how can the consumption of vegetables in europe be increased ?

How canthe consumption of vegetables in Europebe increased ?

Increased consumption of fruit and

vegetables is a major issue for public health and is

the subject of nutritional recommendations throughout

Europe. Yet despite the policies which have been

implemented and the knowledge amongst consumers

regarding the virtues of fruit and vegetables, there is

no way of avoiding the fact: the majority of Europeans

do not follow the recommendations. In Europe, the

average consumption of fruit and vegetables is only

220g per person per day for adults instead of the

400g minimum recommended by the World Health

Organisation (WHO). What are the driving factors

behind this consumption and the obstacles to be

confronted and, most importantly, overcome? For

many years now, numerous measures have been

implemented throughout the EU in response to

!"#"$%&"# '()#$*)+$ ($+",$)"$"--". '/"$# 0* "1'"#$-(0$

increasing the consumption of fruit and vegetables.

Without attempting to deliver a comprehensive

analysis, over the following few pages the Louis

Bonduelle Foundation will present an overview of the

consumption of fruit and vegetables in Europe… and

suggest a few ways by which it might be increased.

Today in Europe, six of the seven major risk factors re-

garding premature death in adults are linked to the way

!"!#$%"&'()*"+'",+-!."/)"()0123"4(!)$"4+)01,5$(+)"+2"2'1($"

and vegetables is associated with these six factors. A re-

vealing statistic: just 27% of European mothers consume

over 400g of these foodstuffs per day, in line with the re-

commendations of the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Of course, this is only an average and there are wide va-

riations, not only between regions, with those in the south

showing better results than those in the north, but also in

terms of individual socio-economic status. Such variations

give an insight into the scale of the problem: there are

multiple determinant factors regarding the consumption of

fruit and vegetables and numerous obstacles. In order to

be effective, action taken to increase consumption must

work on several different levels at the same time.y

«Everyone is aware nowadays that it is advisable to consume

‘at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day’. Consumer

information is not the issue: it is necessary to ask oneself what other

factors are limiting consumption.»

www.fondation-louisbonduelle.org

YU

RI A

RC

UR

S -

FO

TO

LIA

.CO

M

Sustainable evolution

of eating habits

p. 2 - How can the consumption of vegetables in Europe be increased ?www.fondation-louisbonduelle.org

Observations Evolution of the level of fruit and vegetable

consumption

In the majority of countries in Europe, the average

daily consumption of fruit and vegetables has been cal-

416#$!&"#$"7789"5!'"#&16$%"#"3"91'!" :(4:"(0" !66";!6+ "$:!"

WHO recommendations of 400g minimum [1]. For children,

on average they only eat 80g of fruit and vegetables per

day: it is estimated that only between 6% and 24% of them

reach the level recommended by the WHO. But behind this

average we observe a wide variation amongst EU member

states, and also within the various countries themselves.

FRANCE, AN AVERAGE PUPIL REPRESENTATIVE

OF EUROPEAN TRENDS

2001 saw the birth of the PNNS (national programme for

nutrition and health), launched by French authorities, and

$:!"3"'0$"#55!#'#)4!"+2"$:!")+ " !66<*)+ )"'!4+,,!)&#<

tion to “eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per

day”."=#$#" 2'+," $:!"3"'0$" >?@/" A)#$(+)#6" ()&(-(&1#6"&(!$#'B"

consumption) survey, collected between 1998 and 1999,

showed that about 60% of adults then consumed less than

two portions of vegetables and less than one-and-a-half

portions of fruit per day. Eight years later, the INCA 2 sur-

vey carried out between 2006 and 2007 shows that these

consumption levels have remained broadly stable in both

adults and children, although a slight increase in consump-

tion by adult females was observed during the period. Ve-

getable consumption amongst the French has stagnated

at around 170g per person per day for adults and 100g for

children.

But although remaining broadly constant, vegetable

consumption demonstrates many different variability fac-

tors which are to be found in most European countries.

“It is higher in the south of France than in the north, rises

with higher levels of education and varies in line with age,

between generations, according to income, etc.”, explains

Lionel Lafay, the manager of the dietary consumption and

epidemiology monitoring unit at Anses (formerly Afssa), the

French agency for food, environmental and occupational

health and safety. Accordingly, the overall consumption

of fruit and vegetables varies between 280g and 700g per

person per day. This spread is mainly due to the variation

in vegetable consumption which is more pronounced than

for fruit, the end result being that one adult in two is in the

“low consumption” category (i.e. consuming less than two

portions per day, or 160g). Furthermore, while older people

(55-79 years old) consume on average 202g of vegetables

per day, young adults (18-34) consume about one-third

less (133g per day on average).

VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF EUROPE

Let us now turn to the variations across Europe in fruit

and vegetable consumption. Dietary reports by the Uni-

ted Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),

which present the observable total consumption of fruit

and vegetables, highlight the large differences

National recommendations for the

consumption of fruit and vegetables

vary considerably from one European

region to another. Many countries have

opted for a combined recommended

consumption of fruit and vegetables,

without distinguishing between the two,

of between 3-5 portions per day and

5-9 portions per day. On the other hand,

some countries do differentiate between

fruit and vegetables. Whatever the situa-

tion, many countries, like France, lead

a national campaign to encourage the

consumption of fruit and vegetables:

“5-a-day” in the UK, “6 om dagen” in

Denmark, “5 am Tag” in Germany, “2 +

2 a day” in the Netherlands, etc. “Howe-

ver, target levels for fruit and vegetable

consumption in the national nutrition po-

licies of certain Nordic and Western Eu-

ropean countries are too low ”, bemoans

Laura Fernandez-Celemin, the manager

!"#$%&'()&*#%#+ +&"$#+)#,-./0#1,2"!3'+(#

Food Information Council).

As reported at the Louis Bonduelle Founda-

tion Conference, Paris, June 2010.

Recommendations are not always consistent across Europe

Due to their nutritional make-up, vegetables are a

weak source of calories and fat and make a significant

contribution to the intake of fibre and micronutrients.

45'6# +"'# )5'# 7+&(# $!2"%'# ! # &8"'# &(# %5&9:"'(# 1;<=>#

+(:#)5'#$'%!(:#&(#+:29)$#1;?=>#+ )'"#8"'+:#3"!:2%)$@#

At the same time, they are the main source of beta-

carotene and vitamin B9 for both adults and children.

They are also one of the five main sources for B1,

B5, B6 and C vitamin intake in adults. And finally, ve-

getables are the number one source of potassium in

+:29)$# 1)5'# )5&":# &(# %5&9:"'(># +(:# +"'# &(# )5'# )!3# &A'#

for copper, iron, magnesium and manganese for both

+:29)$# +(:# %5&9:"'(@# 45'6# +9$!# %!()"&82)'# <=#! # )5'#

adult calcium intake.

As reported at the Louis Bonduelle Foundation Conference,

Paris, June 2010.

Nutritional intake from vegetables

amongst the French population

>>

How can the consumption of vegetables in Europe be increased ? - p. 3 www.fondation-louisbonduelle.org

DUTOURDUMONDE - FOTOLIA.COM

In Poland, in adults the daily consumption of vegetables

amounts to 295g and 282g for fruit.

In the UK, the average consumption of fruit and vege-

)+89'$# !"#6!2(B#C!7'(#&$#D@;#3!")&!($#1E<FB>#3'"#:+6@

In Portugal, children consume 112g of vegetables per

:+6G# <<=# &(# )5'# !"7# ! # $!23G# +$# +B+&($)# H2$)# <IB# &(#

Spain and 80g in France.

##/(#J!7+(&+G# KI=#! # +:29)$# %!($27'# 9'$$# )5+(#KFB#! #

fruit and vegetables per day.

The average amount of processed fruit and vegetables

consumed is 26g per person per day in France, as

+B+&($)#<LB#&(#/)+96#+(:#IB#&(#063"2$@

As reported at the Louis Bonduelle Foundation Conference, Pa-

ris, June 2010, and the EGEA Conference in Brussels, May 2010.

A few consumption

statistics by country

between countries in the south of Europe, who show

high consumption levels, and the countries in the north

and east of Europe who have low consumption levels.

The EPIC study, carried out at 27 health centres spread

#4'+00"$!)"&(22!'!)$"C1'+5!#)"4+1)$'(!0%"4+)3',0"$:#$"$:!"

consumption of fruit and vegetables is highest in Mediter-

ranean countries and that the lowest consumption levels

are recorded in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, in both

men and women [2]. This north-south divide in Europe is

4+)3',!&";B"$:!"=/D?C"0$1&B%";#0!&"+)":+10!:+6&"51'-

chases [3]. However, consumption studies carried out in

the Scandinavian countries such as the Monica study in

Sweden [4], the AVTK survey in Finland [5] or the national

individual dietary consumption study in Denmark [6], show

an increase in the consumption of fruit and vegetables in

these traditionally low consumption countries. In the long

term, the north-south divide may shrink if this trend per-

sists.

