Dataset Information

Following in the footsteps of tobacco and alcohol? Stakeholder discourse in UK newspaper coverage of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:In politically contested health debates, stakeholders on both sides present arguments and evidence to influence public opinion and the political agenda. The present study aimed to examine whether stakeholders in the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) debate sought to establish or undermine the acceptability of this policy through the news media and how this compared with similar policy debates in relation to tobacco and alcohol industries. DESIGN:Quantitative and qualitative content analysis of newspaper articles discussing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation published in eleven UK newspapers between 1 April 2015 and 30 November 2016, identified through the Nexis database. Direct stakeholder citations were entered in NVivo to allow inductive thematic analysis and comparison with an established typology of industry stakeholder arguments used by the alcohol and tobacco industries. SETTING:UK newspapers. PARTICIPANTS:Proponents and opponents of SSB tax/SDIL cited in UK newspapers. RESULTS:Four hundred and ninety-one newspaper articles cited stakeholders' (n 287) arguments in relation to SSB taxation (n 1761: 65 % supportive and 35 % opposing). Stakeholders' positions broadly reflected their vested interests. Inconsistencies arose from: changes in ideological position; insufficient clarity on the nature of the problem to be solved; policy priorities; and consistency with academic rigour. Both opposing and supportive themes were comparable with the alcohol and tobacco industry typology. CONCLUSIONS:Public health advocates were particularly prominent in the UK newspaper debate surrounding the SDIL. Advocates in future policy debates might benefit from seeking a similar level of prominence and avoiding inconsistencies by being clearer about the policy objective and mechanisms.

SUBMITTER: Hilton S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6642695 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Following in the footsteps of tobacco and alcohol? Stakeholder discourse in UK newspaper coverage of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy.

Hilton Shona S Buckton Christina H CH Patterson Chris C Katikireddi S Vittal SV Lloyd-Williams Ffion F Hyseni Lirije L Elliott-Green Alex A Capewell Simon S

Public health nutrition 20190521 12

<h4>Objective</h4>In politically contested health debates, stakeholders on both sides present arguments and evidence to influence public opinion and the political agenda. The present study aimed to examine whether stakeholders in the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) debate sought to establish or undermine the acceptability of this policy through the news media and how this compared with similar policy debates in relation to tobacco and alcohol industries.<h4>Design</h4>Quantitative and qualitati ...[more]

PMID: 31111808

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:On 6th April 2018, the UK Government introduced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) as a mechanism designed to address increasing prevalence of obesity and associated ill health by reducing sugar consumption. Given that the successful introduction of upstream food and nutrition policies is a highly political enterprise involving multiple interested parties, understanding the complex network of stakeholders seeking to influence such policy decisions is imperative. METHODS:Media content analysis was used to build a dataset of relevant newspaper articles, which were analysed to identify stakeholder agreement or disagreement with defined concept statements. We used discourse network analysis to produce visual representations of the network of stakeholders and coalitions evident in the debate as it was presented in UK newspapers, in the lead up to and following the announcement of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy in the UK, from May 2015 to November 2016. RESULTS:Coding identified 3883 statements made by 214 individuals from 176 organisations, relating to 47 concepts. Network visualisations revealed a complex network of stakeholders with clear sceptical and supportive coalitions. Industry stakeholders appeared less united in the network than anticipated, particularly before the SDIL announcement. Some key industry actors appeared in the supportive coalition, possibly due to the use of corporate social responsibility rhetoric. Jamie Oliver appeared as a dominant stakeholder, firmly embedded with public health advocates. CONCLUSION:This study highlights the complexity of the network of stakeholders involved in the public debate on food policies such as sugar tax and the SDIL. Polarisation of stakeholders arose from differences in ideology, focus on a specific policy and statements about the weight of evidence. Vocal celebrity policy entrepreneurs may be instrumental in gaining public and policy makers' support for future upstream regulation to promote population health, to facilitate alignment around a clear ideology.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine changes in household purchases of drinks and confectionery one year after implementation of the UK soft drinks industry levy (SDIL).DesignControlled interrupted time series analysis.ParticipantsMembers of a panel of households reporting their purchasing on a weekly basis to a market research company (average weekly number of participants n=22 183), March 2014 to March 2019.InterventionA two tiered tax levied on manufacturers of soft drinks, announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018. Drinks with ≥8 g sugar/100 mL (high tier) are taxed at £0.24/L and drinks with ≥5 to <8 g sugar/100 mL (low tier) are taxed at £0.18/L. Drinks with <5 g sugar/100 mL (no levy) are not taxed.Main outcome measuresAbsolute and relative differences in the volume of, and amount of sugar in, soft drinks categories, all soft drinks combined, alcohol, and confectionery purchased per household per week one year after implementation of the SDIL compared with trends before the announcement of the SDIL.ResultsIn March 2019, compared with the counterfactual estimated from pre-announcement trends, purchased volume of drinks in the high levy tier decreased by 155 mL (95% confidence interval 240.5 to 69.5 mL) per household per week, equivalent to 44.3% (95% confidence interval 59.9% to 28.7%), and sugar purchased in these drinks decreased by 18.0 g (95% confidence interval 32.3 to 3.6 g), or 45.9% (68.8% to 22.9%). Purchases of low tier drinks decreased by 177.3 mL (225.3 to 129.3 mL) per household per week, or 85.9% (95.1% to 76.7%), with a 12.5 g (15.4 to 9.5 g) reduction in sugar in these drinks, equivalent to 86.2% (94.2% to 78.1%). Despite no overall change in volume of no levy drinks purchased, there was an increase in sugar purchased of 15.3 g (12.6 to 17.9 g) per household per week, equivalent to 166.4% (94.2% to 238.5%). When all soft drinks were combined, the volume of drinks purchased did not change, but sugar decreased by 29.5 g (55.8 to 3.1 g), or 9.8% (17.9% to 1.8%). Purchases of confectionery and alcoholic drinks did not change.ConclusionsCompared with trends before the SDIL was announced, one year after implementation, the volume of soft drinks purchased did not change. The amount of sugar in those drinks was 30 g, or 10%, lower per household per week-equivalent to one 250 mL serving of a low tier drink per person per week. The SDIL might benefit public health without harming industry.Trial registrationISRCTN18042742.

