You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 9, Issue 3
  • Support for, and perceived effectiveness of, the UK soft drinks industry levy among UK adults: cross-sectional analysis of the International Food Policy Study

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Public health
Research
Support for, and perceived effectiveness of, the UK soft drinks industry levy among UK adults: cross-sectional analysis of the International Food Policy Study
  1. David Pell1,
  2. Tarra Penney1,
  3. David Hammond2,
  4. Lana Vanderlee2,
  5. Martin White1,
  6. Jean Adams1
  1. 1 Centre for Diet and Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  2. 2 School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jean Adams; jma79{at}medschl.cam.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To answer four questions: What are attitudes, knowledge and social norms around sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs)? What are current levels of trust in messages on SSBs? What is current support for, and perceived effectiveness of, the UK soft drinks industry levy (SDIL)? What is the association between attitudes, knowledge, social norms, trust, SSB consumption and sociodemographic factors; and support for, and perceived effectiveness of, the SDIL?

Design Cross-sectional online survey.

Setting UK.

Participants UK respondents to the 2017 International Food Policy Study aged 18–64 years who provided information on all variables of interest (n=3104).

Outcome measures Self-reported perceived effectiveness of, and support for, the SDIL.

Results Most participants supported the SDIL (70%), believed it would be effective (71%), had a positive attitude to SSBs (62%), had knowledge of the link between SSBs and obesity (90%), and trusted messages from health experts (61%), but not those from the food and beverage industry (73%). Nearly half (46%) had negative social norms about drinking SSBs. In adjusted models, older age, non-consumption of SSBs, social norms to not drinks SSBs, knowledge of the link between SSBs and obesity and trust in health expert messages were associated with greater support for the SDIL, whereas having dependent children and trusting messages from the food and beverage industry were associated with less support. In adjusted models, older age was associated with lower perceived effectiveness of the SDIL, whereas social norms to not drink SSBs, negative attitudes to SSBs and trusting messages from health experts and the food and beverage industry were associated with greater perceived effectiveness.

Conclusions There was strong support for the SDIL and belief that it would be effective. Those with more ‘public health’ orientated norms and trust were generally more likely to support the SDIL or believe that it would be effective.

  • taxation
  • soda tax
  • public health
  • attitudes

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026698

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JA, TP and MW conceived the idea for this paper. DP analysed the data. JA drafted the manuscript. JA, TP, MW, DH and LV read and provided critical comments on the manuscript and approved the final version. DH conceived the idea for the IFPS and secured funding. DH and LV developed the first draft of the survey. TP led the further development of the UK survey instrument, with input from JA, MW, DH and LV.

    • Funding Funding for the International Food Policy Study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; operating grant). Additional support was provided by a CIHR—Public Health agency of Canada (PHAC) Applied Public Health Research Chair. The study has no affiliations with the food industry. The analyses reported in this paper were supported by The Health Foundation. JA and MW are supported by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged (grant number MR/K023187/1). Views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the above named funders.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval The study was reviewed by and received ethics clearance through a University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee (ORE# 21460).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Data are available directly from the International Food Policy Study team on reasonable request (see www.foodpolicystudy.com).

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.