Furthermore, while the consumption of fruit and ve-

getables remains too low in most EU countries, this is

particularly true amongst the lowest income groups. For

example, the daily consumption of fruit and vegetables

for people at the lower end of the income scale in France

is just 2.1 portions (1.2 portions of fruit and 0.9 of vege-

tables, a total of 170g) [7], and is just below 2.5 portions

(200g) in the UK, where only 9% of young women follow

the recommendations [8].z

>>

“Everyone is aware nowadays that it is advisable

to consume ‘at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables

per day.’ Consumer information is not the issue: it is

necessary to ask oneself what other factors are limiting

consumption”, observes Prof. Pierre Combris. Experts

are beginning to understand these factors. Age, sex and

socio-economic status must be combined with other de-

terminants, such as food preferences, culinary knowle-

dge and skill, and product accessibility. And without for-

getting other personal factors such as time constraints,

personal values, the concept of a balanced diet or a lack

of control over one’s diet. Added to this are factors lin-

ked to the social environment such as other people’s

attitudes, social pressure or family mealtime ha-

Determinants and obstacles

to the consumption of fruit and vegetable

>>


of eating habits


Not all countries in Europe share the position where

people with high levels of education eat more vege-

tables than those in lower socio-economic groups. A

Finnish team [22] compared the relationship between

socio-economic status and consumption of vege-

)+89'$# &(# (&('# ,-# %!2()"&'$# 1M'"7+(6G# N'(7+"OG#

Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Latvia and Li-

thuania). In France, Italy and Spain, the level of edu-

cation turns out to reveal little about the consumption

of vegetables: those with the highest qualifications

consume slightly fewer vegetables than the rest. On

the other hand, in the Nordic and Baltic countries, the

relationship is a strong one and, conversely, those

with the highest qualifications are daily consumers

of vegetables. These results suggest that a positive

association between the level of education and the

consumption of vegetables is dependent on the avai-

lability and accessibility of vegetables. In fact, it is in

those countries where there is a low availability and a

high price of vegetables that the level of education is

a positive influence on consumption.

Variable determinantsaccording to context

bits, all of which influence dietary preferences and

guide dietary choices and behaviour [9]. And while the

consumption of fruit and vegetables is stagnating des-

pite public promotional campaigns about nutrition and

health, it must be concluded that a number of obstacles

lay behind these factors.

AGE AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION:

TWO KEY FACTORS

According to data collected in France by TNS World-

panel in 2007, the variables which have the greatest ef-

fect on vegetable consumption are age and household

composition. Regarding the second of these factors, in

France we can observe that families with children and

single men consume fewer vegetables than single wo-

men and couples without children [10]. As for age, with

adults there is a positive correlation between the quanti-

ties and the type of fruit and vegetables consumed. “The

effect of age is more marked in the case of fresh fruit and

vegetables than for tinned and frozen produce, but the

graphs show very similar evolution patterns: consump-

tion increases consistently until about 60-65 and then

falls off”, says Prof. Combris. “The important point is to

make a clear distinction between life cycle effects and

those which are generational: at the same age, the youn-

ger generations now consume fewer fruit and vegetables,

especially fresh produce, than preceding generations.”

And these age and generation related effects are not only

observed in France. In the United Kingdom [11] and also

in Sweden [12], for example, we can observe a lower

consumption of fruit and vegetables by young adults than

by older people. Accordingly, if today’s young Europeans

maintain their specific dietary habits, their consumption

of fruit and vegetables will remain much lower than that

of preceding generations. It is therefore vital to combat

this long-term trend towards a significant reduction in the

average consumption level of these healthy foodstuffs.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS: A DETERMINANT

