Smarter Lunchrooms Movement: Low-Cost, No-Cost Changes Brian Wansink, Ph.D. Dyson School of Applied Economics & Management ©Wansink 2013
Smarter Lunchrooms Movement:
Low-Cost, No-Cost Changes
Brian Wansink, Ph.D.
Dyson School of Applied Economics
& Management
©Wansink 2013
The Smarter Lunchroom Movement
I’ll talk about 5 students & 3 MYTHS (Chapters 2-3) that lead us to unknowingly bias what and how much we eat.
I’ll show how this relates to The Smarter Lunchroom Initiative
I’ll tie this all together in 1 slide
©Wansink 2013
To Discover and Uncover Our
Food Traps and to Change Them
Who? Post-Docs Sabbatical/Visiting professors Interdisciplinary Grad students Undergrads (max of 2 per field) Summer Interns & exchange students
How?
• Lab (psych) experiments
• Field studies
• Surveys
• Consumer panels
• Data-base mining
• “Hidden” In-kitchen cameras
©Wansink 2013
Eating Myth #1
“Surely something as basic as the size of a
bowl wouldn’t influence how much an
informed intelligent person eats.”
©Wansink 2013
Would Big Bowls Lead Us to Eat More
Even If We Didn’t Like the Food?
The Field Study (Chicago, IL)
– 168 Moviegoers to Mel Gibson’s “Payback”
– Free (preweighed) popcorn (“Illinois History Month”) • Large or X-Large Popcorn (pre-weighed)
• Fresh or 5-day-old Popcorn
– After the movie . . . • Asked how much they thought they ate
• Weighed the remaining popcorn
Wansink, Brian and Junyong Kim (2005), “Bad Popcorn in Big Buckets:
Portion Size Can Influence Intake as Much as Taste, “ Journal of Nutrition
Education and Behavior, 37, 112-120..
©Wansink 2013
Taste is Important,
But Size Matters -- a Lot • People ate 45% more fresh
popcorn from the extra-large containers than large ones
But . . .
• They even when the popcorn was stale, they ate 34% more from the extra-large buckets
• The danger? They don’t realize they do it -- “Not me”
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Large
Bucket
Extra-
Large
Bucket
Fresh
5 DaysOld
Wansink, Brian and Junyong Kim (2005), “Bad Popcorn in Big Buckets:
Portion Size Can Influence Intake as Much as Taste, “ Journal of Nutrition
Education and Behavior, 37, 112-120.. ©Wansink 2013
When Does This Begin?
©Wansink 2013
When Does This Begin?
©Wansink 2013
At Age 4, Larger Bowls Led Kids of All Weights to Serve
More
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
18.9 20.0 23.6 49.6 65.7 70.5 73.1 77.7 81.9 82.1 85.7 88.8 97.6 98.5
Small Bowl
Large Bowl
Amount
of Cereal
Requeste
d (grams)
BMI Percentiles
(Adjusted for Age and Sex)
©Wansink 2013
Eating Myth #2
“OK, so people serve more from
big bowls and plates and wide
glasses.
“At least they know when they
are full and they can stop before
they overeat” ©Wansink 2013
Would You Keep Eating
if Your Bowl Never Emptied?
• “Clean Plate Club” -- Some people use empty bowls & plates as a cue they’re done eating
– If bowl isn’t empty, they keep eating
– What if it never empties?
• We Designed a Bottomless Bowl – Brought in sixty adults for a free lunch
– Half got 22 oz normal bowls;
half got 22 oz bottomless bowls
– Pressure-fed under the table, slowly refills
– What does this look like?
Wansink, Brian, James E. Painter, and Jill North (2005), “Bottomless
Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake,” Obesity
Research,13:1 (January), 93-100. ©Wansink 2013
Would You Keep Eating
if Your Bowl Never Emptied?
Bowl is filled through this tube
This valve links soup
bowl to 6 quart pot
of hot soup
Wansink, Brian, James E. Painter, and Jill North (2005), “Bottomless
Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake,” Obesity
Research,13:1 (January), 93-100. ©Wansink 2013
Bottomless Soup Bowls
Lead to Bottomless Appetites
• Results: – People kept eating; Ate 73% more until
stopping
– Yet, they didn’t think they ate more.
• Lesson: – Eye it, dish it, eat it
– Don’t rely only on stomach to tell us when we’re full -- it can “lie”
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
22 oz
Bowl
Bottom-
less
Oz Eaten
Oz Estimated
Wansink, Brian, James E. Painter, and Jill North (2005), “Bottomless
Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake,” Obesity
Research,13:1 (January), 93-100. ©Wansink 2013
Eating Myth #3
“We Know What We Like”
©Wansink 2013
We Taste What We Think Well Taste
• Taste suggestibility & soy
– Soy vs. Textured Vegetable Protein vs. control
©Wansink 2013
“How Can You Make People Think Our Cafeteria’s Healthy Food Tastes Good?”
• Improve Perceptions of Cafeteria Food?
– Test Cafeteria -- Bevier Cafe
– Descriptive vs. non-descriptive labels
– 6 weeks: 6 products
– Self-selected
– Evaluations after dining
• Will there be a Benefit or a Backfire?
