Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-gblv7 Total loading time: 1.093 Render date: 2022-05-23T10:07:04.884Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: a review of field experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2012

Ruopeng An*
Affiliation:
RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, PO Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email ran@rand.org
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To systematically review evidence from field interventions on the effectiveness of monetary subsidies in promoting healthier food purchases and consumption.

Design

Keyword and reference searches were conducted in five electronic databases: Cochrane Library, EconLit, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Studies were included based on the following criteria: (i) intervention: field experiments; (ii) population: adolescents 12–17 years old or adults 18 years and older; (iii) design: randomized controlled trials, cohort studies or pre–post studies; (iv) subsidy: price discounts or vouchers for healthier foods; (v) outcome: food purchases or consumption; (vi) period: 1990–2012; and (vii) language: English. Twenty-four articles on twenty distinct experiments were included with study quality assessed using predefined methodological criteria.

Setting

Interventions were conducted in seven countries: the USA (n 14), Canada (n 1), France (n 1), Germany (n 1), Netherlands (n 1), South Africa (n 1) and the UK (n 1). Subsidies applied to different types of foods such as fruits, vegetables and low-fat snacks sold in supermarkets, cafeterias, vending machines, farmers’ markets or restaurants.

Subjects

Interventions enrolled various population subgroups such as school/university students, metropolitan transit workers and low-income women.

Results

All but one study found subsidies on healthier foods to significantly increase the purchase and consumption of promoted products. Study limitations include small and convenience samples, short intervention and follow-up duration, and lack of cost-effectiveness and overall diet assessment.

Conclusions

Subsidizing healthier foods tends to be effective in modifying dietary behaviour. Future studies should examine its long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at the population level and its impact on overall diet intake.

Type
HOT TOPIC – Food environment
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012 

Poor diet quality is among the most pressing health challenges in the USA and worldwide, and is associated with major causes of morbidity and mortality including CVD, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer(1). The US National Prevention Strategy, released in June 2011, considers healthy eating a priority area and calls for increased access to healthy and affordable foods in communities(2).

High prices remain a formidable barrier for many people, especially those of low socio-economic status, to adopt a healthier diet(Reference Darmon and Drewnowski3). A 2004–2006 survey of major supermarket chains in Seattle found that foods in the bottom quintile of energy density cost on average $US 4·34 per 1000 kJ, compared with $US 0·42 per 1000 kJ for foods in the top quintile(Reference Monsivais and Drewnowski4). The large price differential between nutrient-rich, low-energy-dense foods such as fruits and vegetables and nutrient-poor, energy-dense foods might contribute to poor diet quality and various sociodemographic health disparities(Reference Monsivais and Drewnowski4Reference Drewnowski7).

Increasing attention has been paid to the use of economic incentives in modifying individuals’ dietary behaviour. Fiscal policies (i.e. taxation, subsidies or direct pricing) to influence food prices ‘in ways that encourage healthy eating’ have been recommended by the WHO(8, 9). In September 2011, Hungary imposed a 10 forint (approximately $US 0·04) tax on packaged foods high in fat, sugar or salt(Reference Cheney10). One month later, Denmark implemented a tax of 16 Danish krone (approximately $US 2·80) per kilogram of saturated fat on domestic and imported foods with a saturated fat content exceeding 2·3 %(11). By 2009, thirty-three US states had levied sales taxes on sugar-sweetened soft drinks with an average tax rate of 5·2 %(Reference Brownell, Farley and Willett12). In addition, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law H.R.6124, also known as the Farm Bill)(13) required a US Department of Agriculture pilot project to examine the effectiveness of a 30 % price discount on fruits, vegetables and other healthier foods in changing dietary behaviour among low-income residents enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(14). Preliminary results may be available in 2013.

In the present study, we review current evidence from field interventions subsidizing healthier foods on their effectiveness in modifying dietary behaviour. A ‘field intervention’ refers to an experiment conducted in the real world rather than in the laboratory. The review focuses on the findings related to the following issues: Are subsidies effective in promoting healthier food purchases and consumption? What level of subsidies is required to be effective? Is there evidence of a dose–response relationship? Does the effectiveness differ across population subgroups? Are subsidies more or less effective than other intervention strategies? Does the impact maintain after the withdrawal of the incentive? Admittedly, it is unrealistic to address all these issues in a single review article as answers to those issues remain tentative, incomplete or even contradictory sometimes. Nevertheless, it serves as a starting point in the direction to synthesize relevant findings.

Four recent review articles are particularly relevant to our study. Kane et al. reviewed the role of economic incentives on a wide range of consumers’ preventive behaviours such as healthy diet, physical exercise and immunization(Reference Kane, Johnson and Town15). Wall et al. reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCT) that used monetary rewards to incentivize healthy eating and weight control(Reference Wall, Mhurchu and Blakely16). Thow et al. reviewed empirical and modelling studies on the effectiveness of subsidies and taxes levied on specific food items on consumption, body weight and chronic diseases(Reference Thow, Jan and Leeder17). Jensen et al. reviewed the effectiveness of economic incentives in modifying dietary behaviour among schoolchildren(Reference Jensen, Hartmann and de Mul18).

