Public support for food subsidy and tax scenarios to promote healthy and sustainable diets: Evidence from deliberative forums in two UK locations

IF 6 1区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Hannah Forde , Peter Scarborough , Lucy Yates , Jessica Renzella , Mark Sheehan , John Buckell , Alice O’Hagan , Sian Taylor , Jane Ward , Annie Connolly , Mike Rayner , Richard Smith , Asha Kaur
{"title":"Public support for food subsidy and tax scenarios to promote healthy and sustainable diets: Evidence from deliberative forums in two UK locations","authors":"Hannah Forde ,&nbsp;Peter Scarborough ,&nbsp;Lucy Yates ,&nbsp;Jessica Renzella ,&nbsp;Mark Sheehan ,&nbsp;John Buckell ,&nbsp;Alice O’Hagan ,&nbsp;Sian Taylor ,&nbsp;Jane Ward ,&nbsp;Annie Connolly ,&nbsp;Mike Rayner ,&nbsp;Richard Smith ,&nbsp;Asha Kaur","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Governments can utilise fiscal measures, through subsidies and taxes, to promote healthy and environmentally sustainable food choices. Despite their potential, implementing subsidies and taxes is often contested because of the cost, anticipated efficacy, ideological basis of these policies, and the wide range of ways they might be implemented. Deliberative methods are useful for converging debate to understand whether and how policy decisions on contentious issues are supported by the public. In October 2023, we held two deliberative forums with members of the public in UK locations experiencing high rates of deprivation: one in Govanhill, Glasgow (n = 13) and one in Bridlington (n = 11). We developed 16 food subsidy or tax scenarios from a systematic scoping review of the literature. We presented scientific evidence on related issues and facilitated deliberations, culminating in each forum ranking their preferred subsidy or tax scenarios. Though each forum’s preferences differed, overall participants favoured the implementation of a population-wide tax on high carbon foods, preferred more subsidy than tax scenarios, and preferred population-wide policies to policies that targeted people experiencing low income. Our findings demonstrate the public’s interest in government fiscal action to create a fairer, healthier, and more sustainable food system.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":321,"journal":{"name":"Food Policy","volume":"136 ","pages":"Article 102946"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","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/S0306919225001514","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

Governments can utilise fiscal measures, through subsidies and taxes, to promote healthy and environmentally sustainable food choices. Despite their potential, implementing subsidies and taxes is often contested because of the cost, anticipated efficacy, ideological basis of these policies, and the wide range of ways they might be implemented. Deliberative methods are useful for converging debate to understand whether and how policy decisions on contentious issues are supported by the public. In October 2023, we held two deliberative forums with members of the public in UK locations experiencing high rates of deprivation: one in Govanhill, Glasgow (n = 13) and one in Bridlington (n = 11). We developed 16 food subsidy or tax scenarios from a systematic scoping review of the literature. We presented scientific evidence on related issues and facilitated deliberations, culminating in each forum ranking their preferred subsidy or tax scenarios. Though each forum’s preferences differed, overall participants favoured the implementation of a population-wide tax on high carbon foods, preferred more subsidy than tax scenarios, and preferred population-wide policies to policies that targeted people experiencing low income. Our findings demonstrate the public’s interest in government fiscal action to create a fairer, healthier, and more sustainable food system.
公众支持粮食补贴和税收方案,以促进健康和可持续饮食:来自英国两个地点审议论坛的证据
政府可以利用财政措施,通过补贴和税收,促进健康和环境可持续的食物选择。尽管补贴和税收具有潜力,但由于这些政策的成本、预期效力、意识形态基础以及可能实施的方式范围广泛,实施补贴和税收经常受到质疑。审议方法有助于将辩论集中起来,以了解有关争议问题的政策决定是否以及如何得到公众的支持。2023年10月,我们与英国遭受高剥夺率的地区的公众举行了两次审议论坛:一个在格拉斯哥的戈文希尔(n = 13),一个在布里德灵顿(n = 11)。我们通过对文献的系统范围评估,制定了16种食品补贴或税收方案。我们提出了相关问题的科学证据,并促进了审议,最终在每个论坛上对他们首选的补贴或税收方案进行了排名。尽管每个论坛的偏好有所不同,但总体而言,参与者倾向于对高碳食品征收全民税,倾向于更多的补贴而不是税收方案,倾向于全民政策而不是针对低收入人群的政策。我们的研究结果表明,公众希望政府采取财政行动,创造一个更公平、更健康、更可持续的粮食系统。
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