Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. World Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization: Geneva, 2003. (Technical report series 916).

  2. World Health Organization. Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. World Health Organization: Geneva, 2005.

  3. Sacks G, Swinburn B, Lawrence M . Obesity Policy Action framework and analysis grids for a comprehensive policy approach to reducing obesity. Obes Rev 2009; 10: 76–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Flynn MA, McNeil DA, Maloff B, Mutasingwa D, Wu M, Ford C et al. Reducing obesity and related chronic disease risk in children and youth: a synthesis of evidence with ‘best practice’ recommendations. Obes Rev 2006; 7 (Suppl 1): 7–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carter R, Moodie M, Markwick A, Magnus A, Vos T, Swinburn B et al. Assessing cost-effectiveness in obesity (ACE-obesity): an overview of the ACE approach, economic methods and cost results. BMC Public Health 2009; 9: 419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lobstein T, Davies S . Defining and labelling ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ food. Public Health Nutr 2009; 12: 331–340.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cowburn G, Stockley L . Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 2005; 8: 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Food Standards Agency (FSA) United Kingdom. Signposting. 2008 (cited March 2010). Available from: http://www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/signposting/.

  9. Kelly B, Hughes C, Chapman K, Louie JC-Y, Dixon H, King L . Front-of-pack food labelling: traffic light labelling gets the green light, 2008. (cited March 2010). Available from: http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/nutrition/foodlabellingreport.

  10. Food Standards Agency (FSA) United Kingdom. Front-of-pack traffic light signpost labelling, Technical guidance, Issue 2. 2007 (cited March 2010). Available from: http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/foodlabels/trafficlights/.

  11. Sacks G, Rayner M, Swinburn B . Impact of front-of-pack ‘traffic-light’ nutrition labelling on consumer food purchases in the UK. Health Promot Int 2009; 24: 344–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sutherland LA, Kaley LA, Fischer L . Guiding stars: theeffect of a nutrition navigation program on consumer purchases at the supermarket. Am J Clin Nutr 2010; 91: 1090S–10904.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Variyam JN, Cawley J . Nutrition Labels and Obesity, NBER Working Paper 11956, 2006. (cited March 2010). Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w1195.

  14. Powell LM, Chriqui J, Chaloupka FJ . Associations between state-level soda taxes and adolescent body mass index. J Adolesc Health 2009; 45 (3 Suppl): S57–S63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. European Heart Network. Food, nutrition and cardiovascular disease prevention in the European region: challenges for the new millennium. Brussels: European Heart Network; 2002 (cited March 2010). Available from: http://www.ehnheart.org/publications/nutrition/category/5.html.

  16. World Health Organization. 2008–2013 Action plan for the global strategy for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization: Geneva, 2008.

  17. Nnoaham KE, Sacks G, Rayner M, Mytton O, Gray A . Modelling income group differences in the health and economic impacts of targeted food taxes and subsidies. Int J Epidemiol 2009; 38: 1324–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Thow AM, Jan S, Leeder S, Swinburn B . The effect of fiscal policy on diet, obesity and chronic disease: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ 2010; 88: 609–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Haby MM, Vos T, Carter R, Moodie M, Markwick A, Magnus A et al. A new approach to assessing the health benefit from obesity interventions in children and adolescents: the assessing cost-effectiveness in obesity project. Int J Obes (London) 2006; 30: 1463–1475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson D . Tobacco use prevention media campaigns: lessons learned from youth in nine countries. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health: Atlanta, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). National Nutrition Survey: User's Guide, 1995. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, 1998. (Cat. no. 4801.0).

  22. Swinburn BA, Sacks G, Lo SK, Westerterp KR, Rush EC, Rosenbaum M et al. Estimating the changes in energy flux that characterize the rise in obesity prevalence. Am J Clin Nutr 2009; 89: 1723–1728.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Swinburn B, Sacks G, Ravussin E . Reply to KD Hall and CC Chow. Am J Clin Nutr 2010; 91: 817-a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bardsley P, Olekalns N . The impact of anti-smoking policies on tobacco cessation in Australia. Health Promot J Austr 1999; 9: 202–205.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ezzati M, Lopez A, Rodgers A, Murray C . Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: global and regional burden of disease attributable to selected major risk factors. World Health Organization: Geneva, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Forster M, Barendregt J, Vos T, Lennert V . Cost-effectiveness of diet and exercise interventions to reduce overweight and obesity. Int J Obes 2010. (in press).

