Table 3

Support for possible policy interventions in Australia (2017 survey, n=3430)

Policy optionsProportion in favourProportion neither for nor againstProportion against
StronglyStrongly/somewhatStronglyStrongly/somewhat
% (95% CI)% (95% CI)% (95% CI)% (95% CI)% (95% CI)
Text warning labels on SSB containers about health risks65 (63–67)88 (87–89)3 (2–4)4 (3–5)9 (8–10)
Government funded TV campaigns about health effects of SSBs65 (63–67)87 (86–88)4 (3–5)5 (4–6)9 (8–10)
Text warning labels on vending machines and other places of sale61 (59–63)86 (85–87)3 (2–4)4 (3–5)10 (9–11)
Text warning labels on SSB advertisements (eg, TV and billboards)59 (57–61)84 (83–85)3 (2–4)5 (4–6)12 (11–13)
Bans on SSB advertising during children’s TV viewing times62 (60–64)79 (78–80)4 (3–5)8 (7–9)16 (14–17)
Government tax on drinks high in added sugar to fund obesity prevention55 (53–57)77 (76–78)3 (2–4)11 (10–12)18 (16–19)
Bans on SSB marketing on digital platforms popular with children59 (57–61)76 (75–77)4 (3–5)8 (7–9)19 (18–20)
Bans on sales of SSBs in schools57 (55–59)75 (74–77)4 (3–5)7 (6–8)20 (19–21)
Graphic warning labels on SSB containers about health risks48 (46–49)71 (69–72)4 (3–5)11 (10–12)24 (23–250)
Government tax on drinks high in added sugar39 (37–41)60 (59–62)5 (4–6)20 (19–21)33 (31–35)
  • Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% as less than 2% reported ‘don’t know’ or ‘refused’ for each response. ‘Strongly/somewhat’ reflects the cumulative proportion of those reporting they were either strongly or somewhat in favour or strongly or somewhat against.

  • SSB, sugar-sweetened beverage.