 1971 to 2002 (39). This previous study used very precise food- and meal-based measures of snacking and adjusted as much as possible for some measurement differences by linking foods and food composition tables over the full period studied. We examined systematically overall patterns of snacking, shifts in energy intake from snacking, snacking occasions, and energy intake per snacking event. We also examined the shifts in snacking food and beverage sources, in addition to the overall trends of the energy density of snacks and meals.

Previous SectionNext Section

Participants and MethodsSurvey design and sample.

We used data collected from 4 nationally representative surveys of food intake in the U.S. population. The sample selected for analysis consisted of 44,754 adults aged 19 y and older who reported 1 or 2 d of intake. The USDA data come from 17,464 respondents from the 1977–1978 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS)4 77; 8340 from the 1989–1991 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) 89, and 9460 from the 1994–1996 CSFII (CSFII 96). From the NHANES, there were 9490 respondents from 2 consecutive surveys: NHANES 2003–2004 and NHANES 2005–2006 (NHANES 03–06). The USDA and NHANES surveys are based on a multistage, stratified area probability sample of noninstitutionalized U.S. households. Detailed information about each survey and its sampling design has been published previously (40–44). The major difference is that although the NHANES sampling system is nationally representative, it does not represent each region by season and is not randomly distributed over the days of the week as the earlier USDA surveys were (45). By utilizing secondary USDA and NHANES data, we were exempt from institutional review board concerns for this paper.

Dietary data.

All dietary survey data utilized a comparable food composition table and collection methods developed by the USDA. The NFCS 77 and CSFII 89 surveys contain information on dietary intake that was collected over 3 consecutive days using a single interviewer-administered 24-

h recall followed by a self-administered 2-d food record. Dietary data from NFCS 77 and CSFII 89 surveys consisted of all foods eaten at home and away from home during the previous day (24-h recall) and the records of the foods eaten on the day of the interview and the following day (2-d records). The CSFII 1994–96 (CSFII 96) survey collected interviewer-administered 24-h recalls on 2 nonconsecutive days (3–10 d apart). The NHANES 03–06 surveys (a survey integrating USDA dietary methodology into the NHANES system) included 2 nonconsecutive days of 24-h dietary recall data. The d 1 interview is conducted by trained dietary interviewers in the Mobile Examination Center and the d 2 interview is collected by telephone 3–10 d following the Mobile Examination Center interview. For NHANES 03–06, the USDA's Automated Multiple Pass Method, a 5-step computerized dietary recall instrument, was used for collecting 24-h dietary recalls, either in person or by telephone. For our purpose of studying snacking behavior over time, the first 2 d of dietary intake from each survey have been included in this analysis to provide fairly comparable measurement periods and protocols. In the cases where either d 1 or 2 results were not obtained, the individuals with only the other day were included.

Snack vs. meal definitions.

The USDA and NHANES surveys collected information on eating occasions, such as snacks and meals. Each eating occasion was determined by the respondent in each survey. Respondents were asked to name the type of each eating occasion. The time when the eating or drinking event began was recorded for each food or beverage. The snack category included those eating occasions defined by the respondent as “snack,” plus the occasions related to snacking, such as food and/or coffee/beverage breaks. Meals were defined by the respondent as breakfast/brunch, lunch, and dinner/supper. People often consume more than 1 food item when having a snack. Therefore, we combined all snack foods consumed within 15 min of each other as a single snacking occasion. To determine whether participants were snackers or not, we classified them as snackers if they snacked on any day of intake. For those individuals who snacked on d 1 and 2, we computed the contribution of snacking for each day and then averaged these contributions. Also, some people defined foods eaten at the same time as both snack and meal. We changed them all to meal if any were defined as a snack, as in all cases most of the foods were identified as 1 of 3 meals (e.g. eating chips with a lunch). In NCFS 77, CSFII 89, and CSFII 96, we found eating occasions defined as “other” or “no answer.” If a person did not have 3 meals, the missing values were recoded as meals according to the eating time. The remaining eating occasions were assigned to meals if the person did not eat 3 meals. Finally, the remaining missing eating occasions were considered as snacks. In summary, we have set 3 principal meals, if possible, and then we have studied the snacking behavior outside them in all the years surveyed.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill food grouping system.