Our study contributes to the literature by systematically reviewing most recent scientific evidence on the effectiveness of monetary subsidies in promoting healthier food purchases and consumption. To synthesize data from a reasonably homogeneous body of literature with relatively rigorous study design, we exclusively focus on: (i) prospective field interventions with a clear experimental design; (ii) monetary subsidies in the form of a price discount or voucher for healthier foods; and (iii) food purchases and intake among adolescent and adult populations.

Methods

Study selection criteria

Studies which met all of the following criteria were included in the review: (i) intervention type: prospective field experiments; (ii) study population: adolescents 12–17 years old or adults 18 years and older; (iii) study design: RCT, cohort studies or pre–post studies; (iv) subsidy type: price discounts or vouchers for healthier foods; (v) outcome measure: food purchases or consumption; (vi) publication date: between 1 January 1990 and 1 May 2012; and (vii) language: articles written in English.

Arguably, children aged 11 years and younger comprise an important population for dietary intervention. Even so, we decided not to include them in the review for the following reasons. Children largely depend on their parents to pay their expenses. Therefore, most of the dietary interventions on children focus on free provision of a healthier meal or fruit/vegetable, nutrition education, role modelling and promotion of physical activities, while children-targeted interventions using a price discount or voucher worth a certain amount of money exchangeable for healthier foods remain scarce. Moreover, there has already been a systematic review on the effectiveness of economic incentives in modifying nutritional behaviour among schoolchildren by Jensen et al.(Reference Jensen, Hartmann and de Mul18).

Search strategy

We searched five electronic bibliographic databases – Cochrane Library, EconLit, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science – using various combinations of keywords such as ‘subsidy’, ‘discount’, ‘voucher’, ‘food’ and ‘diet’. A complete search algorithm for MEDLINE is reported in Table 1. Algorithms for other databases are either identical or sufficiently similar. Titles and abstracts of the articles identified through the keyword search strategy were screened against the study selection criteria. Potentially relevant articles were retrieved for evaluation of the full text.

Table 1 Search strategy for MEDLINE database

We also conducted a reference list search (i.e. backward search) and a cited reference search (i.e. forward search) from full-text articles meeting the study selection criteria. Articles identified through this process were further screened and evaluated using the same criteria. We repeated reference searches on all newly identified articles until no additional relevant article was found.

Data extraction and synthesis

A standardized data extraction form was used to collect the following methodological and outcome variables from each included study: intervention country, intervention duration, follow-up duration, intervention strategy, intervention setting, study design, economic incentive, eligible product, targeted population, targeted behaviour, sample size, outcome measure, study results and intervention effectiveness.

Ideally, a formal meta-analysis should be conducted to provide quantitative estimates of the effect of subsidies in promoting healthier diet. This requires intervention type and outcome measure across studies to be sufficiently homogeneous. However, among the twenty interventions included in the present review, few adopted the same experiment strategy and the type of food purchase/intake also differed substantially. The dissimilar nature of intervention strategy and outcome measure precludes meta-analysis. The present work was thus limited to a narrative review of the included studies with general themes summarized.

Study quality assessment

Following Wu et al.(Reference Wu, Cohen and Shi19), the quality of each study included in the review was assessed by the presence or absence of ten dichotomous criteria: (i) a control group was included; (ii) baseline characteristics between the control and intervention groups were similar; (iii) the intervention period was at least 5 weeks; (iv) the follow-up period was at least 3 weeks; (v) an objective measure of food purchases or intake was used; (vi) the measurement tool was shown to be reliable and valid in previously published studies; (vii) participants were randomly recruited with a response rate of 60 % or higher; (viii) attrition was analysed and determined not to differ significantly by respondents’ baseline characteristics between the control and intervention groups; (ix) potential confounders were properly controlled for in the analysis; and (x) intervention procedures were documented in detail in the article. A total study quality score ranging from 0 to 10 was obtained for each study by summing up these criteria. Quality scores helped measure the strength of the study evidence and were not used to determine the inclusion of studies.

Results

Study selection

A total of 8036 articles were identified in the keyword and reference search, among which 7963 were excluded in title/abstract screening. The remaining seventy-three articles were further evaluated in full text against the study selection criteria. Among them, thirteen were controlled laboratory experiments(Reference Epstein, Dearing and Handley20Reference Giesen, Havermans and Nederkoorn24), computer simulations(Reference Waterlander, Steenhuis and de Boer25, Reference Waterlander, Steenhuis and de Boer26) or modelling exercises(Reference Cash, Sunding and Zilberman27Reference Nordström and Thunström32) rather than field interventions; six exclusively enrolled children participants aged 11 years and younger(Reference Lowe, Horne and Tapper33Reference Horne, Hardman and Lowe38); ten were cross-sectional observational studies without clear experimental or quasi-experimental designs(Reference Taren, Clark and Chernesky39Reference Freedman, Bell and Collins48); seven provided fruits and vegetables in school or other settings for free rather than using a price discount or voucher(Reference Johnson, Beaudoin and Smith49Reference Lachat, Verstraeten and De Meulenaer55); seven used economic incentives unrelated to healthier foods (i.e. financial rewards for weight loss(Reference Jeffery, Wing and Thorson56Reference Jeffery and French60) or subsidies on staple or other basic food necessities(Reference Galal61, Reference Jensen and Miller62)); four used weight loss rather than food purchases or consumption as the outcome measure(Reference Wing, Jeffery and Pronk63Reference John, Loewenstein and Troxel66); and two were published before 1990(Reference Cinciripini67, Reference Mayer, Brown and Heins68). Excluding the above articles yielded a final pool of twenty-four studies(Reference Jeffery, French and Raether69Reference An, Patel and Segal92) with reported outcomes from twenty distinct field interventions. Figure 1 shows the study selection process.

