Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of “Price” interventions

From: Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact

Author Study Setting Intervention Quality Outcome measured SEP measurement Effect on SEP inequalities
Allais [ 34 ] Modelling study France 10% Tax on high energy density food: 2 Change in fat consumed (%) Household income
Cash [ 40 ] Modelling study USA 1% Subsidy on fruit and vegetables 2 CHD incidence Household income ↑*
Dallongeville [ 35 ] Modelling study France 5.5% to 2.1% Subsidy on fruit and vegetables 2 Change in mean fruit and vegetable consumption (g/d) Household income ↔*
Food stamp program for fruit and vegetables ↓*
Finkelstein [41] Modelling study Canada 20% Tax on high energy density food 2 Mean change in energy intake from all beverages Household income ↔*
40% tax on carbonated sugar sweetened beverages ↔*
20% tax on all sugar sweetened beverages ↔*
40% tax on all sugar sweetened beverages ↔*
Nederkoorn [ 36 ] RCT Holland 50% Tax on high energy density food 5 % change in calories purchased in lean individuals Food budget ↓*
Nnoaham [ 37 ] Modelling study UK 17.5% tax on high energy density foods 2 % change in calorie intake Household income ↔*
17.5% tax on food classified as ‘less healthy’ by nutrient profiling ↓*
Combined the taxation on ‘less healthy’ foods with a 17.5% subsidy on fruit and vegetables ↓*
As above with a 32.5% subsidy on fruit and vegetables ↓*
Sharma [ 42 ] Modelling study Australia 20% tax on sugar sweetened beverages 2 Mean net change in body weight in kg Household income ↑*
Smed [ 38 ] Modelling study Denmark 5% tax on fatty meat and dairy products with subsidies on fruit and vegetables, potatoes and grain products 2 Change in nutrient demand of saturated fat (%) Social class
7.89 DKK/kg tax on saturated fats with subsidies on fibre
7.89 DKK/kg tax on saturated fats with subsidies on fibre with an additional 10.3 DKK/kg tax on sugar
Tiffin [ 39 ] Modelling study UK 1% Tax on fatty food for every % saturated fat content with a matching subsidy on fruit and vegetables 2 % change in energy intake Occupation
  1. Quality of empirical studies were assessed using a validated tool [27]. Studies were scored against six criteria and this number was summed to give an overall quality score (maximum of six). The modelling studies were assessed for quality by two independent experts and their scores were converted into a score out of six to allow comparison.
  2. the effect on inequalities is displayed symbolically in the table as: ↓ for an Intervention likely to reduce inequalities: the intervention preferentially improved healthy eating outcomes in people of lower SEP, ↑ for an intervention likely to widen inequalities: the intervention preferentially improved healthy eating outcomes in people of higher SEP, and ↔ for an intervention which had no preferential impact by SEP.
  3. *indicates interventions where statistical significance values were given to the quantitative evidence relevant to our review.
\