  27. Rayner M, Boaz A . Consumer Use of Health-Related Endorsements on Food Labels in the United Kingdom and Australia. J Nutr Educ 2001; 33: 24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Seymour JD, Yaroch A, Serdula M, Blanck H, Khan L . Impact of nutrition environmental interventions on point-of-purchase behavior in adults: a review. Prev Med 2004; 39 (Suppl 2): S108–S136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Grunert KG, Wills JM . A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J Public Health 2007; 15: 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sacks G, Rayner M, Swinburn B . Impact of front-of-pack ‘traffic-light’ nutrition labelling on consumer food purchases in the UK. Health Promot Int 2009; 24: 344–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chaloupka F, Powell L, Chriqui J . Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes and public health: a research brief, 2009. (cited March 2010). Available from: http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/20090731ssbbrief.pdf.

  32. Mytton O, Gray A, Rayner M, Rutter H . Could targeted food taxes improve health? Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61: 689–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Foods. National Food Survey: household food consumption and expenditure 2000. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Foods: London, 2000.

  34. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Health Expenditure Australia (Health and Welfare Expenditure Series). Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra, 2008.

  35. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Consumer Price Index. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, 2010.

  36. Chisholm D, Rehm J, Van Ommeren M, Monteiro M . Reducing the global burden of hazardous alcohol use: a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis. J Stud Alcohol 2004; 65: 782–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cobiac L, Vos T, Doran C, Wallace A . Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent alcohol-related disease and injury in Australia. Addiction 2009; 104: 1646–1655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Carter R, Stone S, Vos T, Hocking J, Mihalopoulos C, Peacock S et al. Trial of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis to assist Cancer Control Planning in Australia. PBMA Series No. 5. Research Report 19. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, University of Melbourne; 2000 (cited March 2010). Available from: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/rr19summ.pdf.

  39. NZIER. COOL Revisited: Benefit cost analysis of country of origin labelling, prepared for Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2005. (cited March 2010). Available from: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/NZIER_COOL_September_2005.pdf.

  40. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A . Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 1103–1109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Vos T, Haby MM, Magnus A, Mihalopoulos C, Andrews G, Carter R . Assessing cost-effectiveness in mental health: helping policy-makers prioritize and plan health services. Aust NZJ Psychiatry 2005; 39: 701–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gorton D, Ni Mhurchu C, Chen M-h, Dixon R . Nutrition labels: a survey of use, understanding and preferences among ethnically diverse shoppers in New Zealand. Public Health Nutr 2009; 12: 1359–1365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Young L, Swinburn B . Impact of the pick the tick food information programme on the salt content of food in New Zealand. Health Promot Int 2002; 17: 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Household Expenditure Survey, Australia: Detailed Expenditure Items, 2003-04. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, 2006. (Cat. no. 6535.0.55.001).

  45. Cobiac LJ, Vos T, Barendregt JJ . Cost-effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity: a modelling study. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The Economics of Prevention: Efficiency and distributional impact of interventions to prevent chronic diseases linked to unhealthy diets and sedentary lifestyles. Expert group-Economics of Prevention, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris, 2009.

  47. Carter R, Vos T, Moodie M, Haby M, Magnus A, Mihalopoulos C . Priority setting in health: origins, description and application of the Australian assessing cost-effectiveness initiative. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2008; 8: 593–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Population Estimates by Age and Sex, Australian States and Territories, 2006. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, 2006. (Cat no. 3201.0).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The ACE-Prevention project was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Health Services Research Grant (no. 351558). G Sacks is supported by a Deakin University Postgraduate Research Scholarship. Jan Barendregt and Megan Forster played crucial roles in the development of the BMI to DALYs model. The authors are grateful to Theo Vos, Rob Carter and Anne Magnus for their support in conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G Sacks.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sacks, G., Veerman, J., Moodie, M. et al. ‘Traffic-light’ nutrition labelling and ‘junk-food’ tax: a modelled comparison of cost-effectiveness for obesity prevention. Int J Obes 35, 1001–1009 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2010.228

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2010.228

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links