Fig. 1 Flowchart showing the selection of studies included in the present review

Basic characteristics of the included studies

Table 2 summarizes the studies included in the review. The twenty interventions were conducted in seven countries: a majority of them (n 14) in the USA, and the remaining six in Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, South Africa and the UK. Fourteen interventions provided price discounts for healthier food items, and the other six used vouchers worth a certain amount of money exchangeable for healthier foods. Subsidies (i.e. price discounts and vouchers) applied to various types of healthy foods and beverages sold in supermarkets (n 6), cafeterias (n 5), vending machines (n 5), farmers’ markets (n 2), restaurants (n 1) or organic food stores (n 1). Eligible foods mainly consisted of fruits/vegetables and low-fat snacks, and eligible beverages mainly consisted of fruit juice, vegetable soup and low-fat milk. Interventions enrolled different population subgroups such as school or university students, metropolitan transit workers and low-income women. RCT were the most common study design (n 9), followed by pre–post studies (n 8) and cohort studies (n 3). The difference between pre–post and cohort studies is that the latter not only had an intervention group as in the former but also a control group which was followed before and during the intervention.

Table 2a Summary of studies included in a review of field experiments on the effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: intervention country, intervention duration, follow-up duration, study design, eligible item and intervention environment

RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Table 2b Summary of studies included in a review of field experiments on the effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: targeted population, targeted behaviour, sample size/unit and intervention strategy

N/A, not applicable.

Table 2c Summary of studies included in a review of field experiments on the effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: outcome measure, study results and intervention effectiveness

%E, percentage of energy.

Intervention effectiveness

All but one study found subsidies on healthier foods to significantly increase the purchase and consumption of promoted products. The only null finding, reported in Kristal et al., was likely due to its small financial incentive – a voucher worth $US 0·50 towards the purchase of any fruit or vegetable(Reference Kristal, Goldenhar and Muldoon73). As the authors noted in their conclusion, ‘more powerful interventions are probably necessary to induce shoppers to purchase and consume more fruits and vegetables’.

The level of subsidies varied substantially across interventions. The price discounts ranged from 10 % to 50 %, and the monetary values of vouchers were largely between $US 7·50 and $US 50, except for the $0·50 voucher in Kristal et al.(Reference Kristal, Goldenhar and Muldoon73). The lower bounds (i.e. 10 % price discount and $US 7·50 voucher) could serve as a conservative estimate for the minimal level of subsidies required to induce a meaningful increase in healthier food purchases or consumption.

There is some preliminary evidence from price discount interventions that the demands for fruits and low-fat snacks are price elastic – a 1 % decrease in price is associated with a larger than 1 % increase in quantity demanded. Jeffery et al. documented a twofold increase of fruit purchases in a university cafeteria when price was reduced by half(Reference Jeffery, French and Raether69). French et al. reported that the fruit sales in high-school cafeterias increased fourfold following a 50 % price reduction(Reference French, Story and Jeffery72). Lowe et al. reported an increase of fruit intake by about 30 % in hospital cafeterias when price was lowered by 15–25 %(Reference Lowe, Tappe and Butryn88). French et al. found a 50 % price reduction for low-fat snacks sold in university vending machines to be associated with a 78 % increase in sales(Reference French, Jeffery and Story71). French et al. reported a fourfold increase in sales of low-fat snacks sold in worksite vending machines when prices decreased by 50 %(Reference French, Hannan and Harnack86). Evidence for price elasticities of other foods is less consistent. For example, given a 50 % price reduction of salad sold in cafeterias, Jeffery et al. documented a twofold increase in sales(Reference Jeffery, French and Raether69) while French et al. reported none(Reference French, Story and Jeffery72).

Most studies adopted a fixed subsidy level that did not vary across groups or over time, so that the dose–response relationship could not be examined. Two exceptions were French et al. and An et al., which both confirmed a dose–response relationship between the level of price discount and sales/consumption of subsidized foods. In French et al., price reductions of 10 %, 25 % and 50 % on low-fat snacks sold in school and worksite vending machines were associated with an increase in sales by 9 %, 39 % and 93 %, respectively(Reference French, Jeffery and Story75). An et al. reported that 10 % and 25 % discounts on healthier food purchases were associated with an increase in daily fruit/vegetable intake by 0·38 and 0·64 servings, respectively(Reference An, Patel and Segal92).

Evidence on the differential effect of subsidies across different populations remains sparse. Blakely et al. is the only study that examined the differential effect of price discount on food purchases across ethnic and socio-economic groups(Reference Blakely, Ni Mhurchu and Jiang90). No variation in intervention effect was identified by household income or education, and the evidence for differential effects of price discounts across ethnicities was weak.