OF THE CONSUMPTION OF FRESH VEGETABLES

The socio-economic status of the household, namely its

income and educational level, also constitutes a strong

determinant of the quantity and variety of vegetables

consumed [13-14]. Purchasing data for French house-

holds by TNS Worldpanel 2007 reveals that 15% of the ri-

chest households buy more than 12kg of extra vegetables

per person per year compared to the poorer households

(the average amount of vegetables - fresh and processed

excluding potatoes – consumed being 64kg per person

per year) [10]. But this effect of socio-economic status

is not the same for all types of vegetables. With the help

of this data, a team at INRA has attempted to assess

whether the consumption of fresh and processed vege-

tables is governed by the same determinants [10]. The

result: the consumption of fresh vegetables follows the

same determinants as vegetables in total (namely age,

household structure and income), while the purchase

of processed products remains at similar levels for all

households. So it is the consumption of fresh vege-

tables which determines the main differences in the to-

tal consumption of vegetables, even though researchers

discovered a reduction in the proportion of processed

vegetables linked with the advance of age, and also with

higher income and higher qualifications.

Fact: processed products have been adapted to consump-

tion habits and pricing trends have put fresh products at a

disadvantage. “Between 1960 and 2005, the price of fresh

A'B')+89'$#&(%"'+$':#IF=#7!"'#)5+(#)5'#+A'"+B'#3"&%'#! #

!!:$)2 $G#C5&9'#3"!%'$$':#A'B')+89'$# "':2%':#86#IF=#

compared to this average”, explains Prof. Pierre Combris.

As a result, “fresh fruit and vegetables have now become

a real ‘social indicator’ ”, the researcher notes.

But beware. Although many countries in Europe confirm

this trend [15-16], it cannot be generalised to include

countries with high levels of fruit or vegetable produc-

tion, such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Poland and Hun-

gary, where the highest levels of consumption are to be

found. In these countries it is even possible to observe

the opposite trend, namely higher consumption of fruit

and vegetables amongst those of low socio-economic

status [9].

BETWEEN RATIONAL CHOICE

AND EMOTIONAL NEED…

To the effects of age, generation, household composi-

tion and socio-economic status we must add those fac-

tors associated with the individual or the products. >>

>>


MBT_STUDIO - FOTOLIA.COM

Increasing the consumption of fruit and vege-tables is a public health priority and therefore consti-

tutes the main objective of numerous initiatives across

Europe. Practical experience has highlighted a number of

key elements in terms of the effectiveness of such inter-

ventions. Accordingly, conclusions from the INRA collec-

tive scientific assessment suggest an effective approach

is “an approach which takes different components into

account, based not only on personal factors but also on

variations in the living space and social environment of

the target group, the support and commitment shown by

decision-makers and representatives of the target popu-

lation regarding the planning and implementation of the

initiative, and its durability over the long term.” [9].

Interventions Removing obstacles to consumption

ACTION AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

A number of strategies can be used to encourage be-

:#-(+1'#6" 4:#)9!." E:!" 3'0$" $B5!" +2" #55'+#4:" 4+)0(0$0" +2"

playing on consumer preferences and motivations. It in-

volves initiatives in the areas of nutritional education, infor-

mation marketing and “5-a-day” campaigns which aim to

increase consumer demand. Experience shows that they

play a positive role by improving the understanding and

perception of fruit and vegetables. However, “they are not

able to overcome all obstacles to consumption”, observes

Prof. Combris. And the reason: they do not take into ac-

count the fact that individual determinants of consumption

(knowledge, intentions, attitudes, motivations) and fac-

tors linked to social environment play an equally im-

>>

>>

Amongst product-related factors, we think first of all

of price. Compared to that of many energy-rich foods-

tuffs which provide sugars and fats at the same time as

giving immediate satisfaction, the price level of fruit and

vegetables puts them at a disadvantage, which may part-

ly explain the low consumption amongst the poor. And,

because what we decide to eat is not determined simply

by our physiological or nutritional requirements, choo-

sing often presents a dilemma between reason, which

demands a fruit salad, and emotion, which encourages

you to succumb to a chocolate cake.

Much more than the price of the product, where sensiti-

vity is affected by hedonistic and social factors [ 17], it is

the “cost/sacrifice” relationship which plays a role in our

motivation to consume more fruit and vegetables. Within

the “cost/sacrifice” balance the senses also play a part,

including bitterness [18] and the cooking odours of some

vegetables [19], which have been clearly identified as

presenting a barrier to consumption. And finally, another

factor in the equation: time, which not only includes the

time available to the consumer, often put forward as a

barrier to the consumption of fruit and vegetables [20],

but also the amount of time the product can be kept for.

