Abstract Background Most adults do not meet the recommended intake of five portions per day of fruit and vegetables (F&V) in England, but economic analyses of structural policies to change diet are sparse. This study aimed to estimate (1) the health and economic burden attributable to the low intake of fruit and vegetables (F&V) by English adults, and (2) the cost-effectiveness of three policies promoting consumption of F&V in England - a universal 10% subsidy, a targeted 30% subsidy for low-income households, and a nationwide social marketing campaign (SMC). Methods Using published data from official statistics and meta-epidemiological studies, we estimated the deaths, years-of-life lost (YLL), and the healthcare costs attributable to consumption of F&V below the recommended five portions per day by English adults. Then, we estimated the cost-effectiveness from governmental and societal perspectives of three policies. Results Low consumption of F&V accounted for 16,321 [10,091-23,516] deaths and 238,767 [170,350-311,651] YLL due to cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes and cancer in England in 2017, alongside £705,951 [398,761-1,061,559] million in healthcare costs. From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £22,891 [22,300-25,079], £16,860 [15,589-19,763], and £25,683 [25,237-28,671] per life-year saved for the universal subsidy, targeted subsidy and SMC, respectively. At a threshold of £20,000 per life-year saved, the likelihood that the universal subsidy, the targeted subsidy and the SMC were cost-effective was 84%, 19% and 5%, respectively. The targeted subsidy was the only policy that would also reduce inequalities. Conclusions Both a SMC and subsidies can significantly increase consumption of F&V and reduce the attributable burden of disease and healthcare costs, but their cost-effectiveness varies substantially. A targeted subsidy to low-income households is most likely cost-effective and can additionally reduce inequalities. Key messages Low intake of fruit and vegetables accounts for a substantial number of deaths and years of life lost and represents a heavy burden for the healthcare system in England. From a societal perspective, a targeted subsidy to low-income households was most likely cost-effective and it would reduce inequalities.
Read full abstract