IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Target Groups Appreciate Being Targeted? An Exploration of Healthy Eating Policy Acceptance


  • Jessica Aschemann-Witzel

    () (Aarhus University)

  • Tino Bech-Larsen

    (Aarhus University)

  • Sara Capacci

    (University of Bologna)


Abstract The impact of healthy eating policies falls behind policy maker’s expectations. Better targeting and stakeholder support should improve their effectiveness. The research aims to identify whether a target group (the group impacted by the policy measure) is characterised by higher acceptance levels or not. Acceptance among citizens from the target was compared to a matching non-target group, based on data from an online survey on citizens’ support of healthy eating policies conducted among 3003 adult respondents from five European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Poland, UK). The policies explored were bans of advertising to children or school vending machines, school meal regulations, education campaigns at schools and workplaces, menu nutrition information and food labelling, price subsidies for healthy food, and accessibility measures for the elderly. It was found that target groups showed more support than others for four policies: parents were more supportive of vending machine bans in schools and workers eating out at lunch of education campaigns at workplaces, food labelling was more supported by those considering nutrition content in food purchase, and price subsidies for healthy food more supported by respondents in financial difficulties. However, parents were less supportive of school education campaigns, and the pattern of support through the target group differed by country. It is concluded that members of the target group tend to, but are not per se especially supportive of healthy eating policy measures concerning themselves or their children, and there are great country differences. Acceptance of policies should be surveyed per target group and country in advance of implementation. In the case of lack in acceptance, further exploration of the barriers should be conducted so that the benefit of the policy can be more effectively communicated, assuming that this increases stakeholder cooperation and favourable peer influence.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Aschemann-Witzel & Tino Bech-Larsen & Sara Capacci, 2016. "Do Target Groups Appreciate Being Targeted? An Exploration of Healthy Eating Policy Acceptance," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 285-306, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:39:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s10603-016-9327-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10603-016-9327-7

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. repec:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2013.301271_4 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:spr:portec:v:1:y:2002:i:2:d:10.1007_s10258-002-0010-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2009. "Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 44(3).
    4. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2003. "Libertarian Paternalism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 175-179, May.
    5. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 2002. "Propensity Score-Matching Methods For Nonexperimental Causal Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 151-161, February.
    6. Barbara Sianesi, 2004. "An Evaluation of the Swedish System of Active Labor Market Programs in the 1990s," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 133-155, February.
    7. Anne Moller Dano, 2005. "Road injuries and long-run effects on income and employment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(9), pages 955-970.
    8. Jakobsson, C. & Fujii, S. & Gärling, T., 2000. "Determinants of private car users' acceptance of road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 153-158, April.
    9. Moore, Sue & Murphy, Simon & Tapper, Katy & Moore, Laurence, 2010. "From policy to plate: Barriers to implementing healthy eating policies in primary schools in Wales," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 239-245, March.
    10. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    11. Wang-Sheng Lee, 2013. "Propensity score matching and variations on the balancing test," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 47-80, February.
    12. Aschemann-Witzel, Jessica & Perez-Cueto, Federico J.A. & Niedzwiedzka, Barbara & Verbeke, Wim & Bech-Larsen, Tino, 2012. "Transferability of private food marketing success factors to public food and health policy: An expert Delphi survey," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 650-660.
    13. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    14. Pettigrew, Simone & Pescud, Melanie & Donovan, Robert J., 2012. "Stakeholder perceptions of a comprehensive school food policy in Western Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 100-104.
    15. 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(03), pages 267-292, July.
    16. Sascha O. Becker & Andrea Ichino, 2002. "Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(4), pages 358-377, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:kap:jcopol:v:39:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s10603-016-9327-7. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.