Purpose: Dietary patterns that include fruits and vegetables greatly reduce risk for chronic disease and obesity. Systemic inequities contribute to low fruit and vegetable intake and health disparities among individuals who report low-income. Subsequently, low-income populations are less likely to meet recommended levels of fruit and vegetable intake, report higher food insecurity, and experience higher rates of chronic disease and obesity.

Affordability is a substantial barrier to fruit and vegetable intake among low-income populations. As such, financial incentives for fruits and vegetables are applied as a policy lever to support the purchase of fruits and vegetables among low-income populations. In the United States, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) is the largest source of federal funding to date to support financial incentives for fruits and vegetables through competitive grants to organizations nationwide. The evidence is promising that financial incentives for fruits and vegetables increase fruit and vegetable intake, support food security, and improve health. 

Methods: This presentation will first define financial incentives for fruits and vegetables, account the history in federal funding in the United States, describe implementation of programs, and explore preliminary results of participants receiving financial incentives for fruits and vegetables from GusNIP. The extensive evidence-base about the impact of financial incentives for fruits and vegetables on participant outcomes will be explored. 

Results: Financial incentives have for fruits and vegetables hold over a decade long history in federal funding in the United States due to promising evaluations conducted about the impact of participation. As an example, GusNIP funded 42 grantees in 2019 and 2020 to partner with food retail sites to distribute financial incentives for fruits and vegetables nationwide. Numerous studies of individual financial incentive for fruit and vegetable projects demonstrate increased fruit and vegetable intake, an impact on food security, and encouraging health outcomes.

Conclusions: Incentivizing individuals to purchase fruits and vegetables is an important policy strategy to improve fruit and vegetable intake, influence food security, reduce risk for chronic disease and obesity, and address health disparities that have existed for decades.

Purpose: Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is linked with obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and poor dental health and SSBs are the leading source of added sugars

intake in the U.S. diet. As part of a public health strategy to reduce the intake of added sugars and promote health, SSB taxes are used as a fiscal policy instrument aimed at reducing demand for SSBs. Since 2015, SSB taxes have been implemented in eight local (city/county) jurisdictions in the U.S. with one having since been repealed. An extensive body of literature has emerged that provides evidence on the impacts of SSBs taxes and their potential to improve diet. 

Methods: This presentation will provide a comprehensive review of U.S. tax evaluation studies that provide evidence on the extent to which SSB taxes increase prices and reduce the demand for SSBs and extent to which there may be tax-related unintended consequences. Meta-analyses will provide an overall estimate of tax pass-through and the impact on demand, including accounting for offsets from cross-border shopping. Additionally, evidence will be assessed based on studies’ measure of quantity demanded (i.e., store scanner data on volume sold, purchase data, and consumption data). Literature will also be reviewed to assess other unintended consequences such as substitution, tax regressivity and employment impacts. 

Results: Based on meta-analyses of U.S. SSB tax evaluation studies, it was found that, on average, following the implementation of SSB taxes, tax pass-through was 70% and the demand for SSBs fell by 20%, with approximately one quarter of the estimated reduction in demand offset by cross-border shopping. Despite cross-border shopping, results from longer-run studies show that reductions in demand are sustained. Evidence shows limited substitution to other forms of sugar such as from untaxed beverages or sweets. Lower-income individuals are heavier SSB consumers and may benefit most from tax-related reductions in consumption. Finally, there is no evidence of job loss from SSB taxes, including in industries that produce or sell SSBs.

Conclusions: Overall, the results reveal that SSB taxes are a promising policy tool that could yield sustained reductions in the demand for SSBs and associated health harms.