To understand price incentives to upsize combination meals at fast-food restaurants by comparing the calories (i.e. kilocalories; 1 kcal = 4·184 kJ) per dollar of default combination meals (as advertised on the menu) with a higher-calorie version (created using realistic consumer additions and portion-size changes).

Combination meals (lunch/dinner: n 258, breakfast: n 68, children’s: n 34) and their prices were identified from online menus; corresponding nutrition information for each menu item was obtained from a restaurant nutrition database (MenuStat). Linear models were used to examine the difference in total calories per dollar between default and higher-calorie combination meals, overall and by restaurant.

Ten large fast-food chain restaurants located in the fifteen most populous US cities in 2017–2018.

None.

There were significantly more calories per dollar in higher-calorie v. default combination meals for lunch/dinner (default: 577 kJ (138 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 707 kJ (169 kcal)/dollar, difference: 130 kJ (31 kcal)/dollar, P < 0·001) and breakfast (default: 536 kJ (128 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 607 kJ (145 kcal)/dollar, difference: 71 kJ (17 kcal)/dollar, P = 0·009). Results for children’s meals were in the same direction but were not statistically significant (default: 536 kJ (128 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 741 kJ (177 kcal)/dollar, difference: 205 kJ (49 kcal)/dollar, P = 0·053). Across restaurants, the percentage change in calories per dollar for higher-calorie v. default combination meals ranged from 0·1 % (Dunkin’ Donuts) to 55·0 % (Subway).

Higher-calorie combination meals in fast-food restaurants offer significantly more calories per dollar compared with default combination meals, suggesting there is a strong financial incentive for consumers to ‘upsize’ their orders. Future research should test price incentives for lower-calorie options to promote healthier restaurant choices.

To describe continuity over time in reports of valuing sustainable diet practices and investigate relationships between values, household meal behaviours and dietary intake.

Observational study. Participant ratings of how important it is for food to be produced as organic, not processed, locally grown and not GM were categorized to represent whether they valued (very/somewhat important) or did not value (a little/not at all important) each practice. Diet quality markers (e.g. fruit servings) were based on an FFQ.

Mailed and online surveys.

Young adults (n 1620; 58 % female, mean age 31 (sd 1·6) years) who were participating in Project EAT (Eating and Activity among Teens and Young Adults) and responded to follow-up surveys in 2003–2004 and 2015–2016.

One-third (36·1 %) of participants reported valuing <2 practices at both assessments; 11·1 and 34·5 % respectively reported valuing ≥2 practices in 2003–2004 only and in 2015–2016 only; 18·3 % reported valuing ≥2 practices at both assessments. Regression models including demographics, parental status and vegetarian status showed that valuing ≥2 practices was associated with preparation of meals with vegetables at least a few times/week, less frequent purchase of family meals from fast-food restaurants, and higher diet quality in 2015–2016. For example, those who valued ≥2 practices consumed nearly one full vegetable serving more than other young adults on an average day and part of this difference was specifically associated with intake of dark green and red/orange vegetables.

Addressing the sustainability of food choices as part of public health messaging may be relevant for many young adults.