Accordingly, alongside shopping habits and the consu-

mer’s storage facilities, the perishability of the product

may also present an obstacle to the act of purchase [21].

>)" $:!" 4+66!4$(-!" 04(!)$(34" #00!00,!)$" 4#''(!&" +1$" ;B"

INRA [9], Patricia Gurviez, a lecturer in marketing and

consumer behaviour at AgroParisTech, sums up the situa-

tion as follows: “It can be stated that for many consumers

in the West, fruit and vegetables are neither cheap, prac-

tical, convenient nor easy to store, and are also perceived

as time-consuming to buy and cook, and require a certain

know-how.” z


of eating habits


The younger generations represent the target of

choice for nutritional initiatives, but why? Firstly,

because they often steer clear of vegetables due to

their sensory properties and low energy value, conse-

quently there is a high risk of the young falling short of

their micronutrient requirements. Secondly, because

dietary habits and preferences are formed in early

childhood, especially in terms of fruit and vegetable

consumption: people who consume most vegetables

during childhood are also those who consume most

in adolescence and adulthood. And lastly, for young

children to accept vegetables, nothing beats repeated

exposure, both during and after introduction to solid

!!:$#PDIQ@#

Why target the young? portant role. Accordingly, nutritional education, irres-

pective of the duration of the initiative and the arguments

used (whether positive or moralising) rarely lead to real

behavioural change [23-24]. The impact of such initiatives

proves even less effective amongst lower income groups

who are unable to implement the recommendations due

to their dietary habits, the constraints of their environment

and their income levels [23].

As for informational marketing tools (dietary pyramids, nu-

trition labels, targeted advertising, promotion of “5-a-day”,

etc.), they all suffer from a major weakness: the recommen-

dations tend to seem unrealistic for the people in ques-

$(+)"F7GH."D+'"21$1'!"'!2!'!)4!%"+)!"0:+16&")+$!"$:!";!)!3"$0"

of culturally-targeted information [26], of varied angles of

attack [27], of promoting consumption frequency rather

than portion size [28] and of leading separate campaigns

for vegetables and fruit [3].

LEADING TARGETED CAMPAIGNS

One way of improving the effectiveness of such initiatives

is to lead nutrition policy campaigns targeted for example

at an age range or a vulnerable subpopulation, and at local

6!-!6%"!.9."#$"#"05!4(3"4"04:++6"+'" ($:()"#"5#'$(416#'"4+,,1<

nity. The objective remains to stimulate demand through

information and education, but such targeting also has a

5#'$(416#'";!)!3"$I"($"!)#;6!0"#)"()&(-(&1#6J0"!)-('+),!)$"$+"

;!"4:#)9!&";B"()K"1!)4()9"$:!"#44!00(;(6($B"$+"5'+&14$0."

In view of the importance of the socio-economic determinant

and the low consumption of fruit and vegetables amongst

vulnerable groups, it is important that they receive priority

treatment as part of such initiatives. In France, one study

therefore assessed the impact on a disadvantaged group gi-

ven “Fruit and vegetable vouchers” [7]. The results demons-

trate the possibility, using this method, of reducing the pro-

portion of consumers with very low consumption of fruit and

vegetables, namely those eating less than one portion a day.

/0"$:!0!"()($(#$(-!0"#'!"-!'B"4+0$6B%"$:!"05!4(3"4"$#'9!$()9"+2"

consumers with the greatest need opens up interesting pos-

sibilities. Similarly, in the UK the Healthy Start Programme

concentrated mainly on women with low incomes, either

pregnant or with young children. The assessment showed

a positive impact: an increase in consumption of fruit and

vegetables to 3.3 portions per day on average, with 18% of

;!)!3"4(#'(!0"'!#4:()9"'!4+,,!)&!&"6!-!60"F7LH."

One other priority target group: the younger generations. To

this end, the school environment constitutes a special acti-

vity area, whether for nutritional education initiatives, for the

distribution of fruit and vegetables, or for introducing garde-

ning projects. Amongst activities carried out with children,

we can cite the ProChildren project which targets children

between the ages of 11-12 in nine European countries. The

chosen tools: the distribution of fruit and vegetables in scho-

ols, the organisation of class-based workshops, the distri-

bution of customised information by computer and activities

to be performed at home within the family environment. The

'!016$0"0:+ !&"#"0(9)(3"4#)$"()4'!#0!"()"$:!"4+)01,5$(+)"+2"

fruit and vegetables, an increase which was maintained one

year after the study, and the importance of the availability of

fruit and vegetables at home [30].

