Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Taxes and subsidies on foods and nutrients have the potential to promote healthier diets and thereby reduce mortality. In this study, we examine the effects of such policy instruments on Swedish public health. Specifically, we estimate the effects of food and nutrient taxes and subsidies on mortality averted and postponed in Sweden, using both demand system estimations and simulation models. We evaluate different Value Added Tax (VAT) reforms. The VAT is raised on food products that are particularly rich in saturated fat or salt and lowered on fruit and vegetables. Our models predict that an increase in the current VAT of 12% on food, to 25% VAT on products rich in saturated fat plus a 0% VAT on fruits and vegetables would result in almost 1100 deaths (95% CI: −832; −1363) averted or postponed in a year in Sweden, while the combination of a 34.4% VAT on products rich in saturated fat and a −10.4% VAT (i.e. a subsidy) on fruits and vegetables would result in almost 2100 (95% CI: −1572; −2311) deaths averted or postponed corresponding to a 4.8% reduction in diet-related annual death. Most of the deaths averted or delayed from this reform would be deaths from coronary heart disease (−1,148, 95% CI: −728; −1586), followed by stroke −641 (95% CI: −408; −887) and diet-related cancer deaths (−288, 95% CI: −11; −435). We find that health-related food taxes and subsidies improve dietary habits as well as reduce the mortality of the Swedish population. However, the effect of these reforms on different socioeconomic classes and which reforms provide the best value for money, i.e., cost-effectiveness of these reforms needs to be established first before implementation.

Original publication




Journal article


Social Science and Medicine

Publication Date