Low-income citizens’ evaluation of policy interventions to promote healthy food choices

IF 6 1区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Gerarda Caso, Silvia Sapio, Riccardo Vecchio
{"title":"Low-income citizens’ evaluation of policy interventions to promote healthy food choices","authors":"Gerarda Caso,&nbsp;Silvia Sapio,&nbsp;Riccardo Vecchio","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Implementing a beneficial policy does not guarantee success; for public interventions to be effective, they must also have public support. While extensive studies have explored the general population’s views on various interventions promoting healthy food consumption, limited attention has been given to the groups that would benefit most from such strategies. This study focuses on low-income citizens, who often face dietary compromises due to financial constraints. Its objective is to assess the support, perceived intrusiveness, and perceived effectiveness of specific interventions designed to (dis)incentivize the consumption of (un)healthy foods. Additionally, it aims to identify the factors influencing the support of such measures among this vulnerable segment. The study employed an online survey, administered to 810 Italian shoppers with low monthly household incomes (below the national median) to evaluate nudge interventions (<em>i.e.,</em> nutri-score labeling, salience, checkout prompts, and placements) and traditional policies (<em>i.e.,</em> taxation and educational campaigns) aimed at improving food choices. Findings reveal that food labeling and educational campaigns are more widely accepted and perceived as more effective than other nudges, whereas taxation is perceived as the most intrusive policy. Subsequent econometric analyses highlight the crucial role of perceived effectiveness and intrusiveness in determining policy support. Furthermore, personal and behavioral characteristics significantly influence approval, as citizens tend to oppose interventions that seek to restrict established habits. Adapting policies to reflect these variations could enhance their relevance and effectiveness, ultimately improving their impact on public health.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":321,"journal":{"name":"Food Policy","volume":"135 ","pages":"Article 102928"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Policy","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919225001332","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Implementing a beneficial policy does not guarantee success; for public interventions to be effective, they must also have public support. While extensive studies have explored the general population’s views on various interventions promoting healthy food consumption, limited attention has been given to the groups that would benefit most from such strategies. This study focuses on low-income citizens, who often face dietary compromises due to financial constraints. Its objective is to assess the support, perceived intrusiveness, and perceived effectiveness of specific interventions designed to (dis)incentivize the consumption of (un)healthy foods. Additionally, it aims to identify the factors influencing the support of such measures among this vulnerable segment. The study employed an online survey, administered to 810 Italian shoppers with low monthly household incomes (below the national median) to evaluate nudge interventions (i.e., nutri-score labeling, salience, checkout prompts, and placements) and traditional policies (i.e., taxation and educational campaigns) aimed at improving food choices. Findings reveal that food labeling and educational campaigns are more widely accepted and perceived as more effective than other nudges, whereas taxation is perceived as the most intrusive policy. Subsequent econometric analyses highlight the crucial role of perceived effectiveness and intrusiveness in determining policy support. Furthermore, personal and behavioral characteristics significantly influence approval, as citizens tend to oppose interventions that seek to restrict established habits. Adapting policies to reflect these variations could enhance their relevance and effectiveness, ultimately improving their impact on public health.
低收入公民对促进健康食品选择的政策干预的评价
实施有利的政策并不能保证成功;公共干预要想有效,还必须得到公众的支持。虽然广泛的研究探讨了一般人群对促进健康食品消费的各种干预措施的看法,但对从这些策略中获益最多的群体的关注有限。这项研究的重点是低收入公民,他们经常因经济拮据而面临饮食妥协。其目的是评估支持、感知侵入性和感知有效性的特定干预措施,旨在(不)激励(非)健康食品的消费。此外,报告旨在查明影响这一弱势群体对此类措施的支持的因素。这项研究采用了一项在线调查,对810名家庭月收入较低(低于全国中位数)的意大利购物者进行了调查,以评估旨在改善食物选择的助推干预措施(即营养评分标签、显著性、结账提示和位置)和传统政策(即税收和教育活动)。调查结果显示,食品标签和教育活动比其他推动手段更被广泛接受,并被认为更有效,而税收被认为是最具侵入性的政策。随后的计量经济学分析强调了在决定政策支持方面感知有效性和侵入性的关键作用。此外,个人和行为特征显著影响批准,因为公民倾向于反对试图限制既定习惯的干预措施。调整政策以反映这些差异,可以增强其相关性和有效性,最终改善其对公共卫生的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Food Policy
Food Policy 管理科学-农业经济与政策
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.60%
发文量
128
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Food Policy is a multidisciplinary journal publishing original research and novel evidence on issues in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies for the food sector in developing, transition, and advanced economies. Our main focus is on the economic and social aspect of food policy, and we prioritize empirical studies informing international food policy debates. Provided that articles make a clear and explicit contribution to food policy debates of international interest, we consider papers from any of the social sciences. Papers from other disciplines (e.g., law) will be considered only if they provide a key policy contribution, and are written in a style which is accessible to a social science readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信