N2"&(B#)5'#$'%!(:#(+)&!(+9#&(:&A&:2+9# !!:#%!($273)&!(#$)2:6#1/R0S#E>#%+""&':#!2)#&(#."+(%'#8')C''(#EFFLTEFFUG#

a series of questions was put to participants to assess the extent of food insecurity and to characterise those who

!2(:#)5'7$'9A'$#&(#$2%5#+#3!$&)&!(#PDDQ@#45'#"'$29)V#;E@E#=#! #3'!39'#&(#."+(%'#C'"'#+$$'$$':#+$#8'&(B#&(#+#3!$&)&!(#

of food insecurity, namely that they experience inadequate access in terms of quality or quantity to a healthy and

acceptable diet. Even if such people do not always have a low income, they are confronted with extremely difficult

financial challenges. Their consumption of fruit and vegetables is even lower than those from the low income group

C5!#:!#(!)# +99#2(:'"#)5'#%+)'B!"6#! # !!:# &($'%2"&)6G#(+7'96#EU<B#+(:#DEFB#! # "2&)#+(:#A'B')+89'$#"'$3'%)&A'96#

per day. Their diet shows an energy-rich intake which is higher than the rest of the sample group and one which is

(2)"&)&!(+996#2(8+9+(%':@#.2")5'"7!"'G#)5&$#;E@E#=#"'3"'$'()$#!A'"#U@<#7&99&!(#3'!39'#&(#."+(%'G#+$#+B+&($)#)5'#E@D#

million who receive assistance from the various food charities and organisations, and equates to over five million

people experiencing high dietary vulnerability who do not receive any assistance at all. From which arises the neces-

sity to take action for those who do not benefit from assistance in order to reach everyone who finds themselves in

a position of food insecurity.

12,2 % of people in France are in a position of food insecurity

>>

>>


MONKEY BUSINESS - FOTOLIA.COM

In order to increase the consumption of fruit and vege-

tables, some companies, such as the Dutch cooperative

Hoogsteder, are developing more attractive products for

the consumer. Based on the observation that consumers

are never attracted by a product if they don’t know how

ripe it is or how to prepare it, and often make impulsive

purchases based on their own experiences, the cooperative

has developed a range of fully ripe fruit. These come under

the category of ready-to-eat foodstuffs and help to guide

consumers as they make their purchases. But this way of

marketing products has its limits: it is only suitable for a

9&7&)':#(278'"#! #3"!:2%)$#1'W!)&%# "2&)$G#3'+"$G#3'+%5'$G#

etc.), mainly affects only customers of the large supermarket

chains and suffers from higher prices.

Source: “Nutrition & Health Village” conference during SIAL,

Paris, October 2010.

Innovative ways of improving productsFurthermore, a study performed in Norway highlights

the importance during such initiatives of the free distribu-

tion of produce in order to encourage the involvement of

the most disadvantaged groups [31]. Accordingly, in the

United States, a pilot programme introduced by the USDA

AM)($!&"N$#$!0"=!5#'$,!)$" +2" /9'(416$1'!O" ;!)!3$!&" 2'+,"

six million dollars for the school year 2002/2003. The ob-

jective: to encourage the consumption of fresh fruit and

vegetables in 107 primary and secondary schools in four

0$#$!0" ($:"#)"!P5!)&($1'!"+2"QLR"5!'"515(6."E:(0"0(9)(34#)$"

subsidy, combined with the strong commitment of the pu-

pils, parents, head teachers and teachers, as well as that

of the catering staff, all contributed to the programme’s

success [32].

VARIETY OF PRODUCE

/)&"3)#66B%"+)!"+$:!'" #B"+2"()4'!#0()9"$:!"4+)01,5$(+)"+2"

fruit and vegetables: greater product variety. To this end,

everyone involved in the sector (producers, processors,

distributors) has their own distinctive role to play: improve

the sensory and nutritional properties of the produce; make

them easier to use by adapting them to consumer behaviour

and habits; and all the while making sure they are affordable.

But the complexity lies in combining these three rules.