A few studies compared subsidies with alternative intervention strategies, namely nutrition education, product labelling, promotional signage (e.g. posters in cafeteria) and stimulation (i.e. a text message to remind/encourage action) or health message (i.e. a text message to introduce the health benefit of nutritious food intake). The results are largely inconclusive. Anderson et al.(Reference Anderson, Bybee and Brown74) and Bihan et al.(Reference Bihan, Castetbon and Mejean84, Reference Bihan, Mejean and Castetbon85) found that vouchers and nutrition education both increased fruit and vegetable consumption significantly (with similar effect sizes), and Anderson et al. reported that combination of the two had the largest effect. Conversely, Burr et al.(Reference Burr, Trembeth and Jones81), Ni Mhurchu et al.(Reference Ni Mhurchu, Blakely and Jiang89) and Blakely et al.(Reference Blakely, Ni Mhurchu and Jiang90) found no impact of nutrition education on fruit or other healthier food purchases. No effects on healthier food sales were found for health message(Reference Horgen and Brownell78), and some but limited effects were reported for product labelling(Reference Lowe, Tappe and Butryn88, Reference Kocken, Eeuwijk and Van Kesteren91), promotional signage(Reference French, Jeffery and Story75) and stimulation message(Reference Bamberg76).

Seven interventions included a follow-up period to assess changes in dietary behaviour after the withdrawal of incentives, but their findings diverged. Three found sustained improvement after the intervention – the effect remained the same in the 6-month follow-up reported in Herman et al.(Reference Herman, Harrison and Jenks79, Reference Herman, Harrison and Afifi80), increased by about twofold in the 5-week follow-up in Michels et al.(Reference Michels, Bloom and Riccardi82) and decreased by half in the 6-month follow-up in Ni Mhurchu et al.(Reference Ni Mhurchu, Blakely and Jiang89). Conversely, the other four interventions(Reference Jeffery, French and Raether69, Reference French, Jeffery and Story71, Reference French, Story and Jeffery72, Reference Lowe, Tappe and Butryn88) found no extended effect in the follow-up period.

Study quality

Table 3 reports the results of study quality assessment. On average, studies included in the review met six out of ten quality criteria, but the distribution of qualification differed substantially across criteria. Almost all studies included an objective measure of food purchases or intake, used a measurement tool that was shown to be reliable and valid in previously published studies, and documented intervention procedures in detail. In contrast, nearly none recruited participants randomly with a response rate of 60 % or higher.

Table 3 Quality assessment of studies included in a review of field experiments on the effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption

Note: Items 1 to 10 are all dichotomous variables.

Discussion

The high price of nutrient-rich, low-energy-dense foods relative to nutrient-poor, energy-dense foods might prevent individuals, especially those who have low income, from adopting a healthier diet. In the present study, we systematically reviewed evidence from field interventions on the effectiveness of monetary subsidies in promoting healthier food purchases and consumption. Improved affordability was associated with significant increases in the purchase and consumption of healthier foods.

Economic theory suggests that when the price of healthy diets drops, individuals will substitute healthy foods for unhealthy ones, but as their real income increases due to price reduction, they may spend more on food overall, including unhealthy foods. Among the interventions included in the present review, the amount of subsidies relative to personal income appears to be small. In this case, the income effect is unlikely to play a major role, and the study estimates suggest an unambiguous effect on improved patterns of healthier food purchases and consumption.

The evidence on the effectiveness of subsidies is to some extent compromised by a few major limitations in the reviewed studies. Arguably, the biggest limitation is the external validity of study outcomes. Almost all studies included in the review were limited in scale, had a small or convenience sample rather than a population-representative sample, and were implemented in very specific settings (e.g. one or a few supermarkets, cafeterias, vending machines, farmers’ markets or restaurants), which have substantially limited the generalizability of study results beyond the sample. Moreover, the intervention duration was usually limited to a few weeks and a majority of the studies did not incorporate a follow-up period after the intervention. Therefore, the long-term trends and effectiveness of subsidies cannot be evaluated and whether the effect will sustain after the withdrawal of incentive remains questionable. Separating the effects of subsidies from those of other intervention elements (e.g. prompting, product sampling, increasing the number of healthier food choices) was often infeasible due to the integrated study design. Policy makers are not well informed of the potential for large-scale application of subsidies on healthier foods because none of the reviewed studies explicitly measured cost-effectiveness of the interventions or evaluated the potential impact on the food industry. No study targeted overall diet quality and thus little is known about the impact of subsidies on total diet/energy intake.

In addition to weaknesses of the individual studies, the review itself also suffers from various limitations. Studies included in the review differed substantially by study population, intervention setting, experimental design and outcome measure, which precluded meta-analysis. Only a small proportion of the reviewed studies examined each predefined research question, resulting in a wide range of uncertainties. The literature search was restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles in English published between 1990 and 2012. Although this restriction may potentially increase the likelihood of obtaining concurrent studies with reasonably high quality, publication bias can be a concern. The review exclusively focused on one specific type of economic incentive, namely subsidies in the form of price discounts and vouchers for healthier food purchases, while other forms of economic incentives, such as taxes on less-healthy foods, food stamps for basic necessities or rewards for weight loss, were not examined. Readers interested in the role of taxation in modifying dietary behaviour may refer to the review articles by Caraher and Cowburn(Reference Caraher and Cowburn93), Kim and Kawachi(Reference Kim and Kawachi94) and Brownell et al.(Reference Brownell, Farley and Willett12).

