‘The university should promote health, but not enforce it’: opinions and attitudes about the regulation of sugar-sweetened beverages in a university setting

Abstract

BackgroundThe study aimed to determine the opinions and attitudes of a university population regarding the regulation of sugar-sweetened beverages in a university setting, primarily looking at differences in opinion between younger adults (under 30 years of age) and older adults (30 years of age or older).MethodsAn online survey was conducted at an Australian university in April–May 2016 using a convenience sample of students and staff between the ages of 16 and 84 years. The survey included questions about consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and level of agreement and support of proposed sugar-sweetened beverage interventions. Quantitative response data and qualitative open-ended response data were analysed.ResultsNine hundred thirteen responses from students and staff were analysed. In this population, consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages was low and awareness of the health risks of sugar-sweetened beverages was high. Overall, the surveyed population indicated more support for interventions that require higher levels of personal responsibility. The population did support some environment-centred, population-based interventions, such as increasing access to drinking water and reducing the price of healthier beverage alternatives. However there was less support for more restrictive interventions such as removing sugar-sweetened beverages from sale. Young adults tended to be less supportive of most interventions than older adults.ConclusionsThese findings indicate there is some support for environment-centred, population-based approaches to reduce the availability and appeal of sugar-sweetened beverages in an adult environment such as a university setting. However these results suggest that public health may need to focus less on educating populations about the harms associated with sugar-sweetened beverages. Instead, there should be greater emphasis on explaining to populations and communities why environment-centred approaches relating to the sale and promotion of sugar-sweetened beverages should be prioritised over interventions that simply target personal responsibility and individual behaviours.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4626-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Qualitative insights into Australian consumers’ views for and against government action on sugary drinks

“…Participants favoured child-focused initiatives and initiatives promoting education, which complements previous quantitative SSB studies 13,18,19 , and more broadly focused qualitative studies 14,16,17,26 , as well as aligning with participants' preference for relational paternalism regarding the role of governments. Preferences for education reflect, in part, the fact that self-determination, self-governance and autonomous decisions, require exposure to relevant information and developed skills to respond to that information.…”

“…Some participants demonstrated ongoing concern regarding restrictions on sponsorship, due to uncertainty about the financial viability of children's sport, offering insight into lower levels of support for restricting sponsorship relative to other measures found in quantitative studies. 14,16,17 Exposing marketing tactics may further increase support and recognition of the need for regulation, including in sponsorship. Taxation was the least popular regulatory option, but was more favourably received when paired with other interventions.…”

“…12,13 Up to 70% of the Australian public support taxation of SSBs, when accompanied by other obesity prevention initiatives. [14][15][16] Support for other obesity prevention initiatives exceeds 80% 14 , with the greatest levels of support observed for measures that are educative or improve consumer information 17 , child-focused initiatives 14 , food reformulation 14 , and taxation coupled with investment into education or health. 16,17 These patterns reflect variations in community perceptions of the role of government 12 and attitudes towards specific interventions.…”

“…[14][15][16] Support for other obesity prevention initiatives exceeds 80% 14 , with the greatest levels of support observed for measures that are educative or improve consumer information 17 , child-focused initiatives 14 , food reformulation 14 , and taxation coupled with investment into education or health. 16,17 These patterns reflect variations in community perceptions of the role of government 12 and attitudes towards specific interventions. 13 Broader research on the role of government has shown that Australians appear to both strongly endorse the notion of individual responsibility for health and support a role for government in preventive health 13 and obesity prevention.…”

Awareness and opinions about sugar-sweetened beverage policy in a university setting

“…They found that the majority of participants (69%) were in favor of removing SSB sponsorships and promotions on campus. The authors suggested that overrepresentation of individuals in the health sciences discipline may have skewed the results in favor of regulating sugar-sweetened beverages (Howse, Freeman, Wu, & Rooney, 2017). To our knowledge, no such studies have been conducted in the United States.…”