Premium
Subsidies Encourage Healthier Lunch Choices Compared to Taxes
Author(s) -
Smith Laura Elizabeth,
Schulze William D.,
Kaiser Harry M.,
Just David R.,
Wethington Elaine,
Sobal Jeffery,
Cawley John H.,
Wansink Brian C.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.25.1_supplement.98.8
Subject(s) - subsidy , purchasing , control (management) , reactance , economics , advertising , business , public economics , marketing , engineering , management , voltage , electrical engineering , market economy
Some new efforts to encourage restaurant patrons to eat more healthy have encouraged the taxing of less healthy alternatives. The alternative economic strategy would be to subsidize the healthier alternatives. To investigate whether an economic carrot or stick was most effective, a study was conducted across three weeks of lunches with university staff and students. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions where they were either 1) taxed 20% for purchasing less healthy sandwiches or side orders, 2) given subsidies (rebates) of 20% for purchasing healthier sandwiches or side orders, or 3) assigned to the control condition. Those given subsidies made 23% healthier choices than the control condition. Interestingly, those who were in the tax condition ate 14% less well than the control condition. Follow‐up analyses suggest that taxes generated a reactance in individuals in these conditions where small amounts of money are involved on a limited time basis. These results suggest that perhaps – at least in restaurant situations – subsidies may be more effective than taxes.