Article Text

Download PDFPDF
The potential role of taxes and subsidies on food in the prevention of obesity in Europe
  1. Laura Inés González-Zapata1,2,
  2. Carlos Alvarez-Dardet2,
  3. Erik Millstone3,
  4. Vicente Clemente-Gómez2,4,
  5. Michelle Holdsworth5,
  6. Rocio Ortiz-Moncada6,
  7. Tim Lobstein7,
  8. Katerina Sarri8,
  9. Bruna De Marchi9,
  10. Katalin Z Horvath10
  1. 1Nutrition and Dietetics School, University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia
  2. 2Community Nursing, Preventive Medicine & Public Health and History of Science Department, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
  3. 3SPRU—Science and Technology Policy Research, Freeman Centre, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
  4. 4CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
  5. 5Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Montpellier, France
  6. 6Community Nursing, Preventive Medicine & Public Health and History of Science Department, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
  7. 7IASO–IOTF, London, UK
  8. 8Preventive Medicine & Nutrition Clinic, University of Crete, School of Medicine, Heraklion, Greece
  9. 9Institute of International Sociology, Gorizia, Italy
  10. 10Semmelweis University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Dietetics and Nutrition Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
  1. Correspondence to Professor Carlos Alvarez-Dardet, University of Alicante, Community Nursing, Preventive Medicine & Public Health and History of Science Department, Ctra. de San Vicente del Raspeig s/n. 03690 Alicante, Apdo. Correos, 99, Alicante E-03080, Spain; carlos.alvarez{at}


Background Obesity implies costs not only for the individual but also for society. The authors explore the opinions of stakeholders on the potential of taxes or subsidies, as measures for tackling obesity in Europe.

Methods Structured interviews were conducted using Multicriteria Mapping, a computer-based, decision-support tool, with 189 interviewees drawn from 21 different stakeholder categories across nine members of the EU interviews, to appraise 20 predefined policy options aimed at reducing obesity, including ‘taxing obesity-promoting foods’ and ‘subsidising healthy foods.’ A four-step approach involved selecting options, defining criteria, scoring options quantitatively and weighting criteria to provide overall rankings of options. Interviews were recorded and transcribed to yield qualitative data.

Results Compared with other policy options appraised, taxation and subsidies were not favourably received, mainly because they were considered difficult to implement. Overall, trade unions rated both options more favourably than all other stakeholder groups. As anticipated, both options received their lowest scores from representatives of the farming, food processing and advertising industries. Nutritional/obesity advisory experts and public sector caterers gave the most positive ratings to subsidies overall. Along with public health professionals, large commercial retailers were most in favour of taxation.

Conclusions Taxation and subsidies were poorly appraised compared with other policy measures, with stakeholders expressing reservations mainly focussed on the practicalities and cost of introducing such measures. Although applying taxes/subsidies could be useful to combat obesity, the study suggests that most stakeholders still need to be convinced of their viability and acceptability when compared with other measures.

  • Nutrition policy
  • obesity
  • tax food
  • public health nutrition
  • pricing policy
  • nutrition
  • obesity EPI
  • public health policy

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Funding Supported by New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) research programme, financed by the 6th Framework Programme for research and technological development of the European Commission (contract no 508913).

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.