The present study confirms findings on the effectiveness of economic incentives in modifying health behaviours from previous review articles. Kane et al.'s meta-analysis of forty-seven RCT estimated that the economic incentives, on average, worked 73 % of the time to improve consumers’ preventive health behaviours(Reference Kane, Johnson and Town15). All four RCT reviewed in Wall et al. documented a positive effect of monetary incentives on food purchases, food consumption or weight loss(Reference Wall, Mhurchu and Blakely16). Thow et al. reviewed twenty-four relevant studies and concluded that a substantial subsidy or tax on food was likely to influence consumption and improve health(Reference Thow, Jan and Leeder17). Jensen et al. reviewed evidence from thirty articles and found price incentives to be effective for altering children's food and beverage intake at school(Reference Jensen, Hartmann and de Mul18).

Despite the accumulated evidence on the effectiveness of economic incentives in modifying dietary behaviour, policy adoptions remain scarce. Hungary and Denmark are the only countries so far that have imposed a fat tax(Reference Cheney10, 11). In the USA, since the snack food tax in Maine and the District of Columbia was repealed in 2000 and 2001, respectively, no states currently levy taxes on snacks(Reference Kim and Kawachi94). Although a majority of US states have adopted a soft drink tax(Reference Brownell, Farley and Willett12), the tax rate is believed to be too small to induce a meaningful change in beverage consumption(Reference Sturm, Powell and Chriqui95), and no tax revenue is earmarked for subsidizing healthier food purchases or physical activity programmes(Reference Jacobson and Brownell96). Besides the opposition against targeted subsidies and taxation of foods from the food industry(Reference Caraher and Cowburn93), concerns on the unintended consequences of these policies may also contribute to the slow and reluctant adoption of economic incentives in improving diet quality(Reference Kim and Kawachi94). For example, a fat tax could be regressive for low-income populations who spend a higher proportion of income on food and consume more energy-dense foods. Although subsidies on low-fat foods are generally observed to increase sales and consumption of those products, improved health outcomes might not be achieved if higher consumption of low-fat foods leads to an increase in total energy intake.

Further research is warranted to advance knowledge about the role of subsidies and other economic incentives in modifying dietary behaviour. Based on the limitations of existing literature, future studies should aim to improve several aspects. A sufficiently large and representative sample should be used to obtain more precise estimates at the population level and facilitate subgroup comparison. More rigorous experimental designs, such as RCT, should be adopted to clearly demonstrate causal effects and prevent contamination of potential confounders. Overall food purchases and total diet/energy intake, in addition to that of the subsidized foods, need to be carefully documented to detect any unintended consequences. Finally, the experiment and follow-up periods need to be sufficiently long to assess the evolution and long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Conclusions

Subsidizing healthier foods tends to be effective in modifying dietary behaviour. Even so, existing evidence is compromised due to various study limitations: the small and convenience samples of the interventions obscure the generalizability of study results; the absence of overall diet assessment questions the effectiveness in reducing total energy intake; the short intervention and follow-up durations do not allow assessment of long-term impact; and the lack of cost-effectiveness analysis precludes comparison across competing policy scenarios. Future studies are warranted to address those limitations and examine the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of economic incentives at the population level.

Acknowledgements

Source of funding: This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute (grant no. R21CA161287), the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (grant no. R21HD071568), and the Anne and James Rothenberg Dissertation Award 2011–2012. Conflicts of interest: The author has no conflicts of interest relating to this manuscript. Acknowledgements: The author thanks Roland Sturm, Susanne Hempel, Roberta Shanman and Christina Huang for their helpful comments and generous assistance in study design and data acquisition.

