Public acceptability of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: repeat cross-sectional analysis of the International Food Policy Study (2017-2019).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To determine whether public acceptability, in terms of both support for and perceived effectiveness of, the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) changed between 4 months prior to, and 8 and 20 months after, implementation.Design
Repeat cross-sectional online survey.Setting
The UK.Participants
UK respondents to the International Food Policy Study aged 18-64 years who provided information on all variables of interest in November-December 2017 (4 months prior to SDIL implementation), 2018 (8 months after) or 2019 (20 months after; n=10 284).Outcome measures
Self-reported support for, and perceived effectiveness of, the SDIL.Results
The adjusted logistic regression model predicted that 70% (95% CI: 68% to 72%) of participants supported the SDIL in 2017, 68% (95% CI: 67% to 70%) in 2018 and 68% (95% CI: 66% to 70%) in 2019. There was no evidence of a difference in support in 2018 vs 2017 (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.05); or in 2019 vs 2017 (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.03). The adjusted logistic regression model predicted that 72% (95% CI: 70% to 74%) of participants perceived the SDIL to be effective in 2017, 67% (95% CI: 65% to 69%) in 2018 and 67% (95% CI: 64% to 69%) in 2019. There was evidence that perceived effectiveness decreased a small amount in 2018 vs 2017 (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.88). The difference in 2019 vs 2017 was similar.Conclusions
We found high support for the SDIL among UK adults and this did not change between 4 months before implementation and 8 or 20 months after. While perceived effectiveness remained high, there was evidence that this decreased slightly after implementation in 2018, but no further in 2019. Greater understanding of influences on public acceptability of effective structural public health interventions is required.
SUBMITTER: Adams J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8475144 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo 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?DesignCross-sectional online survey.SettingUK.ParticipantsUK respondents to the 2017 International Food Policy Study aged 18-64 years who provided information on all variables of interest (n=3104).Outcome measuresSelf-reported perceived effectiveness of, and support for, the SDIL.ResultsMost 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.ConclusionsThere 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.
| S-EPMC6429875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In March 2016, the UK government announced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) which came into effect in April 2018. In common with the reaction to sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes in other countries, the SDIL announcement was met with strong industry opposition, with claims that it would harm their profits. The SDIL was designed to incentivise reformulation of SSBs by providing a 2-year delay between the announcement and the enforcement of the levy, and adopting a two-tiered rate based on the sugar content of the drinks. Using interrupted time series analysis, this paper examines how the domestic turnover of UK soft drinks manufacturers changed after the announcement and the implementation of the SDIL. Our results show some evidence of a short-term negative impact of the SDIL announcement on the domestic turnover of the UK soft drinks manufacturers. This effect, however, did not continue post-implementation. These findings suggest that manufacturers were, to a large extent, able to mitigate the effects of levy before it came into effect.
| S-EPMC7615081 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7944367 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5543265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018, is a fiscal policy to incentivise reformulation of eligible soft drinks. We aimed to explore perceptions of sugar, sugary drinks and the SDIL among adolescents in the UK post-implementation.Methods23 adolescents aged 11-14 years participated in four focus groups in 2018-2019. A semi-structured topic guide elicited relevant perspectives and included a group task to rank a selection of UK soft drinks based on their sugar content. Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis was used to undertake inductive analysis.ResultsFour main themes were present: 1) Sweetened drinks are bad for you, but some are worse than others; 2) Awareness of the SDIL and ambivalence towards it 3) The influence of drinks marketing: value, pricing, and branding; 4) Openness to population-level interventions. Young people had knowledge of the health implications of excess sugar consumption, which did not always translate to their own consumption. Ambivalence and a mixed awareness surrounding the SDIL was also present. Marketing and parental and school restriction influenced their consumption patterns, as did taste, enjoyment and consuming drinks for functional purposes (e.g., to give them energy). Openness to future population-level interventions to limit consumption was also present.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that adolescents are accepting of interventions that require little effort from young people in order to reduce their sugar consumption. Further education-based interventions are likely to be unhelpful, in contexts where adolescents understand the negative consequences of excess sugar and SSB consumption.
