Search

Objective: To investigate whether financial constraint and perceived stress modify the effects of food-related taxes on the healthiness of food purchases. Design: Moderation analyses were conducted with data from a trial where participants were randomly exposed to: a control condition with regular food prices, an sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax condition with a two-tiered levy on the sugar content in SSB (5-8 g/100 ml: €0·21 per l and ≥8 g/100 ml: €0·28 per l) or a nutrient profiling tax condition where products with Nutri-Score D or E were taxed at a 20 percent level. Outcome measures were overall healthiness of food purchases (%), energy content (kcal) and SSB purchases (litres). Effect modification was analysed by adding interaction terms between conditions and self-reported financial constraint or perceived stress in regression models. Outcomes for each combination of condition and level of effect modifier were visualised. Setting: Virtual supermarket. Participants: Dutch adults (n 386). Results: Financial constraint or perceived stress did not significantly modify the effects of food-related taxes on the outcomes. Descriptive analyses suggest that in the control condition, the overall healthiness of food purchases was lowest, and SSB purchases were highest among those with moderate/high levels of financial constraint. Compared with the control condition, in a nutrient profiling tax condition, the overall healthiness of food purchases was higher and SSB purchases were lower, especially among those with moderate/high levels of financial constraint. Such patterns were not observed for perceived stress. Conclusion: Further studies with larger samples are recommended to assess whether food-related taxes differentially affect food purchases of subgroups.

Objective: To investigate whether financial constraint and perceived stress modify the effects of food-related taxes on the healthiness of food purchases. Design: Moderation analyses were conducted with data from a trial where participants were randomly exposed to: a control condition with regular food prices, an sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax condition with a two-tiered levy on the sugar content in SSB (5-8 g/100 ml: €0·21 per l and ≥8 g/100 ml: €0·28 per l) or a nutrient profiling tax condition where products with Nutri-Score D or E were taxed at a 20 percent level. Outcome measures were overall healthiness of food purchases (%), energy content (kcal) and SSB purchases (litres). Effect modification was analysed by adding interaction terms between conditions and self-reported financial constraint or perceived stress in regression models. Outcomes for each combination of condition and level of effect modifier were visualised. Setting: Virtual supermarket. Participants: Dutch adults (n 386). Results: Financial constraint or perceived stress did not significantly modify the effects of food-related taxes on the outcomes. Descriptive analyses suggest that in the control condition, the overall healthiness of food purchases was lowest, and SSB purchases were highest among those with moderate/high levels of financial constraint. Compared with the control condition, in a nutrient profiling tax condition, the overall healthiness of food purchases was higher and SSB purchases were lower, especially among those with moderate/high levels of financial constraint. Such patterns were not observed for perceived stress. Conclusion: Further studies with larger samples are recommended to assess whether food-related taxes differentially affect food purchases of subgroups.

Government policies that promote healthy food environments are considered promising to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet. Empirical evidence of effects on these inequalities, however, is relatively scarce and, with a few exceptions, tends to be inconclusive. We use two contemporary theories that help to understand socioeconomic inequalities in health and health-related behaviours (Bourdieu's capital theory and Mullainathan and Shafir's scarcity theory) to reason how policies influencing food environments may differentially impact lower and higher socioeconomic groups. In essence, these theories enable us to understand how specific elements of broader daily living conditions (e.g. social practices that lead to habitus formation, material conditions that shape experiences of scarcity) may lead to a greater benefit of certain food environment policies for the healthfulness of diets of lower or higher socioeconomic groups. We conclude that the application of theories on the mechanisms underlying socioeconomic inequalities in health can help to guide future empirical studies in testing theory-based hypotheses on differential effects of policies, and thereby enhance the development of effective policies tackling socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes.

Objective: To investigate the effects of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax and a nutrient profiling tax on consumer food purchases in a virtual supermarket. Design: A randomised controlled trial was conducted with a control condition with regular food prices (n 152), an SSB tax condition (n 130) and a nutrient profiling tax condition based on Nutri-Score (n 112). Participants completed a weekly grocery shop for their household. Primary outcome measures were SSB purchases (ordinal variable) and the overall healthiness of the total shopping basket (proportion of total unit food items classified as healthy). The secondary outcome measure was the energy (kcal) content of the total shopping basket. Data were analysed using regression analyses. Setting: Three-dimensional virtual supermarket. Participants: Dutch adults aged ≥18 years are being responsible for grocery shopping in their household (n 394). Results: The SSB tax (OR = 1·62, (95 % CI 1·03, 2·54)) and the nutrient profiling tax (OR = 1·88, (95 %CI 1·17, 3·02)) increased the likelihood of being in a lower-level category of SSB purchases. The overall healthiness of the total shopping basket was higher (+2·7 percent point, (95 % CI 0·1, 5·3)), and the energy content was lower (-3301 kcal, (95 % CI-6425,-177)) for participants in the nutrient profiling tax condition than for those in the control condition. The SSB tax did not affect the overall healthiness and energy content of the total shopping basket (P > 0·05). Conclusions: A nutrient profiling tax targeting a wide range of foods and beverages with a low nutritional quality seems to have larger beneficial effects on consumer food purchases than taxation of SSB alone.