References

1.US Department of Agriculture & US Department of Health and Human Services (2010) Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, 7th ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; available at http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/dietaryguidelines2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
2.National Prevention Council (2011) National Prevention Strategy. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General; available at http://www.healthcare.gov/prevention/nphpphc/strategy/report.pdfGoogle Scholar
3.Darmon, N & Drewnowski, A (2008) Does social class predict diet quality? Am J Clin Nutr 87, 11071117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Monsivais, P & Drewnowski, A (2007) The rising cost of low-energy-density foods. J Am Diet Assoc 107, 20712076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Drewnowski, A & Specter, SE (2004) Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs. Am J Clin Nutr 79, 616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Drewnowski, A & Darmon, N (2005) The economics of obesity: dietary energy density and energy cost. Am J Clin Nutr 82, 1 Suppl., 265S273S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Drewnowski, A (2010) The cost of US foods as related to their nutritive value. Am J Clin Nutr 92, 11811188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.World Health Organization (2004) Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA57/A57_R17-en.pdf (accessed May 2012).Google Scholar
9.World Health Organization (2008) 2008–2013 Action plan for the global strategy for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241597418_eng.pdf (accessed May 2012).Google Scholar
10.Cheney, C (2011) Battling the couch potatoes, Hungary introduces ‘fat tax’. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/battling-the-couch-potatoes-hungary-introduces-fat-tax-a-783862.html (accessed May 2012).Google Scholar
11.US Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (2011) Danish fat tax on food. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Danish%20Fat%20Tax%20on%20Food_Stockholm_Denmark_10-6-2011.pdf (accessed May 2012).Google Scholar
12.Brownell, KD, Farley, T, Willett, WCet al. (2009) The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. N Engl J Med 361, 15991605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.US Senate and House of Representatives (2008) Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. http://www.usda.gov/documents/Bill_6124.pdf (accessed May 2012).Google Scholar
14.US Department of Agriculture (2012) Healthy Incentives Pilot. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/hip/ (accessed May 2012).Google Scholar
15.Kane, RL, Johnson, PE, Town, RJet al. (2004) A structured review of the effect of economic incentives on consumers’ preventive behavior. Am J Prev Med 27, 327352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Wall, J, Mhurchu, CN, Blakely, Tet al. (2006) Effectiveness of monetary incentives in modifying dietary behavior: a review of randomized, controlled trials. Nutr Rev 64, 518531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Thow, AM, Jan, S, Leeder, Set al. (2010) The effect of fiscal policy on diet, obesity and chronic disease: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ 88, 609614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Jensen, JD, Hartmann, H, de Mul, Aet al. (2011) Economic incentives and nutritional behavior of children in the school setting: a systematic review. Nutr Rev 69, 660674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Wu, S, Cohen, D, Shi, Yet al. (2011) Economic analysis of physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med 40, 149158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Epstein, LH, Dearing, KK, Handley, EAet al. (2006) Relationship of mother and child food purchases as a function of price: a pilot study. Appetite 47, 115118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Epstein, LH, Handley, EA, Dearing, KKet al. (2006) Purchases of food in youth. Influence of price and income. Psychol Sci 17, 8289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Epstein, LH, Dearing, KK, Paluch, RAet al. (2007) Price and maternal obesity influence purchasing of low- and high-energy-dense foods. Am J Clin Nutr 86, 914922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Epstein, LH, Dearing, KK, Roba, LGet al. (2010) The influence of taxes and subsidies on energy purchased in an experimental purchasing study. Psychol Sci 21, 406414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Giesen, JC, Havermans, RC, Nederkoorn, Cet al. (2012) Impulsivity in the supermarket. Responses to calorie taxes and subsidies in healthy weight undergraduates. Appetite 58, 610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Waterlander, WE, Steenhuis, IH, de Boer, MRet al. (2012) The effects of a 25% discount on fruits and vegetables: results of a randomized trial in a three-dimensional web-based supermarket. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 9, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Waterlander, WE, Steenhuis, IH, de Boer, MRet al. (2012) Introducing taxes, subsidies or both: the effects of various food pricing strategies in a web-based supermarket randomized trial. Prev Med 54, 323330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Cash, SB, Sunding, DL & Zilberman, D (2005) Fat taxes and thin subsidies: prices, diet, and health outcomes. Acta Agric Scand Sect C 2, 167174.Google Scholar
28.Jensen, JD & Smed, S (2007) Cost-effective design of economic instruments in nutrition policy. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 4, 10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Lin, B, Yen, ST, Dong, Det al. (2010) Economic incentives for dietary improvement among food stamp recipients. Contemp Econ Policy 28, 524536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Smed, S, Jensen, JD & Denver, S (2007) Socio-economic characteristics and the effect of taxation as a health policy instrument. Food Policy 32, 624639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Yaniv, G, Rosin, O & Tobol, Y (2009) Junk-food, home cooking, physical activity and obesity: the effect of the fat tax and the thin subsidy. J Public Econ 93, 823830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Nordström, J & Thunström, L (2011) Can targeted food taxes and subsidies improve the diet? Distributional effects among income groups. Food Policy 36, 259271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Lowe, CF, Horne, PJ, Tapper, Ket al. (2004) Effects of a peer modeling and rewards-based intervention to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in children. Eur J Clin Nutr 58, 510522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Ponza, M, Devaney, B, Ziegler, Pet al. (2004) Nutrient intakes and food choices of infants and toddlers participating in WIC. J Am Diet Assoc 104, 1 Suppl. 1, S71S79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Siega-Riz, AM, Kranz, S, Blanchette, Det al. (2004) The effect of participation in the WIC program on preschoolers’ diets. J Pediatr 144, 229234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Nelson, JA, Carpenter, K & Chiasson, MA (2006) Diet, activity, and overweight among preschool-age children enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Prev Chronic Dis 3, A49.Google Scholar
