'Traffic-light' nutrition labelling and 'junk-food' tax : a modelled comparison of cost-effectiveness for obesity prevention

Sacks, G., Veerman, J. L., Moodie, M. and Swinburn, B 2011, 'Traffic-light' nutrition labelling and 'junk-food' tax : a modelled comparison of cost-effectiveness for obesity prevention, Internation journal of obesity, vol. 35, pp. 1001-1009, doi: 10.1038/ijo.2010.228.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title 'Traffic-light' nutrition labelling and 'junk-food' tax : a modelled comparison of cost-effectiveness for obesity prevention
Author(s) Sacks, G.ORCID iD for Sacks, G. orcid.org/0000-0001-9736-1539
Veerman, J. L.
Moodie, M.ORCID iD for Moodie, M. orcid.org/0000-0001-6890-5250
Swinburn, B
Journal name Internation journal of obesity
Volume number 35
Start page 1001
End page 1009
Total pages 9
Publisher Nature Publishing Group
Place of publication London, England
Publication date 2011-11-16
ISSN 0307-0565
1476-5497
Keyword(s) obesity prevention
cost-effectiveness
food taxes
nutrition labelling
Summary Introduction: Cost-effectiveness analyses are important tools in efforts to prioritise interventions for obesity prevention.
Modelling facilitates evaluation of multiple scenarios with varying assumptions. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of
conservative scenarios for two commonly proposed policy-based interventions: front-of-pack ‘traffic-light’ nutrition labelling
(traffic-light labelling) and a tax on unhealthy foods (‘junk-food’ tax).
Methods: For traffic-light labelling, estimates of changes in energy intake were based on an assumed 10% shift in consumption
towards healthier options in four food categories (breakfast cereals, pastries, sausages and preprepared meals) in 10% of adults. For the ‘junk-food’ tax, price elasticities were used to estimate a change in energy intake in response to a 10% price increase in seven food categories (including soft drinks, confectionery and snack foods). Changes in population weight and body mass index by sex were then estimated based on these changes in population energy intake, along with subsequent impacts on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Associated resource use was measured and costed using pathway analysis, based on a health sector perspective (with some industry costs included). Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3%. The cost-effectiveness of each intervention was modelled for the 2003 Australian adult population.
Results: Both interventions resulted in reduced mean weight (traffic-light labelling: 1.3 kg (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 1.2;
1.4); ‘junk-food’ tax: 1.6 kg (95% UI: 1.5; 1.7)); and DALYs averted (traffic-light labelling: 45 100 (95% UI: 37 700; 60 100);
‘junk-food’ tax: 559 000 (95% UI: 459 500; 676 000)). Cost outlays were AUD81 million (95% UI: 44.7; 108.0) for traffic-light
labelling and AUD18 million (95% UI: 14.4; 21.6) for ‘junk-food’ tax. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed both interventions were
‘dominant’ (effective and cost-saving).
Conclusion: Policy-based population-wide interventions such as traffic-light nutrition labelling and taxes on unhealthy foods are
likely to offer excellent ‘value for money’ as obesity prevention measures.
Language eng
DOI 10.1038/ijo.2010.228
Field of Research 140208 Health Economics
Socio Economic Objective 920401 Behaviour and Health
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
HERDC collection year 2010
Copyright notice ©2011, Nature Publishing Group
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30032370

Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 107 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 109 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 811 Abstract Views, 1496 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 31 Jan 2011, 09:45:30 EST by Penny Andrews

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.