Background Food environments impact on diets, obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Government policies are essential to create healthy food environments. This study aimed to assess the strength of European Union (EU)-level policies, and identify and prioritize actions for the EU to create healthy food environments.Methods The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was applied. The Food-EPI included 26 policy and 24 infrastructure support indicators. Independent experts (n = 31) rated the strength of EU-level policies and infrastructure support for each of these indicators (on a 5-point scale, from very weak to very strong) and identified and prioritized actions to improve food environments.Results For 65% of the 26 policy indicators, EU-level policies were rated as weak and for 23% as very weak. For 63% of the 24 infrastructure support indicators, EU-level policies were rated as moderate and for 33% as weak. The experts recommended 18 policy and 19 infrastructure support actions to the EU. The Top 5 prioritized policy actions included three actions in the food composition domain (e.g. setting mandatory food composition targets), one action in the food prices domain and one action in the food promotion domain. The Top 5 prioritized infrastructure support actions included three actions in the leadership domain (e.g. developing a high-level NCDs Prevention Strategy) and two actions in the monitoring domain.Conclusions There is large potential for the EU to strengthen its policies and infrastructure support in order to improve food environments. This study specifies priority actions for the EU to create healthy food environments.

Socioeconomic inequalities in diets need to be tackled to improve population diets and prevent obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. The potential of food environment policies to reduce such inequalities has to date however not been appraised. The objective of this umbrella review was to assess the impact of food environment policies on socioeconomic inequalities in diets and to identify knowledge gaps in the existing literature, using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index as a conceptual framework. The policies considered in the umbrella review are within six domains: 1) food composition 2) food labelling 3) food promotion 4) food provision 5) food retail 6) food pricing. A systematic search for systematic literature reviews on the effect of food environment policies on dietary-related outcomes across socioeconomic groups and published in English between 2004 and 2019 was conducted. Sixteen systematic literature reviews encompassing 159 primary studies were included, covering food composition (n = 2), food labelling (n = 3), food provision (n = 2), food prices (n = 13) and food in retail (n = 4). Quality assessment using the “Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews” quality rating scale showed that review quality was mainly low or critically low. Results suggest that food taxation may reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diets. For all other policy areas, the evidence base was poor. Current research largely fails to provide good quality evidence on impacts of food environment policies on socioeconomic inequalities in diets. Research to fill this knowledge gap is urgently needed.

Government policies that promote healthy food environments are considered promising to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet. Empirical evidence of effects on these inequalities, however, is relatively scarce and, with a few exceptions, tends to be inconclusive. We use two contemporary theories that help to understand socioeconomic inequalities in health and health-related behaviours (Bourdieu's capital theory and Mullainathan and Shafir's scarcity theory) to reason how policies influencing food environments may differentially impact lower and higher socioeconomic groups. In essence, these theories enable us to understand how specific elements of broader daily living conditions (e.g. social practices that lead to habitus formation, material conditions that shape experiences of scarcity) may lead to a greater benefit of certain food environment policies for the healthfulness of diets of lower or higher socioeconomic groups. We conclude that the application of theories on the mechanisms underlying socioeconomic inequalities in health can help to guide future empirical studies in testing theory-based hypotheses on differential effects of policies, and thereby enhance the development of effective policies tackling socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes.

Government policies that promote healthy food environments are considered promising to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet. Empirical evidence of effects on these inequalities, however, is relatively scarce and, with a few exceptions, tends to be inconclusive. We use two contemporary theories that help to understand socioeconomic inequalities in health and health-related behaviours (Bourdieu's capital theory and Mullainathan and Shafir's scarcity theory) to reason how policies influencing food environments may differentially impact lower and higher socioeconomic groups. In essence, these theories enable us to understand how specific elements of broader daily living conditions (e.g. social practices that lead to habitus formation, material conditions that shape experiences of scarcity) may lead to a greater benefit of certain food environment policies for the healthfulness of diets of lower or higher socioeconomic groups. We conclude that the application of theories on the mechanisms underlying socioeconomic inequalities in health can help to guide future empirical studies in testing theory-based hypotheses on differential effects of policies, and thereby enhance the development of effective policies tackling socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes.