37.Gentile, DA, Welk, G, Eisenmann, JCet al. (2009) Evaluation of a multiple ecological level child obesity prevention program: Switch what you Do, View, and Chew. BMC Med 7, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Horne, PJ, Hardman, CA, Lowe, CFet al. (2009) Increasing parental provision and children's consumption of lunchbox fruit and vegetables in Ireland: the Food Dudes intervention. Eur J Clin Nutr 63, 613618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Taren, DL, Clark, W, Chernesky, Met al. (1990) Weekly food servings and participation in social programs among low income families. Am J Public Health 80, 13761378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Anliker, JA, Winnie, M & Drake, LT (1992) An evaluation of the Connecticut Farmers’ Market coupon program. J Nutr Educ 24, 185191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Balsam, A, Webber, D & Oehlke, B (1994) The farmers’ market coupon program for low-income elders. J Nutr Elder 13, 3542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Perez-Escamilla, R, Ferris, AM, Drake, Let al. (2000) Food stamps are associated with food security and dietary intake of inner-city preschoolers from Hartford, Connecticut. J Nutr 130, 27112717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Swensen, AR, Harnack, LJ & Ross, JA (2001) Nutritional assessment of pregnant women enrolled in the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). J Am Diet Assoc 101, 903908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Kunkel, ME, Luccia, B & Moore, AC (2003) Evaluation of the South Carolina seniors farmers’ market nutrition education program. J Am Diet Assoc 103, 880883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Ard, JD, Fitzpatrick, S, Desmond, RAet al. (2007) The impact of cost on the availability of fruits and vegetables in the homes of schoolchildren in Birmingham, Alabama. Am J Public Health 97, 367372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Kropf, ML, Holben, DH, Holcomb, JPet al. (2007) Food security status and produce intake and behaviors of Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program participants. J Am Diet Assoc 107, 19031908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Racine, EF, Smith Vaughn, A & Laditka, SB (2010) Farmers’ market use among African-American women participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. J Am Diet Assoc 110, 441446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48.Freedman, DA, Bell, BA & Collins, LV (2011) The Veggie Project: a case study of a multi-component farmers’ market intervention. J Prim Prev 32, 213224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49.Johnson, DB, Beaudoin, S, Smith, LTet al. (2004) Increasing fruit and vegetable intake in homebound elders: the Seattle Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Pilot Program. Prev Chronic Dis 1, A03.Google ScholarPubMed
50.Bere, E, Veierod, MB & Klepp, KI (2005) The Norwegian School Fruit Program: evaluating paid vs. no-cost subscriptions. Prev Med 41, 463470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.Bere, E, Veierod, MB, Bjelland, Met al. (2006) Free school fruit – sustained effect 1 year later. Health Educ Res 21, 268275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52.Bere, E, Veierod, MB, Skare, Oet al. (2007) Free school fruit – sustained effect three years later. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 4, 5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53.Jamelske, E, Bica, LA, McCarty, DJet al. (2008) Preliminary findings from an evaluation of the USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program in Wisconsin schools. WMJ 107, 225230.Google ScholarPubMed
54.Cullen, KW, Watson, KB & Konarik, M (2009) Differences in fruit and vegetable exposure and preferences among adolescents receiving free fruit and vegetable snacks at school. Appetite 52, 740744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55.Lachat, CK, Verstraeten, R, De Meulenaer, Bet al. (2009) Availability of free fruits and vegetables at canteen lunch improves lunch and daily nutritional profiles: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Nutr 102, 10301037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56.Jeffery, RW, Wing, RR, Thorson, Cet al. (1993) Strengthening behavioral interventions for weight loss: a randomized trial of food provision and monetary incentives. J Consult Clin Psychol 61, 10381045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57.Jeffery, RW & Wing, RR (1995) Long-term effects of interventions for weight loss using food provision and monetary incentives. J Consult Clin Psychol 63, 793796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58.Jeffery, RW & French, SA (1997) Preventing weight gain in adults: design, methods and one year results from the Pound of Prevention study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 21, 457464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59.Jeffery, RW, Wing, RR, Thorson, Cet al. (1998) Use of personal trainers and financial incentives to increase exercise in a behavioral weight-loss program. J Consult Clin Psychol 66, 777783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60.Jeffery, RW & French, SA (1999) Preventing weight gain in adults: the pound of prevention study. Am J Public Health 89, 747751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61.Galal, OM (2002) The nutrition transition in Egypt: obesity, undernutrition and the food consumption context. Public Health Nutr 5, 141148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62.Jensen, RT & Miller, NH (2011) Do consumer price subsidies really improve nutrition? Rev Econ Stat 93, 12051223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63.Wing, RR, Jeffery, RW, Pronk, Net al. (1996) Effects of a personal trainer and financial incentives on exercise adherence in overweight women in a behavioral weight loss program. Obes Res 4, 457462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64.Finkelstein, EA, Linnan, LA, Tate, DFet al. (2007) A pilot study testing the effect of different levels of financial incentives on weight loss among overweight employees. J Occup Environ Med 49, 981989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65.Volpp, KG, John, LK, Troxel, ABet al. (2008) Financial incentive-based approaches for weight loss: a randomized trial. JAMA 300, 26312637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66.John, LK, Loewenstein, G, Troxel, ABet al. (2011) Financial incentives for extended weight loss: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 26, 621626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67.Cinciripini, PM (1984) Changing food selections in a public cafeteria. An applied behavior analysis. Behav Modif 8, 520539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68.Mayer, JA, Brown, TP, Heins, JMet al. (1987) A multi-component intervention for modifying food selections in a worksite cafeteria. J Nutr Educ 19, 277280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69.Jeffery, RW, French, SA, Raether, Cet al. (1994) An environmental intervention to increase fruit and salad purchases in a cafeteria. Prev Med 23, 788792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70.Paine-Andrews, A, Francisco, VT, Fawcett, SBet al. (1996) Health marketing in the supermarket: using prompting, product sampling, and price reduction to increase customer purchases of lower-fat items. Health Mark Q 14, 8599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71.French, SA, Jeffery, RW, Story, Met al. (1997) A pricing strategy to promote low-fat snack choices through vending machines. Am J Public Health 87, 849851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72.French, SA, Story, M, Jeffery, RWet al. (1997) Pricing strategy to promote fruit and vegetable purchase in high school cafeterias. J Am Diet Assoc 97, 10081010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