| S-EPMC7614551 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10414076 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6642695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAn industry levy on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) was implemented in the UK in 2018. One year later, Brexit is likely to change the UK trade regime with potential implications for sugar price. We modelled the effect of potential changes in sugar price due to Brexit on SSB levy impacts upon CHD mortality and inequalities.DesignWe modelled a baseline SSB levy scenario; an SSB levy under 'soft' Brexit, where the UK establishes a free trading agreement with the EU; and an SSB levy under 'hard' Brexit, in which World Trade Organization tariffs are applied. We used the previously validated IMPACT Food Policy model and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to estimate the effect of each scenario on CHD deaths prevented or postponed and life-years gained, stratified by age, sex and socio-economic circumstance, in 2021.SettingEngland.SubjectsAdults aged 25 years or older.ResultsThe SSB levy was associated with approximately 370 (95 % uncertainty interval 220, 560) fewer CHD deaths and 4490 (2690, 6710) life-years gained in 2021. Associated reductions in CHD mortality were 4 and 8 % greater under 'soft' and 'hard' Brexit scenarios, respectively. The SSB levy was associated with approximately 110 (50, 190) fewer CHD deaths in the most deprived quintile compared with 60 (20, 100) in the most affluent, under 'hard' Brexit.ConclusionsOur study found the SSB levy resilient to potential effects of Brexit upon sugar price. Even under 'hard' Brexit, the SSB levy would yield benefits for CHD mortality and inequalities. Brexit negotiations should deliver a fiscal and regulatory environment which promotes population health.
| S-EPMC10260949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimPublic health policy development is subject to a range of stakeholders presenting their arguments to influence opinion on the best options for policy action. This paper compares stakeholders' positions in the discourse networks of two pricing policy debates in the United Kingdom: minimum unit pricing for alcohol (MUP) and the soft drinks industry levy (SDIL).DesignDiscourse analysis was combined with network visualization to create representations of stakeholders' positions across the two policy debates as they were represented in 11 national UK newspapers.SettingUnited Kingdom.ObservationsFor the MUP debate 1924 statements by 152 people from 87 organizations were coded from 348 articles. For the SDIL debate 3883 statements by 214 people from 175 organizations were coded from 511 articles.MeasurementsNetwork analysis techniques were used to identify robust argumentative similarities and maximize the identification of network structures. Network measures of size, connectedness and cohesion were used to compare discourse networks.FindingsThe networks for both pricing debates involve a similar range of stakeholder types and form clusters representing policy discourse coalitions. The SDIL network is larger than the MUP network, particularly the proponents' cluster, with more than three times as many stakeholders. Both networks have tight clusters of manufacturers, think-tanks and commercial analysts in the opponents' coalition. Public health stakeholders appear in both networks, but no health charity or advocacy group is common to both.ConclusionA comparison of the discourse in the UK press during the policy development processes for minimum unit pricing for alcohol and the soft drinks industry levy suggests greater cross-sector collaboration among policy opponents than proponents.
| S-EPMC7611988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDietary sugar, especially in liquid form, increases risk of dental caries, adiposity, and type 2 diabetes. The United Kingdom Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) was announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018 and charges manufacturers and importers at £0.24 per litre for drinks with over 8 g sugar per 100 mL (high levy category), £0.18 per litre for drinks with 5 to 8 g sugar per 100 mL (low levy category), and no charge for drinks with less than 5 g sugar per 100 mL (no levy category). Fruit juices and milk-based drinks are exempt. We measured the impact of the SDIL on price, product size, number of soft drinks on the marketplace, and the proportion of drinks over the lower levy threshold of 5 g sugar per 100 mL.Methods and findingsWe analysed data on a total of 209,637 observations of soft drinks over 85 time points between September 2015 and February 2019, collected from the websites of the leading supermarkets in the UK. The data set was structured as a repeat cross-sectional study. We used controlled interrupted time series to assess the impact of the SDIL on changes in level and slope for the 4 outcome variables. Equivalent models were run for potentially levy-eligible drink categories ('intervention' drinks) and levy-exempt fruit juices and milk-based drinks ('control' drinks). Observed results were compared with counterfactual scenarios based on extrapolation of pre-SDIL trends. We found that in February 2019, the proportion of intervention drinks over the lower levy sugar threshold had fallen by 33.8 percentage points (95% CI: 33.3-34.4, p < 0.001). The price of intervention drinks in the high levy category had risen by £0.075 (£0.037-0.115, p < 0.001) per litre-a 31% pass through rate-whilst prices of intervention drinks in the low levy category and no levy category had fallen and risen by smaller amounts, respectively. Whilst the product size of branded high levy and low levy drinks barely changed after implementation of the SDIL (-7 mL [-23 to 11 mL] and 16 mL [6-27ml], respectively), there were large changes to product size of own-brand drinks with an increase of 172 mL (133-214 mL) for high levy drinks and a decrease of 141 mL (111-170 mL) for low levy drinks. The number of available drinks that were in the high levy category when the SDIL was announced was reduced by 3 (-6 to 12) by the implementation of the SDIL. Equivalent models for control drinks provided little evidence of impact of the SDIL. These results are not sales weighted, so do not give an account of how sugar consumption from drinks may have changed over the time period.ConclusionsThe results suggest that the SDIL incentivised many manufacturers to reduce sugar in soft drinks. Some of the cost of the levy to manufacturers and importers was passed on to consumers as higher prices but not always on targeted drinks. These changes could reduce population exposure to liquid sugars and associated health risks.
| S-EPMC7012398 | biostudies-literature