Social acceptability of standard and behavioral economic inspired policies designed to reduce and prevent obesity.

The obesity epidemic is a significant public policy issue facing the international community, resulting in substantial costs to individuals and society. Various policies have been suggested to reduce and prevent obesity, including those informed by standard economics (a key feature of which is the assumption that individuals are rational) and behavioral economics (which identifies and harness deviations from rationality). It is not known which policy interventions taxpayers find acceptable and would prefer to fund via taxation. We provide evidence from a discrete choice experiment on an Australian sample of 996 individuals to investigate social acceptability of eight policies: mass media campaign; traffic light nutritional labeling; taxing sugar sweetened beverages; prepaid cards to purchase healthy food; financial incentives to exercise; improved built environment for physical activity; bans on advertising unhealthy food and drink to children; and improved nutritional quality of food sold in public institutions. Latent class analysis revealed three classes differing in preferences and key respondent characteristics including capacity to benefit. Social acceptability of the eight policies at realistic levels of tax increases was explored using post-estimation analysis. Overall, 78% of the sample were predicted to choose a new policy, varying from 99% in those most likely to benefit from obesity interventions to 19% of those least likely to benefit. A policy informed by standard economics, traffic light labeling was the most popular policy, followed by policies involving regulation: bans on junk food advertising to children and improvement of food quality in public institutions. The least popular policies were behaviorally informed: prepaid cards for the purchase of only healthy foods, and financial incentives to exercise.