IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-03210654.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Acceptability of Food Policies

Author

Listed:
  • Romain Espinosa

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Anis Nassar

    (UNIFR - Université de Fribourg = University of Fribourg)

Abstract

We propose and test a model of food policy acceptability. The model is structured in four levels: government, topic, policy, and individual. In this study, we focus on two levels that are actionable for policy-makers: the topic and policy levels. We assess nine factors using a first online survey with 600 UK nationals and replicate our results in a second survey with 588 participants. Our results suggest that three factors have a positive effect on acceptability at the topic level: awareness of the issue, the legitimacy of state intervention, and social norms. At the policy level, we report a positive effect of the policy's expected effectiveness, its appropriate targeting of consumers, and the perceived support of the majority. On the other hand, more coercive interventions and those generating inequalities are judged to be less acceptable. Additionally, we report an interaction between awareness and coerciveness on acceptability. Participants who are aware of the issue were more likely to support coercive policies. We also find evidence for a trade-off between coerciveness, effectiveness, and acceptability, as more coercive measures are considered more effective, but less acceptable by participants. Our findings offer policy-makers, nutrition experts, and advocates for healthier and more sustainable diets a new and integrated understanding of the underlying factors that determine food policy acceptability.

Suggested Citation

  • Romain Espinosa & Anis Nassar, 2021. "The Acceptability of Food Policies," Post-Print halshs-03210654, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-03210654
    DOI: 10.3390/nu13051483
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03210654
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03210654/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3390/nu13051483?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2005. "Fairness and Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 960-980, September.
    2. Maren Duvendack & Richard Palmer-Jones & W. Robert Reed, 2017. "What Is Meant by "Replication" and Why Does It Encounter Resistance in Economics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 46-51, May.
    3. David Tilman & Michael Clark, 2014. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 518-522, November.
    4. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Jalil, Andrew J. & Tasoff, Joshua & Bustamante, Arturo Vargas, 2020. "Eating to save the planet: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial using individual-level food purchase data," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Schade, Jens & Schlag, Bernhard, 2000. "Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing," Research Reports 72, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Mazzocchi, Mario & Cagnone, Silvia & Bech-Larsen, Tino & Niedźwiedzka, Barbara & Saba, Anna & Shankar, Bhavani & Verbeke, Wim & Traill, W Bruce, 2015. "What is the public appetite for healthy eating policies? Evidence from a cross-European survey," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 267-292, July.
    8. Hagmann, Désirée & Siegrist, Michael & Hartmann, Christina, 2018. "Taxes, labels, or nudges? Public acceptance of various interventions designed to reduce sugar intake," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 156-165.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Romain Espinosa & Thibaut Arpinon & Paco Maginot & Sébastien Demange & Florimond Peureux, 2024. "Removing barriers to plant-based diets: assisting doctors with vegan patients," Post-Print hal-04479493, HAL.
    2. Bry-Chevalier, Tom, 2024. "Comparing the potential of meat alternatives for a more sustainable food system," OSF Preprints ze5yt, Center for Open Science.
    3. Espinosa, Romain & Arpinon, Thibaut & Maginot, Paco & Demange, Sébastien & Peureux, Florimond, 2024. "Removing barriers to plant-based diets: Assisting doctors with vegan patients," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lan Nguyen & Hans De Steur, 2021. "Public Acceptability of Policy Interventions to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption in Urban Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Mantzari, Eleni & Reynolds, James P. & Jebb, Susan A. & Hollands, Gareth J. & Pilling, Mark A. & Marteau, Theresa M., 2022. "Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    3. David Arthur Cleveland & Quentin Gee & Audrey Horn & Lauren Weichert & Mickael Blancho, 2021. "How many chickens does it take to make an egg? Animal welfare and environmental benefits of replacing eggs with plant foods at the University of California, and beyond," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 157-174, February.
    4. Martha Bicket & Robin Vanner, 2016. "Designing Policy Mixes for Resource Efficiency: The Role of Public Acceptability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Cadario, Romain & Chandon, Pierre, 2019. "Viewpoint: Effectiveness or consumer acceptance? Tradeoffs in selecting healthy eating nudges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-6.
    7. Romain Cadario & Pierre Chandon, 2019. "Viewpoint: Effectiveness or consumer acceptance? Tradeoffs in selecting healthy eating nudges," Post-Print hal-02508983, HAL.
    8. Nathalie J. Lambrecht & Lesli Hoey & Alex Bryan & Martin Heller & Andrew D. Jones, 2023. "Limiting red meat availability in a university food service setting reduces food-related greenhouse gas emissions by one-third," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    9. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Rhys Manners, 2020. "Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    10. Gabrieli, Tommaso, 2007. "Beliefs And Redistributive Politics Under Incomplete Information," Economic Research Papers 269770, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    11. Martin, Elliot & Shaheen, Susan & Lipman, Timothy & Camel, Madonna, 2014. "Evaluating the public perception of a feebate policy in California through the estimation and cross-validation of an ordinal regression model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 144-153.
    12. Benabou, Roland, 2005. "Inequality, Technology and the Social Contract," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 25, pages 1595-1638, Elsevier.
    13. European Commission, 2013. "Tax reforms in EU Member States - Tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability – 2013 Report," Taxation Papers 38, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    14. Buechel, Berno & Krähenmann, Philemon, 2022. "Fixed price equilibria on peer‐to‐peer platforms: Lessons from time‐based currencies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 335-358.
    15. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    16. Guido Cozzi, 2008. "Why the Rich Should Like R&D Less," Working Papers 2009_14, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Mar 2009.
    17. Zhang, Yingqiang & Eriksson, Tor, 2010. "Inequality of opportunity and income inequality in nine Chinese provinces, 1989-2006," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 607-616, December.
    18. Ooghe, Erwin & Peichl, Andreas, 2010. "Fair and Efficient Taxation under Partial Control: Theory and Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 5388, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    20. Meier, Volker & Schiopu, Ioana, 2020. "Enrollment expansion and quality differentiation across higher education systems," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 43-53.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    food policy; acceptability; survey;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-03210654. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.