– Benefit --> Wow . . . I feel like I’m in Brussels!
– Backfire --> I’m disappointed …this is dry chocolate cake
Seafood filet
Chocolate Cake
Succulent Italian
Seafood filet
Belgium Black Forest
Chocolate Cake
Wansink, Brian, Koert van Ittersum, and James E. Painter (2005), “How
Descriptive Food Names Bias Sensory Perceptions in Restaurants,”
Food Quality and Preference, 16:5, 393-400. ©Wansink 2013
“People know what they like” --> Maybe Not
• We taste what we think we will taste -- descriptive foods “taste” better
– Better taste, better texture,
• Yummy name = yummy taste
– Must sound good to taste good
– Did the McLean sound good?
• Can changing names change taste
– Summer Camp study
– “Power peas” & “Rainforest smoothie”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Descriptive
Label
Plain Label
Taste
Texture
Calories
Wansink, Brian, Koert van Ittersum, and James E. Painter (2005), “How
Descriptive Food Names Bias Sensory Perceptions in Restaurants,”
Food Quality and Preference, 16:5, 393-400. ©Wansink 2013
As Fine as North Dakota Wine • Spice Box Restaurant
– 117 diners; Pre Fix Meal --> $21 – Tonight only -- Free glass of wine! – SAME WINE but 2 labels
• Wine from California • Wine from North Dakota
– Post-meal measures • Wine & meal taste + consumption
• What will happen? – CA wine is usually good --> Halo Effect or – ND wine is actually better than I expected --> Positive Boomerang
North Dakota
Wine
California
Wine
Wansink, Brian, Koert van Ittersum, and James E. Painter (2005), “How Descriptive Food
Names Bias Sensory Perceptions in Restaurants,” Food Quality and Preference, 16:5, 393-400. ©Wansink 2013
I Wish They All Could be California Wines
• Wine Labels Influence Taste – Halo Effects
– Taste follows expectations
– Has a carry-over effect on food intake
– Oddly enough, buying the “wine with the ‘purdy’ label” might make sense
• Caveats – People of low to moderate expertise
• “Hey, some wise guy put a
cork in this wine bottle” (H.S.)
• Lots of cues influence expectations and make people think we are a better cook than we actually are . . .
– Lighting and music
– Plates and presentation
• The brownie study
0
12
34
56
78
California
Wine
Label
North
Dakota
Wine
Label
Wine Taste
Food Taste
"How Full?"
Post-Sensory Ratings
Wansink, Brian, Koert van Ittersum, and James E. Painter (2005), “How
Descriptive Food Names Bias Sensory Perceptions in Restaurants,”
Food Quality and Preference, 16:5, 393-400. ©Wansink 2013
Momentous Problems & Household Solutions
Problems
• Our immediate environment
causes us to overeat
• Big plates
• Big bowls
• Wide glasses
• Eye-level foods
• Stockpiling & salience
Solutions
• Change our immediate
environment to eat less
• Smaller plates (10¼)
• Smaller bowls
• Narrow glasses
• Adjust eye-level foods
• Rearrange cupboards.
©Wansink 2013
Since Moving from Urbana-Champaign . . .
• 2005 -- Moved to Ithaca
– “Marketing Nutrition” (2005) and “Mindless Eating” (2006) came out
• 2007 -- Apptd as ExDir USDA’s Center for Nutri Pol & Promo
– Moved to DC
– Saw lots of fervent ideas & lots of impractical policy suggestions
• Dietary Guideline promotion
• School Lunches
• 2009 -- Returned to Cornell
– Started the Smarter Lunchroom Movement
– Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs
©Wansink 2013
Part II.
The Smarter Lunchroom
Movement
©Wansink 2013
A Call from the NY State
Department of Health
• How much subsidize fruit in cafeterias to
increase whole fruit sales 5%?
©Wansink 2013
©Wansink 2013
“The problem’s not
the price?” • Two Suggestions:
– Put it in a nice bowl
– . . . in a well-lite place
• Results
– 5 Schools
– 1 School
– 2 Schools
©Wansink 2013
“The problem’s not
the price?” • Two Suggestions:
– Put it in a nice bowl
– . . . in a well-lite place
• Results
– 5 Schools
– 1 School
– 2 Schools
That’s obvious.
That’ll never work.
©Wansink 2013
Example 2: Corning (NY) Middle
School
• “Nobody buys salad.”
• Should we add more stuff or subsidize the
price?
©Wansink 2013
Ala Cart Items
Salad
Bar Hot Lunch
Line
Cash
Register
#1
Cash
Register
#2 ©Wansink 2013
Ala Cart Items
Hot Lunch
Line
Cash
Register
#1
Cash
Register
#2
Old
Location
for
Salad
Bar
New Location for
Salad Bar
©Wansink 2013
Ala Cart Items
Hot Lunch
Line
Cash
Register
#1
Cash
Register
#2
Old
Location
for
Salad
Bar
New Location for
Salad Bar
Daily Salad Sales
increased 200-300%
within two weeks
©Wansink 2013
Bigger Question . . .
