Table 1. Model outputs (grams of food/day, expenditure, energy, BMI and HALYs gained) for saturated fat and sugar taxes, and fruit and vegetable subsidy, for the preferred TFEe adjustment and conventional (no TFEe adjustment) analyses.

	Expendi- ture #	All food (g/day)	Energy (kJ)	BMI	Fruit (g/day)	Vege (g/day)	Salt (g/day)	PUFA (g/day)	SSBs (mls/day)	Sugar (g/day)	HALYs †	95% UI HALYs ‡
Business as usual (BAU)	16.09	3016	8,536	27.51	149.44	149.68	3.43	0.050	102.58	108.92	173,012,000
Changes compared to BAU
Saturated fat tax of $2 per 100g (causing a 3.91% increase in the FPI)
Conventional model–no TFEe adjustment	-1.92%	-68	-740	-1.30	-0.58	-0.83	-0.19	-0.001	0.40	-5.21	3,343,000
TFEe adjustment	2.93%	-14	-348	-0.61	5.75	6.20	-0.07	-0.001	4.65	0.18	1,805,000	(1,337,000 to 2,340,000)
Sugar tax of $0.4/100 grams per 100g (causing a 1.88% increase in the FPI)
Conventional model–no TFEe adjustment	-1.04%	-45	-522	-0.91	-0.05	0.00	-0.04	0.002	-22.50	-17.53	2,504,000
TFEe adjustment	1.41%	-16	-321	-0.56	3.20	3.58	0.02	0.002	-20.56	-20.81	1,671,000	(1,220,000 to 2,269,000)
Fruit and vegetable subsidy of 20% (causing a 3.27% decrease in the FPI)
Conventional model–no TFEe adjustment	0.72%	78	218	0.39	28.72	53.97	0.04	0.000	-0.46	5.49	415,000
TFEe adjustment	-2.45%	45	-56	-0.10	24.22	48.62	-0.05	0.000	-2.88	1.84	953,000	(453,000 to 1,308,000)

† 0% discount rate; HALYs at 3% annual discount rate are shown in S4 Table. Values are ‘expected values’ using central estimates for all input parameters (i.e. not from Monte Carlo simulation).

‡ Uncertainty intervals for 2000 simulations (for TFEe adjusted results only) drawing the 2.5^th and 97.5^th percentiles.

# $ for BAU. % change for changes compared to BAU.