Public and political acceptability of a food tax shift – An experiment with policy framing and revenue use

This article studies the attitudes of the public and politicians toward a tax on red and processed meat in Sweden, and how acceptability is affected by framing the tax as either: 1) a climate tax, 2) a public health tax, or 3) both a climate and public health tax, as well as specifying the use of tax revenues to a) support agriculture, b) support further climate [public health] initiatives, c) reduce VAT on broad categories of foods, or d) reduce VAT specifically on fruit and vegetables. These revenue uses were designed to isolate the impact of effectiveness, cost-neutrality and compensation of affected groups. Experimental survey-data were collected from 3,233 citizens and 1,253 politicians. The results showed that framing the tax had no effect on politicians and only a minor one on citizens; they became slightly more positive about the combined climate and public health justification compared to solely public health. The acceptability was generally greater when revenues were specified as opposed to unspecified, but the two cost-neutral revenue uses (a tax shift entailing either a broad reduction of VAT or just on fruit and vegetables) were the most acceptable proposals to both the public and politicians. The feasibility of implementing a tax on red and processed meat could be improved by ensuring that the average consumer’s total food costs do not increase and that any revenues are used to enhance the effectiveness of such a tax.