Socioeconomic inequalities in diets need to be tackled to improve population diets and prevent obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. The potential of food environment policies to reduce such inequalities has to date however not been appraised. The objective of this umbrella review was to assess the impact of food environment policies on socioeconomic inequalities in diets and to identify knowledge gaps in the existing literature, using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index as a conceptual framework. The policies considered in the umbrella review are within six domains: 1) food composition 2) food labelling 3) food promotion 4) food provision 5) food retail 6) food pricing. A systematic search for systematic literature reviews on the effect of food environment policies on dietary-related outcomes across socioeconomic groups and published in English between 2004 and 2019 was conducted. Sixteen systematic literature reviews encompassing 159 primary studies were included, covering food composition (n = 2), food labelling (n = 3), food provision (n = 2), food prices (n = 13) and food in retail (n = 4). Quality assessment using the “Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews” quality rating scale showed that review quality was mainly low or critically low. Results suggest that food taxation may reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diets. For all other policy areas, the evidence base was poor. Current research largely fails to provide good quality evidence on impacts of food environment policies on socioeconomic inequalities in diets. Research to fill this knowledge gap is urgently needed.

Objectives: Government policies are essential to create food environments that support healthy diets. The aims of this study were 1) to benchmark the implementation of Dutch government policies influencing food environments, and 2) to identify and prioritize actions to improve food environments in the Netherlands. Methods: The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was applied. The Food-EPI includes 46 indicators of food environment policy and infrastructure support. Independent experts (n = 28) rated the extent of implementation on these indicators against international best practices, and formulated and prioritized policy and infrastructure support actions to improve food environments. Results: Most policy indicators were rated as having a low (50%) or very low (41%) level of implementation. Most infrastructure support indicators were rated as having a fair (42%) or medium (42%) level of implementation. 18 policy and 11 infrastructure support actions were recommended by experts to improve food environments in the Netherlands. Conclusion: There is large potential for the Dutch national government to strengthen its policy action and infrastructure support in order to improve the healthiness of food environments in the Netherlands.

Background: Inequalities in obesity pertain in part to differences in dietary intake in different socioeconomic groups. Examining the economic, social, physical and political food environment of low-income groups as a complex adaptive system – i.e. a system of multiple, interconnected factors exerting non-linear influence on an outcome, can enhance the development and assessment of effective policies and interventions by honouring the complexity of lived reality. We aimed to develop and apply novel causal loop diagramming methods in order to construct an evidence-based map of the underlying system of environmental factors that drives dietary intake in low-income groups. Methods: A systematic umbrella review was conducted on literature examining determinants of dietary intake and food environments in low-income youths and adults in high/upper-middle income countries. Information on the determinants and associations between determinants was extracted from reviews of quantitative and qualitative studies. Determinants were organised using the Determinants of Nutrition and Eating (DONE) framework. Associations were synthesised into causal loop diagrams that were subsequently used to interpret the dynamics underlying the food environment and dietary intake. The map was reviewed by an expert panel and systems-based analysis identified the system paradigm, structure, feedback loops and goals. Results: Findings from forty-three reviews and expert consensus were synthesised in an evidence-based map of the complex adaptive system underlying the food environment influencing dietary intake in low-income groups. The system was interpreted as operating within a supply-and-demand, economic paradigm. Five sub-systems (‘geographical accessibility’, ‘household finances’, ‘household resources’, ‘individual influences’, ‘social and cultural influences’) were presented as causal loop diagrams comprising 60 variables, conveying goals which undermine healthy dietary intake. Conclusions: Ou

Background: Socioeconomic inequalities in overweight and obesity exist in many European countries. A sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) tax may contribute to a reduction of these inequalities. However, in the Netherlands, the government decided to not (yet) introduce an SSB tax, although the government has acknowledged its potential to be pro-equity. Understanding how various stakeholder groups perceive the potential effects of an SSB tax on different socioeconomic groups may provide useful insights into equity-related considerations in the debate whether or not to implement an SSB tax. This study aims to gain insight into the perceptions of stakeholder groups in the Netherlands on (1) the effects of an SSB tax on the budgets of lower and higher socioeconomic groups and (2) the impact of an SSB tax on socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intake and health. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2019 with 27 participants from various stakeholder groups in the Netherlands (i.e. health and consumer organizations, health professional associations, trade associations, academia, advisory bodies, ministries and parliamentary parties). Data were analyzed using a thematic content approach. Results: Participants from all stakeholder groups indicated that an SSB tax would have a larger impact on the budgets of lower socioeconomic groups. Participants from nearly all stakeholder groups (except trade associations) mentioned that an SSB tax could have greater health benefits among lower socioeconomic groups as these often have a higher SSB consumption and are more likely to be overweight or obese. Some participants mentioned that an SSB tax may have no or adverse health effects among lower socioeconomic groups (e.g. compensation of lower SSB consumption with other unhealthy behaviours). Some participants emphasised that an SSB tax should only be introduced when accompanied by other interventions (e.g. offering healthy alternatives), to make it easier for lower socioe