To determine those food items contributing to energy intake, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) food grouping system was used. This food grouping system links all foods from 1965 to the present. Comparable food composition Latin names and nutrient compositions are used to link the same foods in each food group over time. All the foods reported in the USDA surveys were assigned to the 107 UNC-CH food groups. First, we assigned the major food groupings designated by the USDA and then further classified them according to fat and fiber content. The UNC-CH food grouping system has been previously described (46). For all individuals, the amount of snacking energy provided by each UNC-CH food group was calculated and then divided by the total energy from snacking of all individuals. Those food groups contributing the most to snacking energy intake are reported. Diet soft drinks and sweetened or unsweetened coffee/tea were excluded as snacks from analysis of shifts in energy in the food group analysis. These food items accounted for a very low percent of energy of the total snacking daily energy.

Water as a beverage was collected differently across the surveys. Because plain water was added as a food item in 2003, we determined that water accounted for up to 5% of all the reported foods in 2003–2006 compared to 0% in all the other previous surveys. Water was deleted as a food item in all the years studied.

Statistical analysis.

Data are presented as means ± SE. Snacking trends were studied dividing the population into 3 groups: 19–39 y old, 40–59 y old, and 60 y and older. We used survey commands to account for survey design, weighting, and clustering (47,48). The proportion of adults (19 y and older) consuming 0–2 snacks/d, 3–5 snacks/d, and >6 snacks/d within each sociodemographic characteristic and classified by BMI was determined in NHANES 03–06. The proportion of snackers within each age group by key sociodemographic groups was also determined in NHANES 03–06 but varied little between all subpopulations (Supplemental Table 1). For each survey year, the percentage of individuals who reported snacking on d 1, 2, or both was determined. For snackers, we computed each survey year by age group. We used both the mean number of snacking occasions per day, mean energy intake (kJ and kcal), and g consumed per snacking occasion for this computation. The contribution of snacking to total energy intake was also determined. The energy density of snacks (food and beverages or both) and meals (food and beverages or both) was calculated dividing the total energetic content of each category by the total amount of g consumed from them. Differences testing, by a Student's t test, used STATA, version 10 (47), to weight the results and control SE for sample design effects. A P-value ≤ 0.01 was considered significant.

Previous SectionNext Section

ResultsProportion of adults by snacking groups.

Some sociodemographic characteristics were related to a higher snacking habit defined in terms of number of daily snacking events (Table 1). Males, non-Hispanic Whites, and people with higher income level and education were mainly included in the group with 3–5 snacks/d (P < 0.01). Other descriptive characteristics such as BMI classified a higher proportion of normal and obese individuals in the group of 3–5 snacks/d, although these proportions did not differ from the group of 0–2 snacks/d.

View this table:

In this window In a new window

TABLE 1

Proportion of adults (≥19 y) over a 2-d period by sociodemographic characteristics in the NHANES, 2003–20061–2

Dynamic increases in snacking behavior.

The prevalence of snackers over a 2-d period increased over all adults (≥19 y) from 71% in 1977 to 97% in 2003–2006 (percent of snackers on d 1, 2, or both) (Fig. 1). For the same period and age group, the percentage of snacking on both d 1 and d 2 increased from 42 to 78% (data not shown).

View larger version:

In this page In a new window

Download as PowerPoint Slide

FIGURE 1 

Percent of U.S. individuals consuming snacks over a 2-d period (% of snackers on d 1, 2, or both).

Behavioral changes in snacking habits.

Snacking occasions increased in all adults from 1977–1978 to 2003–2006 (∼1 snack more) (P < 0.01) (Table 2). The middle-aged group (40–59 y) accounted for the highest number of snacks per day in 2003–2006 (2.35 ± 0.03). The age group with >60 y experienced the highest increase in the number of snacks per day, around 1.12 occasions more over the 1977–2006 time period. Regarding the energy intake per snacking event, changes between 1977–1978 and 2003–2006 were significant and large (P < 0.01) (Table 2). We found the largest increase in the energy intake per snacking event in the younger group (19–39 y) between 1977–1978 and 2003–2006 (∼416 kJ more). Moreover, people between 19 and 39 y had more energy per snack than the others in 2003–2006 (1105 ± 20.60 kJ). The total g per snacking occasion increased across all age groups (P < 0.01) and participants aged 19–39 y had the highest amount of g per snacking occasion in 2003–2006 (374 ± 9.78). Finally, for total energy from snacks, the amount increased across all groups between each year (except 1994–2006 for those aged 19–30 y) (P < 0.01).