Accordingly, fruit and vegetables can be adapted to snac-

king trends, with healthy products which can be consu-

med without cutlery and between meals. But while this ap-

proach may work in the Netherlands and Germany where

the availability of fruit and vegetable snacks for consump-

tion in the middle of the day has become fairly common-

place over recent years, this concept has not been so easy

to establish in France. Several trials have been set up, but

only destalked radishes have met with any success. Price

probably remains a barrier. We can therefore see the im-

portance of always adapting the product to the culture of

the country and the context in which it is marketed: where

raw fresh vegetables are a luxury, their promotion has

less impact on buying patterns than in producer countries

where they are generally more affordable. Another solution

>>

to encourage the purchase of fruit and vegetables is to

adapt the packaging to the modern family unit, in order to

reduce waste and reduce the price. There is therefore an

enormous amount of work to be done, but it is worth the

!22+'$%" #0";B" '!,+-()9"0!)0+'B";#''(!'0"#)&"&(23416$(!0"+2"

utilisation, according to Prof. Combris, “in the long term,

innovation in terms of variety and product remain the most

promising avenues for adapting the fruit and vegetables on

offer to the tastes and practices of the consumer.”

In summary, to increase the consumption of fruit and ve-

getables, products must be available everywhere and ac-

cessible in all senses of the word: physically present, at

affordable prices, and people must know how to use them,

all of which involves them becoming part of their normal

repertoire of foodstuffs which can then be integrated into

their diet. Accordingly, it is not enough to simply improve

access to fruit and vegetables, consumers need support.z

[1] Elmadfa I et al. European Nutrition

and Health Report 2009 (Forum of Nu-

trition). http://www.univie.ac.at/enhr/

downloads/enhrii_book.pdf (consulté

en janvier 2011).

[2] Agudo A et al. 2002. Consumption of

vegetables, fruit and other plant foods

in the European Prospective Investiga-

tion into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)

cohorts from 10 European countries.

Public Health Nutrition 5(6b) : 1179-96.

[3] Naska A et al. 2000. Fruit and ve-

getable availability among ten

European countries: how does it

4+,5#'!" ($:" $:!" S3"-!<#<&#BJ" '!<

commendation? British Journal of

Nutrition 84(4) : 549-56.

[4] Krachler B et al. 2005. Trends in food

intakes in Swedish adults 1986-1999:

3")&()90" 2'+," $:!" ?+'$:!')" N !&!)"

MONICA (Monitoring of Trends and

Determinants in Cardiovascular Di-

sease) Study. Public Health Nutrition

8(6) : 628-35.

[5] Prättälä R. 2003. Dietary changes in

Finland, success stories and future

challenge. Appetite 41(3) : 245-9.

[6] DFVF, 2005. Danskernes kostvaner

2000-2002, Hovedresultater, Dan-

marks Fodevareforskning, DFVF, pu-

blikation (11), Soborg, Danmark,165 p.

[7] Bihan et al. 2010. Distribution de

chèques fruits et légumes : faisabilité

et impact. La santé de l’Homme (Revue

de l’INPES).

[8] Low Income Diet and Nutrition Survey

(2008). http://www.food.gov.uk/multi-

media/pdfs/lidnssummary.pdf (consul-

té en janvier 2011).

[9] Les fruits et légumes dans l'alimen-

tation : enjeux et déterminants de la

consommation. Rapport de l'expertise

04(!)$(3"T1!"4+66!4$(-!",!)U!"5#'"6V>)'#"

à la demande du ministère de l'Agri-

culture et de la Pêche (2007), France,

371 p.

[10] Plessz M, gojard S. La consommation

de légumes des ménages français :

préparation domestique ou achats de

produits transformés. Aliss Working

Papers (2010), 2010-07, 24 p.

[11] Henderson VR, Kelly B. 2005. Food

advertising in the age of obesity:

Content analysis of food advertising

on general market and African Ame-

rican television. Journal of Nutrition

,:2%+)&!(#+(:#X'5+A&!"#DU(4) : 191-6.

[12] Livsmedelsverket. 2002. Riksmaten

1997-98, Kostvanor och näringsintag

i Sverige, Metod- och resultatanalys.

Livsmedelsverket, National Food Ad-

ministration, Uppsala, Sweden.

[13] Chambolle M et al. 1999. Study of

food diversity in France. Cahiers

de Nutrition et de Diététique 34(6) :

362-8.

[14] Caillavet F, Combris P, Perchard S.

