Less meat in the shopping basket. The effect on meat purchases of higher prices, an information nudge and the combination: a randomised controlled trial.
Fiscal measure
Fiscal policy
Food policy measures
Information nudge
Meat tax
Randomised controlled trial
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 06 2022
07 06 2022
Historique:
received:
18
10
2021
accepted:
26
05
2022
entrez:
7
6
2022
pubmed:
8
6
2022
medline:
10
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reduced meat consumption benefits human and planetary health. Modelling studies have demonstrated the significant health and environmental gains that could be achieved through fiscal measures targeting meat. Adding other interventions may enhance the effect of a fiscal measure. The current study aimed to examine the effect of higher meat prices, an information nudge and a combination of both measures on meat purchases in a three-dimensional virtual supermarket. A parallel designed randomised controlled trial with four conditions was performed. Participants (≥ 18 years) were randomly assigned to the control condition or one of the experimental conditions: a 30% price increase for meat ('Price condition'), an information nudge about the environmental impact of meat production and consumers' role in that regard ('Information nudge condition') or a combination of both ('Combination condition'). Participants were asked to shop for their household for one week. The primary outcome was the difference in the total amount of meat purchased in grams per household per week. Between 22 June 2020 and 28 August 2020, participants were recruited and randomly assigned to the control and experimental conditions. The final sample included 533 participants. In the 'Combination condition', - 386 g (95% CI: - 579, - 193) meat was purchased compared with the 'Control condition'. Compared to the 'Control condition' less meat was purchased in the 'Price condition' (- 144 g (95%CI: - 331, 43)), although not statistically significant, whereas a similar amount of meat was purchased in the 'Information nudge condition' (1 g (95%CI: - 188, 189)). Achieving the most pronounced effects on reduced meat purchases will require a policy mixture of pricing and informational nudging. Less meat is purchased in a virtual supermarket after raising the meat price by 30% combined with an information nudge. The results could be used to design evidence-based policy measures to reduce meat purchases. The trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register identifier NL8628 . Registered on 18/05/2020. ICTRP Search Portal (who.int) NTR (trialregister.nl).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Reduced meat consumption benefits human and planetary health. Modelling studies have demonstrated the significant health and environmental gains that could be achieved through fiscal measures targeting meat. Adding other interventions may enhance the effect of a fiscal measure. The current study aimed to examine the effect of higher meat prices, an information nudge and a combination of both measures on meat purchases in a three-dimensional virtual supermarket.
METHODS
A parallel designed randomised controlled trial with four conditions was performed. Participants (≥ 18 years) were randomly assigned to the control condition or one of the experimental conditions: a 30% price increase for meat ('Price condition'), an information nudge about the environmental impact of meat production and consumers' role in that regard ('Information nudge condition') or a combination of both ('Combination condition'). Participants were asked to shop for their household for one week. The primary outcome was the difference in the total amount of meat purchased in grams per household per week.
RESULTS
Between 22 June 2020 and 28 August 2020, participants were recruited and randomly assigned to the control and experimental conditions. The final sample included 533 participants. In the 'Combination condition', - 386 g (95% CI: - 579, - 193) meat was purchased compared with the 'Control condition'. Compared to the 'Control condition' less meat was purchased in the 'Price condition' (- 144 g (95%CI: - 331, 43)), although not statistically significant, whereas a similar amount of meat was purchased in the 'Information nudge condition' (1 g (95%CI: - 188, 189)).
CONCLUSION
Achieving the most pronounced effects on reduced meat purchases will require a policy mixture of pricing and informational nudging. Less meat is purchased in a virtual supermarket after raising the meat price by 30% combined with an information nudge. The results could be used to design evidence-based policy measures to reduce meat purchases.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register identifier NL8628 . Registered on 18/05/2020. ICTRP Search Portal (who.int) NTR (trialregister.nl).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35672726
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13535-9
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13535-9
pmc: PMC9171470
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1137Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447–92.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
Abid Z, Cross AJ, Sinha R. Meat, dairy, and cancer. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100:386S–93S.
doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071597
Abete I, Romaguera D, Vieira AR, de Munain AL, Norat T. Association between total, processed, red and white meat consumption and all-cause, CVD and IHD mortality: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Br J Nutr. 2014;112(5):762–75.
doi: 10.1017/S000711451400124X
Micha R, Khatibzadeh S, Shi P, Andrews KG, Engell RE, Mozaffarian D. Global, regional and national consumption of major food groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis including 266 country-specific nutrition surveys worldwide. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9):e008705.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008705
Broeks MJ, Biesbroek S, Over EA, van Gils PF, Toxopeus I, Beukers MH, et al. A social cost-benefit analysis of meat taxation and a fruit and vegetables subsidy for a healthy and sustainable food consumption in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–12.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08590-z
Temme EH, Vellinga RE, de Ruiter H, Kugelberg S, van de Kamp M, Milford A, et al. Demand-side food policies for public and planetary health. Sustainability. 2020;12(15):5924.
