IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/150426.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consequences of the Five-a-Day Campaign: Evidence from French Panel Data

Author

Listed:
  • Silva, Andres
  • Etilé, Fabrice
  • Jamet, Gaelle

Abstract

'5-a-day' public information campaigns have been implemented in many countries to promote the consumption of at least five portions of fruits and vegetables (F&Vs) per day per person as part of a healthy diet. This study proposes an ex-post evaluation of its impact on household purchases of F&Vs for food-athome consumption, using household scanner panel data and a before-after identification framework. It uses a dynamic tobit panel data model to account for non-participation, habit formation and household unobserved heterogeneity. Over the 2002-2010 period, the portions of F&V available each day for consumption by a household member have increased from 2.4 to 3.3 (+0.9). Our estimates reveal that 43% of this increase is due to the 5-a-day campaign (+0.38 portions). The largest effect is observed for fresh fruits (+0.16 portions), processed vegetables (+0.08 portions) and natural fruit juices (+0.08 portions). As a negative nutritional consequence, there has also been a small increase in fruit drinks with added sugar (+0.05 portions).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/150426
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deaton, Angus, 1988. "Quality, Quantity, and Spatial Variation of Price," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(3), pages 418-430, June.
    2. Ehmke, Mariah D. & Warziniack, Travis & Schroeter, Christiane & Morgan, Kari, 2008. "Applying Experimental Economics to Obesity in the Family Household," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(02), August.
    3. Crawford, Ian & Laisney, Francois & Preston, Ian, 2003. "Estimation of household demand systems with theoretically compatible Engel curves and unit value specifications," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 221-241, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2005. "Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 39-54.
    6. Bo MacInnis & Gordon Rausser, 2005. "Does Food Processing Contribute to Childhood Obesity Disparities?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1154-1158.
    7. Dallongeville, Jean & Dauchet, Luc & de Mouzon, Olivier & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2009. "Increasing Fruits and Vegetables Consumption: A Cost-Efficiency Analysis of Public Policies," TSE Working Papers 09-135, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. Deja Hendrickson & Chery Smith & Nicole Eikenberry, 2006. "Fruit and vegetable access in four low-income food deserts communities in Minnesota," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 23(3), pages 371-383, October.
    9. Halvorsen, Robert & Palmquist, Raymond, 1980. "The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 474-475, June.
    10. Stephen O'Neill & Kevin Hanrahan, 2012. "Decoupling of agricultural support payments: the impact on land market participation decisions," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 39(4), pages 639-659, September.
    11. Bhavani Shankar & Jose Brambila‐Macias & Bruce Traill & Mario Mazzocchi & Sara Capacci, 2013. "An Evaluation Of The Uk Food Standards Agency'S Salt Campaign," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2), pages 243-250, February.
    12. Badi Baltagi & Seuck Song, 2006. "Unbalanced panel data: A survey," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 493-523, October.
    13. Olivier Allais & Patrice Bertail & Véronique Nichèle, 2010. "The Effects of a Fat Tax on French Households' Purchases: A Nutritional Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(1), pages 228-245.
    14. Capacci, Sara & Mazzocchi, Mario, 2011. "Five-a-day, a price to pay: An evaluation of the UK program impact accounting for market forces," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 87-98, January.
    15. McKelvey, Christopher, 2011. "Price, unit value, and quality demanded," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 157-169, July.
    16. Richard Tiffin & W. Bruce Traill & Simon Mortimer, 2006. "Food Choice in an Interdisciplinary Context," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 213-220, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    information campaign; fruit and vegetables; dynamic tobit model; 5-a-day; International Relations/Trade; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies; D10; D12; Q18;

    JEL classification:

    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy

    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:ags:aaea13:150426. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.