2002. L'alimentation des ménages à

bas revenu en France. Alimentation et

Précarité 16 : 8-16.

[15] Kamphuis CBM et al. 2006. Environ-

mental determinants of fruit and ve-

getable consumption among adults:

a systematic review. British Journal of

Nutrition 96(4) : 620-35.

[16] Giskes K et al. 2006. A multilevel

study of socioeconomic inequalities

in food choice behaviour and dietary

intake among the Dutch population:

the GLOBE study. Public Health Nu-

trition 9(1) : 75-83.

FWXH""Y#*!3"!6&" Z[%" >),#)" \\." 788]." N(<

tuational price sensitivity: the role

of consumption occasion, social

context and income. Journal of Retai-

ling 79(4) : 199-212.

[18] Drewnowski A, gomez-Carneros C.

2000. Bitter taste, phytonutrients,

and the consumer: a review. Ameri-

can Journal of Clinical Nutrition 72(6) :

1424-35.

[19] Engel E, Martin N, Issanchou S. 2006.

Sensitivity to allyl isothiocyanate, di-

,!$:B6"$'(0163"&!%"0()(9'()%"#)&"4++*!&"

4#16(K"+ !'" 4+)01,5$(+)." Appetite

46(3) : 263-9.

[20] Moreau-Rio MA. 2002. Les fruits et

légumes frais vus par le consomma-

teur, Un capital de sympathie entamé

par les critiques. /( !$T0)&Y##186 : 24-7.

[21] Anderson AS et al." WLL^." E#*!" 3"-!%"

a nutrition education intervention to

increase fruit and vegetable intakes:

impact on attitudes towards dietary

change. British Journal of Nutrition

80(2) : 133-40.

[22] Prättälä R et al. 2009. Associa-

tion between educational level and

vegetable use in nine European

countries. Public Health Nutrition

12(11) : 2174-82.

[23] Attree P. 2006. A critical analysis of

UK public health policies in relation

to diet and nutrition in low-income

households. Maternal and Child Nu-

trition 2(2) : 67-78.

[24] Steenhuis I et al. 2004. The impact of

educational and environmental inter-

ventions in Dutch worksite cafeterias.

Health Promotion International 19(3) :

335-43.

[25] Ball K, Crawford D, Warren N. 2004.

How feasible are healthy eating and

physical activity for Young women?

Public Health Nutrition 7(3) : 433-41.

[26] Friel S et al. 1999. Evaluation of the

Nutrition Education at Primary School

(NEAPS) programme. Public Health

Nutrition 2(4) : 549-55.

[27] Hunt MK et al. 2000. Process tracking

results from the Treatwell 5-a-day

worksite study. American Journal of

Health Promotion 14(3) : 179-87.

[28] Krebs-Smith S et al. 1995. Psychoso-

cial factors associated with fruit and

vegetable consumption. American

Journal of Health Promotion 10(2) :

98-104.

[29] Ford FA et al. 2009. Effect of the intro-

duction of 'Healthy Start' on dietary

behaviour during and after pregnan-

cy: early results from the 'before and

#2$!'V"N:!23"!6&" 0$1&B."British Journal

of Nutrition 101(12) : 1828-36.

F]8H""E!"_!6&!"N\"et al. 2008. Effects of a

comprehensive fruit- and vegetable-

promoting school-based intervention

in three European countries: the Pro

Children Study. British Journal of Nu-

trition 99(4) : 893-903.

[31] Bere et al. 2007. Free School Fruit--

sustained effect three years later. In-

ternational Journal of Behavioral Nu-

trition and Physical Activity 4 : 5.

F]7H""̀ 1a;B"\%"91$:'(!"\."788R."E:!"MN=/"

Fruit and Vegetable pilot program

evaluation. Agriculture Information

Bulletin (792-6), 31 p.

[33] Darmon N et al. L’insécurité alimen-

$#('!" 5+1'" '#(0+)0" 3")#)4(b'!0" !)"

France. Lettre de l’Observatoire na-

tional de la pauvreté et de l’exclusion

sociale (ONPES), 4 juin 2010, 6 p.

[34] How can we make children like vege-

tables ? Publication of the Fondation

Louis Bonduelle." \#)-(!'" 78W8%" ^" 5."

available on www.fondation-louis-

bonduelle.org.

References

www.fondation-louisbonduelle.org


of eating habits