A tax on junk food and cheaper vegetables are among measures being proposed by a new study to boost Australians’ health, but there are concerns the proposal could disadvantage lower income earners.

The Lancet Public Health research estimates a 20 per cent tax would reduce unhealthy food purchases by up to 26 per cent, leading to fewer cases of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.

Researchers also say their proposed model, which includes subsidising fruit and vegetables, could prevent more than 200,000 premature deaths.

But for everyday consumers like Kiana Schofield, eating healthy can be challenging.

“If you want to consistently buy fresh produce and other healthy items, it does really add up because you’re buying items that will perish in about a week, so you have to be so intentional with using them,” she says.

“And if not, that’s like a whole grocery budget down the drain.”

Ms Schofield says she prioritises health over taste.

“My husband and I have erred on the side of buying more frozen vegetables because it’s half the price of fresh vegetables, which I don’t really agree with,” she says.

“It’s something that we’ve had to do to keep the health that we want, but also make sure that we’re within our budget.”

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, people in the lowest socioeconomic areas are more likely to eat ultra-processed food and less likely to meet the recommended daily serves of fruit and vegetables.

Study author and food policy researcher Tamzan Davies says the model could help bridge the gap for consumers on lower incomes.

“Naturally, the tax would generate a lot of revenue, and the question would be what should we do with that revenue?,” Mr Davies says.

“A combined tax and subsidy policy where the taxation revenue is funnelled into subsidies for healthy foods could be a powerful, multi-pronged approach to help level the playing field in terms of food prices.”

Mr Davies says subsidies on fruit and vegetables could be implemented through vouchers, school feeding programs, lowering prices in stores or even through hamper collections.

Health Consumers’ Council executive director Clare Mullen says a subsidy on healthy foods is not enough to change Australian diets.

“For many people, it’s not just the availability of the food, but the availability of time to spend preparing the food, the confidence and knowledge to make that food palatable and tasty compared to the food scientists making junk food highly palatable,” she says.

“Being able to access fruit and vegetables is one part, and particularly food security in some of our more regional areas is a real issue, but it’s not the only story.”

Ms Mullen says a 20 per cent tax on junk food could also disadvantage low-income households in indirect ways.

“People on low incomes who might be doing it really tough may not be able to afford the latest Xbox or the latest fancy trainers, but they could treat their kids to a happy meal.”

Amanda Lee is a public health nutrition expert at the University of Queensland.

She says the food industry has saturated consumers with choosing unhealthy options.

“The actual concept of food as being important for our health tends to be undermined by unhealthy food businesses that are trying to promote and market unhealthy foods as a commodity to improve their interests,” she says.

“People are being told these meals are fun and they become what people think of as a relatively cheap entertainment for families.”

Professor Lee says a junk food tax could help to change habits.

But she’s doubtful a 20 per cent increase on top of the GST is unlikely to be accepted by the government, saying a 10 per cent increase is more realistic.

Study author Tamzan Davies remains hopeful.

“If community groups endorse this policy, I think that could encourage politicians to discuss this policy in parliament and have it on the political agenda,” he says.

“In other countries, it was advocacy from the community that helped get a tax on unhealthy foods on the political agenda.”