• What are easy low-cost/no cost changes
schools can make to encourage healthy
choices?
• What can be done to . . .
– Increase the good stuff kids take
– Decrease the less good stuff kids take
– Increase overall participation in school
lunches
©Wansink 2013
The Smarter Lunchroom
Movement
©Wansink 2013
Let’s redesign a school lunchroom
for less than $50 . . .
©Wansink 2013
©Wansink 2013
©Wansink 2013
1. Make it Visible
& “Appetizing
– Call from New York State Health Department
©Wansink 2013
©Wansink 2013
1. Make it Visible
& “Appetizing
• Sales & Price
• The Situation
• Put in nice bowl in well-lite location
– Sales increase 187% 1st 2 weeks
– Sales leveled at 105% for the rest of the
semester
©Wansink 2013
1. Make it Visible
& “Appetizing
This often works
against us if we
do it for the wrong
foods
Chocolate vs. white
milk .. .
©Wansink 2013
2. People Decide Sequentially
(Often Best to be 1st)
©Wansink 2013
2. People Decide Sequentially
(Often Best to be 1st)
• Broccoli, Corn, Carrots
• Whatever’s 1st in line is
purchased 11% more often
than what’s 3rd
• Sequential (yes/no)
sometimes more common that
“Which one’s best”
– Chinese buffet
©Wansink 2013
3. People Want What
They Can See
©Wansink 2013
3. People Want What
They Can See
• Ice cream (take it away = mutiny)
• Cover glass door with paper
– Sales decreased by 28%
• Many want what they see
– Exceptions = Heavy, frequent users
– “Ask about” vs. “Free”
©Wansink 2013
4. Upselling in 6 Words
©Wansink 2013
4. Upselling in 6 Words
• Pizza Line & Lettuce
• 25% vs. “Do you want salad with that? =
60%; A nice will-I-get-it” flair
©Wansink 2013
Tools You Can Use: Objectives
©Wansink 2013
Acti
on
Ite
ms
Objective A
Increasing the
number of
Students
that select
Fruit
Objective B
Increasing the
number of
Students
that select
Vegetables
Objective C
Increasing the
number of
Students that
select
White Milk
Objective D
Increasing the
number of
Students that
select
Targeted Entrée
Objective E
Increasing the
number of
Students that
select
Reimbursable
Meals
A
Display Fruit on
all lunch lines in
2 locations. 1
location should
be near the
register.
Give Vegetables
creative/descriptive
names and display
names next to or
with Vegetables
on the line
Place White Milk
first in the
lunchroom
coolers, in front of
sugar added
beverages.
Make the Entrée
with the greatest
nutrient density the
first or most
prominent in the
lunch line.
Place components of
RM at snack window.
Add an RM “grab and
go” bag to the window.
B
Display whole
Fruit in a bowl or
basket instead of
a stainless steel
bin or tray.
Display the age
targeted
creative/descriptive
names on posters or
menu boards
outside the
cafeteria.
Place White Milk
in every cooler in
the lunchroom
Give the Entrée an
age targeted
creative/descriptive
name and display it
with the
Targeted Entrée.
Move all “competitive
snack foods” (chips,
cookies, etc) behind
the serving counter in
the regular lunch line
so they are available
by request only.
C
Employ signs
and verbal
prompts to draw
attention to and
encourage kids
to buy Fruit.
Create a student
SNAC committee of
responsible for the
naming of and
signage for
Vegetables.
Make sure White
Milk accounts for
at least 1/3 of all
the Milk displayed
in lunchroom
coolers.
Display the new and
creative/descriptive
name on a placard
or menu board
outside the
cafeteria. (SNAC
Committee)
Create a “healthy
items” only
convenience line
stocked with all types
of milk, fruits, veggies,
grab & go sandwiches
& the lowest fat/lowest
sodium Entrée items.
©Wansink 2013
How’s a Smarter Lunchroom
Makeover Happen?
• Buy-in from Food Service Director
• One visit 30-40 photos
• Brainstorm changes (about 12 changes)
• Present changes to FSD to consider
• Implement changes
– 2/3 can be done overnight
– ½ about a week
– Average cost per lunchroom $34 ©Wansink 2013
The Smarter Lunchroom
Movement
• Goals
– End of 2011: Have 3000 US school rooms become
SmarterLunchrooms (at least 2 small low-cost/no
cost changes to lunchroom)
– End of 2012: 10,000 schools 2 small changes
– End of 2015: 30,000 schools SL makeover
©Wansink 2013
“3,000 to 30,000 schools” That’s crazy, how?
• Smarter Lunchroom
• E-ToolBox
– Targeted changes
– Case studies
– Simulations
– Demonstrations
• State SNAs
• USDA
• Major media outreach
• Train-the-Trainer
– Make Ext Pros the Go-to
Experts
– Arm with Toolbox
• 1. Direct makeovers
• 2. Seminars to FS
Directors
• Timeline
– Fall Partner counties
– 2012 NYC schools
– 2013 Greater NY
– 2014 US ©Wansink 2013
Thank You
©Wansink 2013
Learn More!
www.SmarterLunchrooms.org ©Wansink 2013