Abigail Alexander-Haw , Joachim Schleich , Josephine Tröger
{"title":"健康风险信息是否增加了肉类税和无肉日的可接受性?来自三个欧洲国家的实验证据","authors":"Abigail Alexander-Haw , Joachim Schleich , Josephine Tröger","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper examines how health-risk information related to meat consumption affects individual acceptability of a meat tax and mandatory meat-free days in canteens. Analyses draw on a representative survey including a randomised provision of health-risk information to approximately 2,000 individuals in France, Italy, and Latvia. Findings of multivariate analyses do not provide convincing evidence that the health-risk information enhances the acceptability of meat taxes and meat-free days. This finding is robust to a variety of robustness checks. Explorative heterogeneity analyses provide some suggestive evidence that providing health-risk information increases the acceptability of the policies for certain subgroups, but only in specific countries. Correlational results suggest that the acceptability of a meat tax and meat-free days is generally higher if individuals consider them to be less expensive, more effective, and fairer. Finally, the findings provide some limited evidence that acceptability of these policies is lower for individuals who are vulnerable to food insecurity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":321,"journal":{"name":"Food Policy","volume":"134 ","pages":"Article 102903"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does health-risk information increase the acceptability of a meat tax and meat free days? Experimental evidence from three European countries\",\"authors\":\"Abigail Alexander-Haw , Joachim Schleich , Josephine Tröger\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102903\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This paper examines how health-risk information related to meat consumption affects individual acceptability of a meat tax and mandatory meat-free days in canteens. Analyses draw on a representative survey including a randomised provision of health-risk information to approximately 2,000 individuals in France, Italy, and Latvia. Findings of multivariate analyses do not provide convincing evidence that the health-risk information enhances the acceptability of meat taxes and meat-free days. This finding is robust to a variety of robustness checks. Explorative heterogeneity analyses provide some suggestive evidence that providing health-risk information increases the acceptability of the policies for certain subgroups, but only in specific countries. Correlational results suggest that the acceptability of a meat tax and meat-free days is generally higher if individuals consider them to be less expensive, more effective, and fairer. Finally, the findings provide some limited evidence that acceptability of these policies is lower for individuals who are vulnerable to food insecurity.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food Policy\",\"volume\":\"134 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102903\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"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/S0306919225001083\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Policy","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919225001083","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}
Does health-risk information increase the acceptability of a meat tax and meat free days? Experimental evidence from three European countries
This paper examines how health-risk information related to meat consumption affects individual acceptability of a meat tax and mandatory meat-free days in canteens. Analyses draw on a representative survey including a randomised provision of health-risk information to approximately 2,000 individuals in France, Italy, and Latvia. Findings of multivariate analyses do not provide convincing evidence that the health-risk information enhances the acceptability of meat taxes and meat-free days. This finding is robust to a variety of robustness checks. Explorative heterogeneity analyses provide some suggestive evidence that providing health-risk information increases the acceptability of the policies for certain subgroups, but only in specific countries. Correlational results suggest that the acceptability of a meat tax and meat-free days is generally higher if individuals consider them to be less expensive, more effective, and fairer. Finally, the findings provide some limited evidence that acceptability of these policies is lower for individuals who are vulnerable to food insecurity.
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.