View this table:

In this window In a new window

TABLE 2

Number of snacks consumed per day and amount and energy consumed per snacking occasion by U.S. individuals from the 1977–1978, 1989–1991, 1994–1996, and 2003–2006 surveys by age group1

The increase in the total percentage of energy intake from snacking occasions in all age groups between 1977 and 2006 was significant (P < 0.01) (Fig. 2). There was also an increase between each time period in all age groups (P < 0.01), except for an insignificant change for young adults in the 1994–2006 time period. The percent of daily energy from snacks increased progressively in adults aged >19 y (∼922 kJ/d more), contributing almost one-fourth of energy intake by 2006. Energy from snacks increased between 6 and 7 percentage points for all age groups over the 1977–2006 time period.

View larger version:

In this page In a new window

Download as PowerPoint Slide

FIGURE 2 

Contribution of snacking to total daily energy intake by year and age group. Numbers within solid dark bars in the bottom represent the mean percent of energy from snacks. *Different from the previous year, P < 0.01; **different between 1977–78 and 2003–06, P < 0.01 (t

test).

Snacking food and nutritional impact.

Table 3 presents the energy density of snacks and meals (foods, beverages, and both combined) in adults. Over the time period studied, we found a significant increasing trend for total snacking (food plus beverages) in all the age groups studied. The energy density of snacking beverages also increased in all the adults aged >19 y. Meals food also showed a significant increasing trend in all the adults for the studied periods.

View this table:

In this window In a new window

TABLE 3

Trends in energy density of meals and snacking (food, beverages, or both) occasions in U.S. adults aged ≥19 y old

The top 5 sources of energy were desserts, salty snacks, other snacks, sweetened beverages, and juices/fruit (Fig. 3). The major increase from 1997–1978 to 2003–2006 was found in low-fat and high-fat salty snacks, with small increases also in candies, nuts/seeds, alcoholic beverages, fruit drinks, and sport drinks. We found decreases for overall desserts (although low-fat desserts increased), milk/dairy, and juices/fruit.

View larger version:

In this page In a new window

Download as PowerPoint Slide

FIGURE 3 

The proportion of snacking energy from food groups in U.S. adults aged 19 y and older. Colored bars represent percents of energy from snacking energy intake. The UNC-CH Food Grouping System was used to select the main food groups. Desserts include cakes, cookies, pies, bars, ice cream, and gelatin desserts. High-fat desserts were defined as those with >5 g fat/100 g of food. Salty snacks include crackers, chips, popcorn, and pretzels. High-fat salty snacks were defined as those with >5 g fat/100 g of food.

Previous SectionNext Section

Discussion

Over the past 2 decades, U.S. adults have steadily increased the number of daily snacking

occasions. The percentage of energy intake from snacking occasions has increased to 24%. Interestingly, our results show significant shifts in snacking between the 1977–1978 period and the mid-1990s and again in the past decade. Not only do we find major increases in snacking behavior, but food sources of snacks have changed. Major shifts toward increased intake of salty snacks, chips, and nuts have occurred along with smaller shifts toward reduced amounts of desserts, dairy products, and fruit.

Snacking occasions and snacking foods for this study are based on a definition that focuses on self-selected snacking events but removes as snacks the foods that were eaten at meals. We also utilize food groups based on foods that are linked over time so the same foods are in the same food groups (48). Nevertheless, we differ from other scholars. For example, one recent study reported across the 4 NHANES surveys [I (1971–1975), II (1976–1980), III (1988–1994), and 1999–2002)] a decline in snacking prevalence (39). That we used only surveys with 2 d of dietary data may have been one reason for the different interpretation. Another may be our exclusion of snack foods such as chips consumed at a meal. NHANES collected only 1 d of dietary intake data before the integration in 2003 with the USDA and a combination of 1 d of direct face-to-face recall with a subsequent telephone interview. Other earlier research, with slightly less restrictive definitions of snacking events, found increased snacking patterns and a higher contribution to total daily energy over the 1977–1996 period (28,29). In a previous survey (mid-1990s) of U.S. individuals aged from 18 to 54 y, <1% reported no snacks (49). By focusing across all adults, utilizing the same food composition table, and using 2 da of dietary data in all time periods, we attempted to provide a more consistent measurement over time.

