We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To measure the impact of a reimbursement-based consumer subsidy on vegetable expenditures, consumption and waste.
Design
Two-arm randomized controlled trial; two-week baseline observation period, three-week intervention period. Participants’ vegetable expenditures, consumption and waste were monitored using receipts collection and through an FFQ. During the intervention period, the treatment group received reimbursement of up to 50 US dollars ($) for purchased vegetables.
Setting
Participants were solicited from Palo Alto, CA, USA using materials advertising a ‘consumer behavior study’ and a small participation incentive. To prevent selection bias, solicitation materials did not describe the specific behaviour being evaluated.
Subjects
One hundred and fifty potential participants responded to the solicitations and 144 participants enrolled in the study; 138 participants completed all five weekly surveys.
Results
Accounting for the control group (n 69) and the two-week baseline period, the intervention significantly impacted the treatment group’s (n 69) vegetable expenditures (+$8·16 (sd 2·67)/week, P<0·01), but not vegetable consumption (+1·3 (sd 1·2) servings/week, P=0·28) or waste (−0·23 (sd 1·2) servings/week, P=0·60).
Conclusions
The consumer subsidy significantly increased participants’ vegetable expenditures, but not consumption or waste, suggesting that this type of subsidy might not have the effects anticipated. Reimbursement-based consumer subsidies may therefore not be as useful a policy tool for impacting vegetable consumption as earlier studies have suggested. Moreover, moderation analysis revealed that the subsidy’s effect on participants’ vegetable expenditures was significant only in men. Additional research should seek to determine how far reaching gender-specific effects are in this context. Further research should also examine the effect of a similar consumer subsidy on high-risk populations and explore to what extent increases in participants’ expenditures are due to the purchase of more expensive vegetables, purchasing of vegetables during the study period that were consumed outside the study period, or a shift from restaurant vegetable consumption to grocery vegetable consumption.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.