Project description:BackgroundIn March, 2016, the UK Government proposed a tiered levy on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs; high tax for drinks with >8 g of sugar per 100 mL, moderate tax for 5-8 g, and no tax for <5 g). We estimate the effect of possible industry responses to the levy on obesity, diabetes, and dental caries.MethodsWe modelled three possible industry responses: reformulation to reduce sugar concentration, an increase of product price, and a change of the market share of high-sugar, mid-sugar, and low-sugar drinks. For each response, we defined a better-case and worse-case health scenario. We developed a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the UK health impact of each scenario on prevalence of obesity and incidence of dental caries and type 2 diabetes. The model combined data for sales and consumption of SSBs, disease incidence and prevalence, price elasticity estimates, and estimates of the association between SSB consumption and disease outcomes. We drew the disease association parameters from a meta-analysis of experimental studies (SSBs and weight change), a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies (type 2 diabetes), and a prospective cohort study (dental caries).FindingsThe best modelled scenario for health is SSB reformulation, resulting in a reduction of 144 383 (95% uncertainty interval 5102-306 743; 0·9%) of 15 470 813 adults and children with obesity in the UK, 19 094 (6920-32 678; incidence reduction of 31·1 per 100 000 person-years) fewer incident cases of type 2 diabetes per year, and 269 375 (82 211-470 928; incidence reduction of 4·4 per 1000 person-years) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. An increase in the price of SSBs in the better-case scenario would result in 81 594 (3588-182 669; 0·5%) fewer adults and children with obesity, 10 861 (3899-18 964; 17·7) fewer incident cases of diabetes per year, and 149 378 (45 231-262 013; 2·4) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. Changes to market share to increase the proportion of low-sugar drinks sold in the better-case scenario would result in 91 042 (4289-204 903; 0·6%) fewer adults and children with diabetes, 1528 (4414-21 785; 19·7) fewer incident cases of diabetes per year, and 172 718 (47 919-294 499; 2·8) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. The greatest benefit for obesity and oral health would be among individuals aged younger than 18 years, with people aged older than 65 years having the largest absolute decreases in diabetes incidence.InterpretationThe health impact of the soft drinks levy is dependent on its implementation by industry. Uncertainty exists as to how industry will react and about estimation of health outcomes. Health gains could be maximised by substantial product reformulation, with additional benefits possible if the levy is passed on to purchasers through raising of the price of high-sugar and mid-sugar drinks and activities to increase the market share of low-sugar products.FundingNone.