Small English snacking studies based on mid-1990s data found that adult snacking provided 17–29% of the total daily energy with younger and middle-aged adults consuming a larger proportion of energy from snacks (27,50). Our study, consistent with this last approach, states that the young adults (19–39 y old), and especially the middle-aged adults (40–59 y old), present critical snacking trends as was shown in the last periods (1989–1996 and 1996–2006).

This study is based on nationally representative data and found increased portion sizes in terms of both energy per snacking occasion and g per eating occasion. Our findings are consistent with others that reported increased portion sizes in U.S. surveys (13,14). Higher portion sizes might be linked to increased energy intake (51,52). Another component of possible sources of increased energy intake (along with number of occasions and portion sizes) is energy density, defined as the energy content per g of the eating event (snack or meal) that includes beverages, foods, and both combined (53–55). This study shows important trends toward higher energy density of snacks (meals plus beverages) and meals food over the 1977–2006 period.

There are limitations to our analysis of snacking trends. Different methodologies were used in the dietary surveys, particularly the shift into the 1990s from the 1980s. Subsequent changes have been much smaller. To capture more accurately the total diet, both USDA and NHANES, and later the combined system of the 2003–2006 period, increased the number of passes through the day with repeated queries on what has been eaten in the 1990s. The most important subsequent change, a shift to a second day of dietary intake data for NHANES, started after the merger with the USDA survey system in the 2003–2006 period. The introduction of the multiple pass method in the 1990s may have added additional snacks in that period; however, the methodological changes between the 1990 and most recent data are smaller. Furthermore, the consequences of these methodological changes have not been measured with a bridging study as was done between shifts in methods in the 1970s to the1980s (56). Also, for NHANES in particular, different nutrient databases have been used for each survey. For both, shifts in the measurement and accuracy of data for foods and the changes in the food supply could affect the composition of these nutrient databases. We addressed these food composition table concerns by using the system developed by this UNC team. This allowed us to link food coded and collected in the last survey with foods consumed by respondents in earlier surveys and ensure consistently high-quality estimates of nutrient values over time (57). There were also a different number of days of data collection in each survey. While NFCS 77 and CSFII 89 collected 3 d of intake, in CSFII 96 and NHANES 2003–2006 only 2 d of intake were recorded. Using 3 d of data would create noncomparable

information. Further, the record data for d 3 provides surprisingly distinct and less believable results (only 4% of participants reported snacking on d 3) (28). Selection of comparable 2-d periods seemed the best way to provide comparable data. Using 2 d is a closer approximation of usual intake, although it would be better if these days were always measured randomly many days apart.

We developed a restrictive approach to the definition of snacking. We combined all the snacks consumed within 15 min of each other and we recoded those foods defined as snacks, but eaten as part of a meal, as a meal only. There have been different considerations of snacking, based on the name occasions reported by the participants, and/or counting each snack food eaten at a unique time interval as 1 snacking occasion (39,58). Others defined snacks according to the time of day or type of foods consumed (49,50,59,60). To date, there is no consensus about the snack foods or meal foods definitions. However, we think self-identification of a snacking occasion provides some consistency over time, particularly with the large variance in time at which identified meals are consumed over time and across our age groups.

This study shows important shifts in the number of snacking occasions, foods consumed, and total contribution of snacks to overall energy intake across 3 age groupings of U.S. adults. The implications of these changes for overall energy intake, energy imbalance, and metabolic functioning need to be understood.

Previous SectionNext Section

Acknowledgments

We thank Frances L. Dancy for administrative assistance, Tom Swasey for graphics support, and Phil Bardsley for exceptional assistance in the programming work necessary to create all of these snacking measures and tables. B.P. and C.P. designed and conducted research; C.P. and P.B. analyzed data and performed statistical analysis; B.P. and C.P. wrote the paper; B.P. had primary responsibility for final content. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Previous SectionNext Section

Footnotes

↵ 1 Supported by the NIH (R01-CA109831, R01-CA121152 for B.M.P.) and the University of North Carolina and University Cancer Research Fund (for C.P.).

↵ 2 Author disclosures: C. Piernas and B. M. Popkin, no conflicts of interest.

↵ 3 Supplemental Tables 1 and 2 are available with the online posting of this paper at jn.nutrition.org.

↵ 4 Abbreviations used: CSFII, Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals; NFCS, Nationwide Food Consumption Survey; UNC-CH, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.