Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Five-a-day, a price to pay: An evaluation of the UK program impact accounting for market forces

Contents:

Author Info

  • Capacci, Sara
  • Mazzocchi, Mario

Abstract

We provide an ex-post assessment of the UK 5-a-day information campaign, where the positive effects of information are disentangled from potentially conflicting price dynamics. Using 4 years of data from the Expenditure and Food Survey between 2002 and 2006, we estimate that the 5-a-day program has lifted fruit and vegetable consumption by 0.3 portions, on average. We also provide quantitative evidence of a differentiated impact by income group, ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 portions. All impacts are larger than those observed by simply comparing pre-policy and post-policy intakes.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V8K-51D15PT-1/2/150c471fdcb144bbc7e630f30a6cab2d
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 30 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Pages: 87-98

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:30:y:2011:i:1:p:87-98

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505560

Related research

Keywords: Policy evaluation Almost Ideal Demand System Fruit and vegetable prices Expenditure and Food Survey;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Nordström, Jonas & Thunström, Linda, 2007. "The Impact of Tax Reforms Designed to Encourage a Healthier Grain Consumption," UmeÃ¥ Economic Studies 717, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
  2. J. Miguel Villas-Boas & Russell S. Winer, 1999. "Endogeneity in Brand Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(10), pages 1324-1338, October.
  3. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-26, June.
  4. Mazzocchi, Mario & Traill, W. Bruce & Shogren, Jason F., 2009. "Fat Economics: Nutrition, Health, and Economic Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199213863.
  5. D Moro & P Sckokai, 2000. "Heterogeneous preferences in household food consumption in Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 27(3), pages 305-323, September.
  6. Wohlgenant, Michael K., 2006. "Retail-to-Farm Transmission of Generic Advertising Effects," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 21(2).
  7. James Banks & Richard Blundell & Arthur Lewbel, 1997. "Quadratic Engel Curves And Consumer Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 527-539, November.
  8. Heckman, James J, 1979. "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 153-61, January.
  9. Nicholas E. Piggott & Thomas L. Marsh, 2004. "Does Food Safety Information Impact U.S. Meat Demand?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 154-174.
  10. Schroeter, Christiane & Lusk, Jayson & Tyner, Wallace, 2008. "Determining the impact of food price and income changes on body weight," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 45-68, January.
  11. Deaton, A., 1988. "Price Elasticities From Survey Data: Extensions And Indonesian Results," Papers 138, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Development Studies.
  12. Preston, Ian & Laisney, François & Crawford, Ian A., 2002. "Estimation of Household Demand Systems with Theoretically Compatible Engel Curves and Unit Value Specifications," ZEW Discussion Papers 97-06 [rev.], ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  13. Keuzenkamp, Hugo A. & Barten, Anton P., 1995. "Rejection without falsification on the history of testing the homogeneity condition in the theory of consumer demand," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 103-127, May.
  14. Julian M. Alston & John W. Freebairn & Jennifer S. James, 2001. "Beggar-Thy-Neighbor Advertising: Theory and Application to Generic Commodity Promotion Programs," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 888-902.
  15. Fuchs, Victor R., 2004. "Reflections on the socio-economic correlates of health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 653-661, July.
  16. Marco Caliendo & Reinhard Hujer, 2006. "The microeconometric estimation of treatment effects—An overview," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 199-215, March.
  17. Nicholas E. Piggott, 2000. "The Incidence of the Costs and Benefits of Generic Advertising," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 665-671.
  18. David G. Swartz & Ivar E. Strand, Jr., 1981. "Avoidance Costs Associated with Imperfect Information: The Case of Kepone," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(2), pages 139-150.
  19. Deaton, Angus, 1988. "Quality, Quantity, and Spatial Variation of Price," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(3), pages 418-30, June.
  20. Moschini, GianCarlo, 1995. "Units of Measurement and the 'Stone Index' In Demand System Estimation," Staff General Research Papers 5058, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  21. Beverly Tepper & Lee Rosenzweig, 1999. "Assessing the importance of health and nutrition related factors on food demand: a variable preference investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(12), pages 1541-1549.
  22. Patrice Bertail & France Caillavet, 2008. "Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Patterns: A Segmentation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(3), pages 827-842.
  23. Brian W. Gould, 2003. "An Empirical Assessment of Endogeneity Issues in Demand Analysis for Differentiated Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(3), pages 605-617.
  24. Alston, Julian M. & Sumner, Daniel A. & Vosti, Stephen A., 2008. "Farm subsidies and obesity in the United States: National evidence and international comparisons," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 470-479, December.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Brunello, Giorgio & De Paola, Maria & Labartino, Giovanna, 2012. "More Apples Less Chips? The Effect of School Fruit Schemes on the Consumption of Junk Food," IZA Discussion Papers 6496, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  2. Irz, Xavier & Leroy, Pascal & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2014. "Economic assessment of nutritional recommendations," TSE Working Papers 14-473, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
  3. Liaukonyte, Jura & Rickard, Bradley J. & Kaiser, Harry M. & Okrent, Abigail M. & Richards, Timothy J., 2012. "Economic and health effects of fruit and vegetable advertising: Evidence from lab experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 543-553.
  4. Silva, Andres & Etilé, Fabrice & Boizot-Szantai, Christine & Dharmasena, Senarath, 2013. "The Impact of Beverage Taxes on Quantity and Quality of Consumption in France," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150428, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  5. Silva, Andres & Etilé, Fabrice & Jamet, Gaelle, 2013. "Consequences of the Five-a-Day Campaign: Evidence from French Panel Data," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150426, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:30:y:2011:i:1:p:87-98. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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