Dataset Information

Distributional Changes in U.S. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Purchases, 2002-2014.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

U.S. policy actions focus on reducing sugar-sweetened beverage purchases. Yet, there are no studies on trends in overall purchase distribution and how it has changed by key subpopulations. This study examined changes in distributions of total sugar-sweetened beverage purchases and its major subtypes (regular carbonated soft drinks and fruit/sports/energy drinks) in 2002-2014 and distinguished among low, moderate, and high purchasers.

Methods

Longitudinal data on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases of U.S. households from the 2002-2014 Nielsen Homescan Panel were used. Sugar-sweetened beverages were defined as all caloric non-alcoholic beverages containing added sugars. Longitudinal quantile regression model examined trends across distributions (from quantile 25 to 95) of purchases (measured in kcal/day/capita), while accounting for households' unobserved differences. All statistical analyses were conducted in 2019.

Results

All households across the total purchase distribution significantly reduced their purchases. High purchasers made less proportional reductions than low purchasers (e.g., 35% at 95th quantile vs 62% at 25th quantile). However, the smaller relative reductions among higher purchasers translated into larger absolute decreases (e.g., 134 kcal/day/capita at 95th quantile vs 23 kcal/day/capita at 25th quantile). Similar patterns in heterogeneity were observed across sugar-sweetened beverage subtype distributions and among racial/ethnic and income groups. In addition, there were significant racial/ethnic and income disparities in total sugar-sweetened beverage purchases in 2002-2003. Although racial/ethnic disparities among higher purchasers improved, income disparity patterns at all purchase levels persisted into 2013-2014.

Conclusions

From 2002‒2003 to 2013-2014, U.S. households at all purchase levels made meaningful reductions in sugar-sweetened beverage purchases in both absolute and relative terms. Furthermore, racial/ethnic disparities in total sugar-sweetened beverage purchases narrowed, but income disparity patterns persisted.

SUBMITTER: Valizadeh P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7375910 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOn October 1, 2014, the Chilean government modified its previous sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax, increasing the tax rate from 13% to 18% on industrialized beverages with high levels of sugar (H-SSBs) (greater than 6.25 grams [g] sugar/100 milliliters [mL]) and decreasing the tax rate from 13% to 10% on industrialized beverages with low or no sugar (L-SSBs) (less than 6.25 g sugar/100 mL). This study examines changes in beverage prices and household beverage purchases following the implementation of the tax reform.Methods and findingsWe used longitudinal data collected between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, from 2,000 households. We defined the pretax period as January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2014, and the posttax period as October 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015. We conducted a pre-post analysis for changes in prices and purchases, with the latter examined by volume and calories. We compared posttax changes in prices and purchases to a counterfactual, defined as what would have been expected in the posttax period based on pretax trends. All results are stated as comparisons to this counterfactual. We linked beverages at the bar code level to nutrition facts panel data collected by a team of Chilean nutritionists who categorized them by taxation level and beverage subcategory, which included carbonated and noncarbonated H-SSBs and concentrated, ready-to-drink L-SSBs and untaxed beverages. We reconstituted concentrated beverages and analyzed all beverages using as-consumed volumes and calories. Posttax monthly prices of H-SSBs increased, but these changes were small. Prices of carbonated H-SSBs increased by 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0%-3.0%), while those of noncarbonated H-SSBs increased by 3.9% (95% CI 1.6%-6.2%). Prices of L-SSB concentrates decreased after the tax by 6.7% (95% CI -8.2%--4.6%), and prices of ready-to-drink L-SSBs increased by 1.5% (95% CI 0.3%-2.7%). Households decreased monthly per capita purchases of H-SSBs by 3.4% by volume (95% CI -5.9%--0.9%) and 4.0% by calories (95% CI -6.3%--1.9%), and this change was greater among high socioeconomic status (SES) households. The volume of household purchases of L-SSBs increased 10.7% (95% CI 7.5%-13.9%), while that of untaxed beverage purchases decreased by 3.1% (95% CI -5.1%--1.1%). The main limitation of this study was that there was no control group, so we were unable to assess the causal impact of the tax.ConclusionsThe modifications of Chile's SSB tax were small, and observed changes in prices and purchases of beverages after the tax were also small. Our results are consistent with previous evidence indicating that small increases in SSB taxes are unlikely to promote large enough changes in SSB purchases to reduce obesity and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs).

