Original Article

International Journal of Obesity (2011) 35, 1001–1009; doi:10.1038/ijo.2010.228; published online 16 November 2010

‘Traffic-light’ nutrition labelling and ‘junk-food’ tax: a modelled comparison of cost-effectiveness for obesity prevention

G Sacks1, J L Veerman2, M Moodie3 and B Swinburn1

  1. 1WHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3Deakin Health Economics, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence: G Sacks, WHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Melbourne, Victoria 3125, Australia. E-mail: gary.sacks@deakin.edu.au

Received 29 April 2010; Revised 20 August 2010; Accepted 20 September 2010; Published online 16 November 2010.

Top

Abstract

Introduction:

 

Cost-effectiveness analyses are important tools in efforts to prioritise interventions for obesity prevention. Modelling facilitates evaluation of multiple scenarios with varying assumptions. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of conservative scenarios for two commonly proposed policy-based interventions: front-of-pack ‘traffic-light’ nutrition labelling (traffic-light labelling) and a tax on unhealthy foods (‘junk-food’ tax).

Methods:

 

For traffic-light labelling, estimates of changes in energy intake were based on an assumed 10% shift in consumption towards healthier options in four food categories (breakfast cereals, pastries, sausages and preprepared meals) in 10% of adults. For the ‘junk-food’ tax, price elasticities were used to estimate a change in energy intake in response to a 10% price increase in seven food categories (including soft drinks, confectionery and snack foods). Changes in population weight and body mass index by sex were then estimated based on these changes in population energy intake, along with subsequent impacts on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Associated resource use was measured and costed using pathway analysis, based on a health sector perspective (with some industry costs included). Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3%. The cost-effectiveness of each intervention was modelled for the 2003 Australian adult population.

Results:

 

Both interventions resulted in reduced mean weight (traffic-light labelling: 1.3kg (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 1.2; 1.4); ‘junk-food’ tax: 1.6kg (95% UI: 1.5; 1.7)); and DALYs averted (traffic-light labelling: 45100 (95% UI: 37700; 60100); ‘junk-food’ tax: 559000 (95% UI: 459500; 676000)). Cost outlays were AUD81 million (95% UI: 44.7; 108.0) for traffic-light labelling and AUD18 million (95% UI: 14.4; 21.6) for ‘junk-food’ tax. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed both interventions were ‘dominant’ (effective and cost-saving).

Conclusion:

 

Policy-based population-wide interventions such as traffic-light nutrition labelling and taxes on unhealthy foods are likely to offer excellent ‘value for money’ as obesity prevention measures.

Keywords:

obesity prevention; cost-effectiveness; food taxes; nutrition labelling

Extra navigation

.

natureevents

ADVERTISEMENT