doi: 10.3390/su12155924
Latka C, Kuiper M, Frank S, Heckelei T, Havlík P, Witzke H-P, et al. Paying the price for environmentally sustainable and healthy EU diets. Glob Food Sec. 2021;28:100437.
doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100437
Säll S, Gren M. Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden. Food Policy. 2015;55:41–53.
doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.05.008
Springmann M, Mason-D’ Croz D, Robinson S, Wiebe K, HCJ G, Rayner M, et al. Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: a modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0204139.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204139
Hyseni L, Atkinson M, Bromley H, Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, McGill R, et al. The effects of policy actions to improve population dietary patterns and prevent diet-related non-communicable diseases: scoping review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2017;71(6):694–711.
doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2016.234
Harbers MC, Beulens JW, Rutters F, de Boer F, Gillebaart M, Sluijs I, et al. The effects of nudges on purchases, food choice, and energy intake or content of purchases in real-life food purchasing environments: a systematic review and evidence synthesis. Nutr J. 2020;19(1):1–27.
doi: 10.1186/s12937-020-00623-y
Zorbas C, Palermo C, Chung A, Iguacel I, Peeters A, Bennett R, et al. Factors perceived to influence healthy eating: a systematic review and meta-ethnographic synthesis of the literature. Nutr Rev. 2018;76(12):861–74.
pubmed: 30202944
Thow AM, Downs S, Jan S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of food taxes and subsidies to improve diets: understanding the recent evidence. Nutr Rev. 2014;72(9):551–65.
doi: 10.1111/nure.12123
Afshin A, Penalvo JL, Del Gobbo L, Silva J, Michaelson M, O'Flaherty M, et al. The prospective impact of food pricing on improving dietary consumption: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0172277.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172277
Teng A, Puloka V, Genç M, Filimoehala O, Latu C, Lolomana’ia M, et al. Sweetened beverage taxes and changes in beverage price, imports and manufacturing: interrupted time series analysis in a middle-income country. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):1–12.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-00980-1
Bianchi F, Garnett E, Dorsel C, Aveyard P, Jebb SA. Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(9):e384–97.
doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30188-8
Harguess JM, Crespo NC, Hong MY. Strategies to reduce meat consumption: a systematic literature review of experimental studies. Appetite. 2020;144:104478.
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104478
Garnett EE, Balmford A, Marteau TM, Pilling MA, Sandbrook C. Price of change: does a small alteration to the price of meat and vegetarian options affect their sales? J Environ Psychol. 2021;75:101589.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101589
Hollands GJ, Bignardi G, Johnston M, Kelly MP, Ogilvie D, Petticrew M, et al. The TIPPME intervention typology for changing environments to change behaviour. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(8):1–9.
doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0140
Waterlander WE, Scarpa M, Lentz D, Steenhuis IH. The virtual supermarket: an innovative research tool to study consumer food purchasing behaviour. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):589.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-589
Waterlander WE, Jiang Y, Steenhuis IHM, Mhurchu CN. Using a 3D virtual supermarket to measure food purchase behavior: a validation study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(4):e107.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.3774
Eykelenboom M, Olthof MR, Van Stralen MM, Djojosoeparto SK, Poelman MP, Kamphuis CB, et al. The effects of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax and a nutrient profiling tax based on Nutri-score on consumer food purchases in a virtual supermarket: a randomised controlled trial. Public Health Nutr. 2022;25(4):1105–17.
doi: 10.1017/S1368980021004547
van Rossum C, Buurma-Rethans E, Dinnissen C, Beukers M, Brants H, Ocké M. The diet of the Dutch: results of the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey 2012–2016; 2020.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment: NEVO online version 2019/6.0. Bilthoven. https://nevo-online.rivm.nl/ . Accessed Feb 2020.
Nationaal Instituut voor Budgetvoorlichting: Wat geef ik uit aan voeding?. https://www.nibud.nl/consumenten/wat-geeft-u-uit-aan-voeding/ . Accessed Jan 2020.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment: LCA Food Database. https://www.rivm.nl/voedsel-en-voeding/duurzaam-voedsel/database-milieubelasting-voedingsmiddelen . Accessed Feb 2020.
Vellinga RE, van de Kamp M, Toxopeus IB, van Rossum C, de Valk E, Biesbroek S, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions and blue water use of Dutch diets and its association with health. Sustainability. 2019;11(21):6027.
doi: 10.3390/su11216027
Garnett T, Mathewson S, Angelides P, Borthwick F. Policies and actions to shift eating patterns: what works. Foresight. 2015;515(7528):518–22.
Cadario R, Chandon P. Which healthy eating nudges work best? A meta-analysis of field experiments. Mark Sci. 2020;39(3):465–86.
doi: 10.1287/mksc.2018.1128
van Deursen AJAM, van Dijk JAGM. Improving digital skills for the use of online public information and services. Gov Inf Q. 2009;26(2):333–40.
doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2008.11.002