Cargando…
A social cost-benefit analysis of meat taxation and a fruit and vegetables subsidy for a healthy and sustainable food consumption in the Netherlands
BACKGROUND: Implementation of food taxes or subsidies may promote healthier and a more sustainable diet in a society. This study estimates the effects of a tax (15% or 30%) on meat and a subsidy (10%) on fruit and vegetables (F&V) consumption in the Netherlands using a social cost-benefit analys...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7212616/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32389120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08590-z |
_version_ | 1783531653001379840 |
---|---|
author | Broeks, Marlin J. Biesbroek, Sander Over, Eelco A. B. van Gils, Paul F. Toxopeus, Ido Beukers, Marja H. Temme, Elisabeth H. M. |
author_facet | Broeks, Marlin J. Biesbroek, Sander Over, Eelco A. B. van Gils, Paul F. Toxopeus, Ido Beukers, Marja H. Temme, Elisabeth H. M. |
author_sort | Broeks, Marlin J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Implementation of food taxes or subsidies may promote healthier and a more sustainable diet in a society. This study estimates the effects of a tax (15% or 30%) on meat and a subsidy (10%) on fruit and vegetables (F&V) consumption in the Netherlands using a social cost-benefit analysis with a 30-year time horizon. METHODS: Calculations with the representative Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (2012–2014) served as the reference. Price elasticities were applied to calculate changes in consumption and consumer surplus. Future food consumption and health effects were estimated using the DYNAMO-HIA model and environmental impacts were estimated using Life Cycle Analysis. The time horizon of all calculations is 30 year. All effects were monetarized and discounted to 2018 euros. RESULTS: Over 30-years, a 15% or 30% meat tax or 10% F&V subsidy could result in reduced healthcare costs, increased quality of life, and higher productivity levels. Benefits to the environment of a meat tax are an estimated €3400 million or €6300 million in the 15% or 30% scenario respectively, whereas the increased F&V consumption could result in €100 million costs for the environment. While consumers benefit from a subsidy, a consumer surplus of €10,000 million, the tax scenarios demonstrate large experienced costs of respectively €21,000 and €41,000 million. Overall, a 15% or 30% price increase in meat could lead to a net benefit for society between €3100–7400 million or €4100–12,300 million over 30 years respectively. A 10% F&V subsidy could lead to a net benefit to society of €1800–3300 million. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. CONCLUSIONS: The studied meat taxes and F&V subsidy showed net total welfare benefits for the Dutch society over a 30-year time horizon. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7212616 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72126162020-05-18 A social cost-benefit analysis of meat taxation and a fruit and vegetables subsidy for a healthy and sustainable food consumption in the Netherlands Broeks, Marlin J. Biesbroek, Sander Over, Eelco A. B. van Gils, Paul F. Toxopeus, Ido Beukers, Marja H. Temme, Elisabeth H. M. BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Implementation of food taxes or subsidies may promote healthier and a more sustainable diet in a society. This study estimates the effects of a tax (15% or 30%) on meat and a subsidy (10%) on fruit and vegetables (F&V) consumption in the Netherlands using a social cost-benefit analysis with a 30-year time horizon. METHODS: Calculations with the representative Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (2012–2014) served as the reference. Price elasticities were applied to calculate changes in consumption and consumer surplus. Future food consumption and health effects were estimated using the DYNAMO-HIA model and environmental impacts were estimated using Life Cycle Analysis. The time horizon of all calculations is 30 year. All effects were monetarized and discounted to 2018 euros. RESULTS: Over 30-years, a 15% or 30% meat tax or 10% F&V subsidy could result in reduced healthcare costs, increased quality of life, and higher productivity levels. Benefits to the environment of a meat tax are an estimated €3400 million or €6300 million in the 15% or 30% scenario respectively, whereas the increased F&V consumption could result in €100 million costs for the environment. While consumers benefit from a subsidy, a consumer surplus of €10,000 million, the tax scenarios demonstrate large experienced costs of respectively €21,000 and €41,000 million. Overall, a 15% or 30% price increase in meat could lead to a net benefit for society between €3100–7400 million or €4100–12,300 million over 30 years respectively. A 10% F&V subsidy could lead to a net benefit to society of €1800–3300 million. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. CONCLUSIONS: The studied meat taxes and F&V subsidy showed net total welfare benefits for the Dutch society over a 30-year time horizon. BioMed Central 2020-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7212616/ /pubmed/32389120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08590-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Broeks, Marlin J. Biesbroek, Sander Over, Eelco A. B. van Gils, Paul F. Toxopeus, Ido Beukers, Marja H. Temme, Elisabeth H. M. A social cost-benefit analysis of meat taxation and a fruit and vegetables subsidy for a healthy and sustainable food consumption in the Netherlands |
title | A social cost-benefit analysis of meat taxation and a fruit and vegetables subsidy for a healthy and sustainable food consumption in the Netherlands |
title_full | A social cost-benefit analysis of meat taxation and a fruit and vegetables subsidy for a healthy and sustainable food consumption in the Netherlands |
title_fullStr | A social cost-benefit analysis of meat taxation and a fruit and vegetables subsidy for a healthy and sustainable food consumption in the Netherlands |
title_full_unstemmed | A social cost-benefit analysis of meat taxation and a fruit and vegetables subsidy for a healthy and sustainable food consumption in the Netherlands |
title_short | A social cost-benefit analysis of meat taxation and a fruit and vegetables subsidy for a healthy and sustainable food consumption in the Netherlands |
title_sort | social cost-benefit analysis of meat taxation and a fruit and vegetables subsidy for a healthy and sustainable food consumption in the netherlands |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7212616/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32389120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08590-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT broeksmarlinj asocialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT biesbroeksander asocialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT overeelcoab asocialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT vangilspaulf asocialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT toxopeusido asocialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT beukersmarjah asocialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT temmeelisabethhm asocialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT broeksmarlinj socialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT biesbroeksander socialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT overeelcoab socialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT vangilspaulf socialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT toxopeusido socialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT beukersmarjah socialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands AT temmeelisabethhm socialcostbenefitanalysisofmeattaxationandafruitandvegetablessubsidyforahealthyandsustainablefoodconsumptioninthenetherlands |