Are Australians ready for warning labels, marketing bans and sugary drink taxes? Two cross-sectional surveys measuring support for policy responses to sugar-sweetened beverages

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess public support for 10 potential policy initiatives to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption.DesignA 2014 historical data set, which employed a face-to-face survey in one Australian state (study 1), provided the basis for comparison with our 2017 nationally representative, cross-sectional, computer-assisted telephone interviewing population survey (study 2).ParticipantsStudy 1: South Australians, 15+ years (n=2732); study 2: Australians, 18+ years (n=3430).Primary outcome measures: levels of support for SSB-specific policy initiatives. For the 2017 national study (study 2), demographic characteristics, body mass index, knowledge of potential harms caused by consuming SSBs and SSB consumption were included in multivariable regression analyses.ResultsIn 2017, all 10 potential policy initiatives received majority support (60%–88% either ‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ in favour). Initiatives with educative elements or focused on children received high support (>70%), with highest support observed for text warning labels on drink containers (88%) and government campaigns warning of adverse health effects (87%). Higher support was observed for SSB tax paired with using funds for obesity prevention (77%) than a stand-alone tax (60%). Support for policy initiatives was generally greater among those who believed SSB daily consumption could cause health problems in adults (4%–18% absolute difference) and/or in children (8%–26% absolute difference) and lower among SSB high consumers (7+ drinks per week; 9%–29% absolute difference). State-specific data comparison indicated increased support from 2014 to 2017 for taxation (42%vs55%; χ2=15.7, p<0.001) and graphic health warnings (52%vs68%; χ2=23.4. p<0.001).ConclusionsThere is strong public support for government action, particularly regulatory and educational interventions, to reduce SSB consumption, which appears to have increased since 2014. The findings suggest that framing policies as protecting children, presenting taxation of SSBs in conjunction with other obesity prevention initiatives and education focused on the harms associated with SSB consumption will increase support.

Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Juice, Artificially-Sweetened Soda and Bottled Water: An Australian Population Study

“…In total, 3430 participants were recruited into the study (participation rate = 44%). The sample is described in detail and compared to national population data elsewhere [23]. Briefly, 49% were female, mean age was 46.9 (Standard Deviation [SD] = 18.3) years, and the demographic profile (in terms of sex, age, and employment status) of respondents was consistent with the national population data [54].…”

“…In Australia, like many countries, policy action is slow and legislative reform is conspicuously absent. This is despite strong and increasing consumer support for intervention [23], and comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for action [24].…”

An In-Depth Exploration of Knowledge and Beliefs Associated with Soda and Diet Soda Consumption

“…A total of 38% held a bachelor degree or higher, which was higher than the national average (26%) [51]. Further demographic characteristics of the sample are available elsewhere [45,46]. Most respondents could report sugar intake guidelines consistent with WHO recommendations: 74% indicated that the adult guideline for teaspoons of sugar was between 0 and 5, 20% indicated that it was between 6 and 12 and 3% indicated it was 13 or more (4% indicated that they did not know).…”

“…This study was conducted on data from a large Australian study on SSB consumption (methods reported in detail in [46]). A national computer-assisted telephone survey of adults aged 18 years and over was conducted between February and April 2017.…”

Awareness and perceptions regarding taxation and health warnings related to sugar-sweetened beverages and the factors associated with these among visitors of a general out-patient clinic in Bhopal, India

“…This is also supported by the studies of Bollard et al ., Miller et al ., Roberto et al ., and Donnelly et al . [ 15 32 33 34 ] The pictorial warning was found to have more impact than sole textual warning and discouraged people to buy SSBs, which stresses the importance of pictorial warnings on the packaging. [ 9 33 35 36 ]…”