Low-income citizens’ evaluation of policy interventions to promote healthy food choices

Implementing a beneficial policy does not guarantee success; for public interventions to be effective, they must also have public support. While extensive studies have explored the general population's views on various interventions promoting healthy food consumption, limited attention has been given to the groups that would benefit most from such strategies. This study focuses on low-income citizens, who often face dietary compromises due to financial constraints. Its objective is to assess the support, perceived intrusiveness, and perceived effectiveness of specific interventions designed to (dis)incentivize the consumption of (un)healthy foods. Additionally, it aims to identify the factors influencing the support of such measures among this vulnerable segment. The study employed an online survey, administered to 810 Italian shoppers with low monthly household incomes (below the national median) to evaluate nudge interventions (i.e., nutri-score labeling, salience, checkout prompts, and placements) and traditional policies (i.e., taxation and educational campaigns) aimed at improving food choices. Findings reveal that food labeling and educational campaigns are more widely accepted and perceived as more effective than other nudges, whereas taxation is perceived as the most intrusive policy. Subsequent econometric analyses highlight the crucial role of perceived effectiveness and intrusiveness in determining policy support. Furthermore, personal and behavioral characteristics significantly influence approval, as citizens tend to oppose interventions that seek to restrict established habits. Adapting policies to reflect these variations could enhance their relevance and effectiveness, ultimately improving their impact on public health.