Project description:BackgroundSugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is positively associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. The World Health Organization recommends that member states implement effective taxes on SSBs to reduce consumption. The United Kingdom Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) is a two-tiered tax, announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018. Drinks with ≥8 g of sugar per 100 ml (higher levy tier) are taxed at £0.24 per litre, drinks with ≥5 to <8 g of sugar per 100 ml (lower levy tier) are taxed at £0.18 per litre, and drinks with <5 g sugar per 100 ml (no levy) are not taxed. Milk-based drinks, pure fruit juices, drinks sold as powder, and drinks with >1.2% alcohol by volume are exempt. We aimed to determine if the announcement of the SDIL was associated with anticipatory changes in purchases of soft drinks prior to implementation of the SDIL in April 2018. We explored differences in the volume of and amount of sugar in household purchases of drinks in each levy tier at 2 years post announcement.Methods and findingsWe used controlled interrupted time series to compare observed changes associated with the announcement of the SDIL to the counterfactual scenario of no announcement. We used data from Kantar Worldpanel, a commercial household purchasing panel with approximately 30,000 British members that includes linked nutritional data on purchases. We conducted separate analyses for drinks liable for the SDIL in the higher, lower, and no-levy tiers controlling with household purchase volumes of toiletries. At 2 years post announcement, there was no difference in volume of or sugar from purchases of higher-levy-tier drinks compared to the counterfactual of no announcement. In contrast, a reversal of the existing upward trend in volume (ml) of and amount of sugar (g) in purchases of lower-levy-tier drinks was seen. These changes led to a -96.1 ml (95% confidence interval [CI] -144.2 to -48.0) reduction in volume and -6.4 g (95% CI -9.8 to -3.1) reduction in sugar purchased in these drinks per household per week. There was a reversal of the existing downward trend in the amount of sugar in household purchases of the no-levy drinks but no change in volume purchased. At 2 years post announcement, these changes led to a 6.1 g (95% CI 3.9-8.2) increase in sugar purchased in these drinks per household per week. There was no evidence that volume of or amount of sugar in purchases of all drinks combined was different from the counterfactual. This is an observational study, and changes other than the SDIL may have been responsible for the results reported. Purchases consumed outside of the home were not accounted for.ConclusionsThe announcement of the UK SDIL was associated with reductions in volume and sugar purchased in lower-levy-tier drinks before implementation. These were offset by increases in sugar purchased from no-levy drinks. These findings may reflect reformulation of drinks from the lower levy to no-levy tier with removal of some but not all sugar, alongside changes in consumer attitudes and beliefs.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN18042742.

Project description:ObjectivesThe UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), implemented in 2018, has been successful in reducing the sugar content and purchasing of soft drinks, with limited financial impact on industry. Understanding the views of food and drink industry professionals involved in reacting to the SDIL is important for policymaking. However, their perceptions of the challenges of implementation and strategic responses are unknown. The aim of this study, therefore, was to explore how senior food and drink industry professionals viewed the SDIL.DesignWe undertook a qualitative descriptive study using elite interviews. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis, taking an inductive exploratory and descriptive approach not informed by prior theory or frameworks.Setting and participantsInterviews were conducted via telephone with 14 senior professionals working in the food and drink industry.ResultsFive main themes were identified: (1) a level playing field…for some; industry accepted the SDIL as an attempt to create a level playing field but due to the exclusion of milk-based drinks, this was viewed as inadequate, (2) complex to implement, but no lasting negative effects; the SDIL was complex, expensive and time consuming to implement, with industry responses dependent on leadership buy-in, (3) why us?-the SDIL unfairly targets the drinks industry; soft drinks are an unfair target when other categories also contain high sugar, (4) the consumer is king; consumers were a key focus of the industry response to this policy and (5) the future of the SDIL; there appeared to be a wider ripple effect, which primed industry to prepare for future regulation in support of health and environmental sustainability.ConclusionsInsights from senior food and drink industry professionals illustrate how sugar-sweetened beverage taxes might be successfully implemented and improve understanding of industry responses to taxes and other food and drink policies.Trial registration numberISRCTN18042742.

Dataset Information

Following in the footsteps of tobacco and alcohol? Stakeholder discourse in UK newspaper coverage of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy.

Publications

Following in the footsteps of tobacco and alcohol? Stakeholder discourse in UK newspaper coverage of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets