Our best and worst eating habits start in the grocery store. Although critics claim that retailers are primarily motivated to sell unhealthy processed food – Froot Loops instead of fruit or fish sticks instead of fish – the opposite is true for the savvy ones. If the fruit turns mushy and the fish begins to smell, retailers may lose more money in sunk inventory costs then they would otherwise gain by selling the processed versions. Grocers are motivated to sell healthy, profitable foods. Unfortunately, they do not know how to effectively do so (Chandon and Wansink 2012; Guthrie 2017; Inman and Nikolova 2016), so retail fruit and vegetable sales continue to drop (Haywood 2016; Produce for Better Health 2015). Each issue of Supermarket News and Progressive Grocer highlights clever twists on how retailers can increase sales: novel POP displays, creative cross-promotions, compelling incentive programs, colorful floor decals, and trendy planogram arrangements. Most of these tactics are driven by manufacturers of branded, less-than-healthy packaged goods. In contrast, most of the newest and most creative solutions for selling unbranded healthy products – such as fish, poultry, fruits, and vegetables – have been discovered in academia (Johnson et al. 2012). Regretfully, however, many of these discoveries are not widely adopted or used beyond one or two field test stores (Inman 2012). First, these discoveries appear disorganized or disjoint because together they use a wide range of interventions to investigate a wide range of outcomes (such as sales, satisfaction, loyalty, repatronage, eye-tracking, and so on). This combination is overwhelming to a manager who is looking for a single solution, such as how to simply sell more fish. Instead of giving managers a useful toolbox of organized solutions, what we give them is more like a shoebox full of tax-time receipts. The second reason our work is infrequently translated into practice is because its conclusions are either uncompelling or inconsistent (Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2005). We tend to focus on interactions or boundary conditions where an intervention might work with some customers and with some food categories, but not with others (List, Samek, and Zhu 2015). For instance, a Traffic Light rating system may be useful to some shoppers (Dzhogleva, Inman, and Maurer 2013; Grunert, Bolton, and Raats 2011; Trudel et al. 2015), but to others it might be a glaring warning sign that the food will taste bad (Werle et al. 2011). Academia thrives on interactions and exceptions, but the rest of the world runs on main effects. The future of healthy retailing will be guided by the future of new research. All of the research in this review has been published or conducted after 2011 and half are still working papers. They comprise a framework that integrates the newest discoveries in marketing, health psychology, public health, consumer research, nutrition, and behavioral economics to identify what might be the most actionable and compelling new research to influence practice and theory. First, the framework collapses the myriad of individual differences among shoppers into a threesegment hierarchy which summarizes their healthy shopping disposition. Second, it offers a useful way to organize the receipt box full of findings in a way that shows how various interventions work (improving convenience, attractiveness, and norms) and where they can work within grocery stores (by altering the signage, structure, service mix). Fig. 1 foreshadows how these pieces will combine to eventually create a Retail Intervention Matrix framework that can organize existing findings and stimulate useful new insights.