Project description:IntroductionFive U.S. states have proposed policies to require health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages, but warnings' effects on actual purchase behavior remain uncertain. This study evaluated the impact of sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases.Study designParticipants completed one study visit to a life-sized replica of a convenience store in North Carolina. Participants chose six items (two beverages, two foods, and two household products). One item was randomly selected for them to purchase and take home. Participants also completed a questionnaire. Researchers collected data in 2018 and conducted analyses in 2019.Setting/participantsParticipants were a demographically diverse convenience sample of 400 adult sugar-sweetened beverage consumers (usual consumption ≥12 ounces/week).InterventionResearch staff randomly assigned participants to a health warning arm (sugar-sweetened beverages in the store displayed a front-of-package health warning) or a control arm (sugar-sweetened beverages displayed a control label).Main outcome measuresThe primary trial outcome was sugar-sweetened beverage calories purchased. Secondary outcomes included reactions to trial labels (e.g., negative emotions) and sugar-sweetened beverage perceptions and attitudes (e.g., healthfulness).ResultsAll 400 participants completed the trial and were included in analyses. Health warning arm participants were less likely to be Hispanic and to have overweight/obesity than control arm participants. In intent-to-treat analyses adjusting for Hispanic ethnicity and overweight/obesity, health warnings led to lower sugar-sweetened beverage purchases (adjusted difference, -31.4 calories; 95% CI= -57.9, -5.0). Unadjusted analyses yielded similar results (difference, -32.9 calories; 95% CI= -58.9, -7.0). Compared with the control label, sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings also led to higher intentions to limit sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and elicited more attention, negative emotions, thinking about the harms of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, and anticipated social interactions. Trial arms did not differ on perceptions of sugar-sweetened beverages' added sugar content, healthfulness, appeal/coolness, or disease risk.ConclusionsBrief exposure to health warnings reduced sugar-sweetened beverage purchases in this naturalistic RCT. Sugar-sweetened beverage health warning policies could discourage sugar-sweetened beverage consumption.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03511937.

Project description:BackgroundFew longitudinal studies examine the response to beverage taxes, especially among regular sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumers.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine changes in objectively measured beverage purchases associated with the Philadelphia beverage tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages.MethodsA longitudinal quasi-experiment was conducted with adult sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumers in Philadelphia (n = 306) and Baltimore (n = 297; a nontaxed comparison city). From 2016 to 2017 participants submitted all food and beverage receipts during a 2-wk period at: baseline (pretax) and 3, 6, and 12 mo posttax (91.0% retention; data analyzed in 2019). Linear mixed effects models were used to assess the difference-in-differences in total purchased ounces (fl oz) of taxed beverages in a 2-wk period in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore. Secondary analyses: 1) excluded weeks that contained major holidays at baseline and 12 mo (42% of measured weeks at baseline and 12 mo) because policy implementation timing necessitated data collection during holidays when SSB demand may be more inelastic, and 2) aggregated posttax time points to address serial correlation and low power.ResultsThere were no statistically significant changes in purchased ounces of taxed beverages in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore in the primary analysis. After excluding holiday purchasing, the tax was associated with statistically significant reductions of taxed beverage purchases at 3 and 6 mo (-157.1 ounces, 95% CI: -310.1, -4.1 and -175.1 ounces, 95% CI: -328.0, -22.3, respectively) but not 12 mo. Analyses aggregating all 6 wk of posttax time points showed statistically significant reductions (-203.7 ounces, 95% CI: -399.6, -7.8).ConclusionsA sweetened beverage tax was not associated with reduced taxed beverage purchases among SSB consumers 12 mo posttax in the full sample. Both secondary analyses excluding holiday purchasing or aggregating posttax time periods found reductions in taxed beverage purchases ranging from -4.9 to -12.5 ounces per day. Larger longitudinal studies are needed to further understand tax effects.

Project description:Study questionWhat has been the effect on purchases of beverages from stores in Mexico one year after implementation of the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages?MethodsIn this observational study the authors used data on the purchase of beverages in Mexico from January 2012 to December 2014 from an unbalanced panel of 6253 households providing 205 112 observations in 53 cities with more than 50 000 inhabitants. To test whether the post-tax trend in purchases was significantly different from the pretax trend, the authors used a difference in difference fixed effects model, which adjusts for both macroeconomic variables that can affect the purchase of beverages over time, and pre-existing trends. The variables used in the analysis included demographic information on household composition (age and sex of household members) and socioeconomic status (low, middle, and high). The authors compared the predicted volumes (mL/capita/day) of taxed and untaxed beverages purchased in 2014-the observed post-tax period-with the estimated volumes that would have been purchased if the tax had not been implemented (counterfactual) based on pretax trends.Study answer and limitationsRelative to the counterfactual in 2014, purchases of taxed beverages decreased by an average of 6% (-12 mL/capita/day), and decreased at an increasing rate up to a 12% decline by December 2014. All three socioeconomic groups reduced purchases of taxed beverages, but reductions were higher among the households of low socioeconomic status, averaging a 9% decline during 2014, and up to a 17% decrease by December 2014 compared with pretax trends. Purchases of untaxed beverages were 4% (36 mL/capita/day) higher than the counterfactual, mainly driven by an increase in purchases of bottled plain water.What this study addsThe tax on sugar sweetened beverages was associated with reductions in purchases of taxed beverages and increases in purchases of untaxed beverages. Continued monitoring is needed to understand purchases longer term, potential substitutions, and health implications.Funding, competing interests, data sharingThis work was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and by the Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública and the Carolina Population Center. The authors have no competing interests. No additional data are available.