73.Kristal, AR, Goldenhar, L, Muldoon, Jet al. (1997) Evaluation of a supermarket intervention to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables. Am J Health Promot 11, 422425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74.Anderson, JV, Bybee, DI, Brown, RMet al. (2001) 5 a day fruit and vegetable intervention improves consumption in a low income population. J Am Diet Assoc 101, 195202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75.French, SA, Jeffery, RW, Story, Met al. (2001) Pricing and promotion effects on low-fat vending snack purchases: the CHIPS Study. Am J Public Health 91, 112117.Google ScholarPubMed
76.Bamberg, S (2002) Implementation intention versus monetary incentive comparing the effects of interventions to promote the purchase of organically produced food. J Econ Psychcol 23, 573587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77.Hannan, P, French, SA, Story, Met al. (2002) A pricing strategy to promote sales of lower fat foods in high school cafeterias: acceptability and sensitivity analysis. Am J Health Promot 17, 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
78.Horgen, KB & Brownell, KD (2002) Comparison of price change and health message interventions in promoting healthy food choices. Health Psychol 21, 505512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
79.Herman, DR, Harrison, GG & Jenks, E (2006) Choices made by low-income women provided with an economic supplement for fresh fruit and vegetable purchase. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 740744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
80.Herman, DR, Harrison, GG, Afifi, AAet al. (2008) Effect of a targeted subsidy on intake of fruits and vegetables among low-income women in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Am J Public Health 98, 98105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
81.Burr, ML, Trembeth, J, Jones, KBet al. (2007) The effects of dietary advice and vouchers on the intake of fruit and fruit juice by pregnant women in a deprived area: a controlled trial. Public Health Nutr 10, 559565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82.Michels, KB, Bloom, BR, Riccardi, Pet al. (2008) A study of the importance of education and cost incentives on individual food choices at the Harvard School of Public Health cafeteria. J Am Coll Nutr 27, 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83.Brown, DM & Tammineni, SK (2009) Managing sales of beverages in schools to preserve profits and improve children's nutrition intake in 15 Mississippi schools. J Am Diet Assoc 109, 20362042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
84.Bihan, H, Castetbon, K, Mejean, Cet al. (2010) Sociodemographic factors and attitudes toward food affordability and health are associated with fruit and vegetable consumption in a low-income French population. J Nutr 140, 823830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85.Bihan, H, Mejean, C, Castetbon, Ket al. (2012) Impact of fruit and vegetable vouchers and dietary advice on fruit and vegetable intake in a low-income population. Eur J Clin Nutr 66, 369375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
86.French, SA, Hannan, PJ, Harnack, LJet al. (2010) Pricing and availability intervention in vending machines at four bus garages. J Occup Environ Med 52, Suppl. 1, S29S33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
87.French, SA, Harnack, LJ, Hannan, PJet al. (2010) Worksite environment intervention to prevent obesity among metropolitan transit workers. Prev Med 50, 180185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
88.Lowe, MR, Tappe, KA, Butryn, MLet al. (2010) An intervention study targeting energy and nutrient intake in worksite cafeterias. Eat Behav 11, 144151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
89.Ni Mhurchu, C, Blakely, T, Jiang, Yet al. (2010) Effects of price discounts and tailored nutrition education on supermarket purchases: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 91, 736747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
90.Blakely, T, Ni Mhurchu, C, Jiang, Yet al. (2011) Do effects of price discounts and nutrition education on food purchases vary by ethnicity, income and education? Results from a randomized, controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 65, 902908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
91.Kocken, PL, Eeuwijk, J, Van Kesteren, NMet al. (2012) Promoting the purchase of low-calorie foods from school vending machines: a cluster-randomized controlled study. J Sch Health 82, 115122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
92.An, R, Patel, D, Segal, Det al. (2013) Eating better for less: a national discount program for healthy food purchases in South Africa. Am J Health Behav 37, 5661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
93.Caraher, M & Cowburn, G (2005) Taxing food: implications for public health nutrition. Public Health Nutr 8, 12421249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94.Kim, D & Kawachi, I (2006) Food taxation and pricing strategies to ‘thin out’ the obesity epidemic. Am J Prev Med 30, 430437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
95.Sturm, R, Powell, LM, Chriqui, JFet al. (2010) Soda taxes, soft drink consumption, and children's body mass index. Health Aff (Millwood) 29, 10521058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
96.Jacobson, MF & Brownell, KD (2000) Small taxes on soft drinks and snack foods to promote health. Am J Public Health 90, 854857.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Search strategy for MEDLINE database

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Flowchart showing the selection of studies included in the present review

Figure 2

Table 2a Summary of studies included in a review of field experiments on the effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: intervention country, intervention duration, follow-up duration, study design, eligible item and intervention environment

Figure 3

Table 2b Summary of studies included in a review of field experiments on the effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: targeted population, targeted behaviour, sample size/unit and intervention strategy

Figure 4

Table 2c Summary of studies included in a review of field experiments on the effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: outcome measure, study results and intervention effectiveness

Figure 5

Table 3 Quality assessment of studies included in a review of field experiments on the effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption

You have Access
153
Cited by

Linked content

Please note a has been issued for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: a review of field experiments
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: a review of field experiments
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: a review of field experiments
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *