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

Caroline Miller, Joanne Dono, Melanie A. Wakefield, Simone Pettigrew, John Coveney, David Roder, Sarah J. Durkin, Gary Wittert, Jane Martin, Kerry Ettridge

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Objective To assess public support for 10 potential policy initiatives to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption. Design A 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). Participants Study 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. Results In 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%; χ 2 =15.7, p<0.001) and graphic health warnings (52%vs68%; χ 2 =23.4. p<0.001). Conclusions There 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.

LanguageEnglish
Article numbere027962
JournalBMJ open
Volume9
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2019

Keywords

  • policy
  • sugar tax
  • sugar-sweetened beverages
  • warning labels

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{fe62f22009474531b2dcef39229da7da,
title = "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 = "Objective To assess public support for 10 potential policy initiatives to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption. Design A 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). Participants Study 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. Results In 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{\%}; χ 2 =15.7, p<0.001) and graphic health warnings (52{\%}vs68{\%}; χ 2 =23.4. p<0.001). Conclusions There 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.",
keywords = "policy, sugar tax, sugar-sweetened beverages, warning labels",
author = "Caroline Miller and Joanne Dono and Wakefield, {Melanie A.} and Simone Pettigrew and John Coveney and David Roder and Durkin, {Sarah J.} and Gary Wittert and Jane Martin and Kerry Ettridge",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027962",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "6",

}

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. / Miller, Caroline; Dono, Joanne; Wakefield, Melanie A.; Pettigrew, Simone; Coveney, John; Roder, David; Durkin, Sarah J.; Wittert, Gary; Martin, Jane; Ettridge, Kerry.

In: BMJ open, Vol. 9, No. 6, e027962, 01.06.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - 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

AU - Miller, Caroline

AU - Dono, Joanne

AU - Wakefield, Melanie A.

AU - Pettigrew, Simone

AU - Coveney, John

AU - Roder, David

AU - Durkin, Sarah J.

AU - Wittert, Gary

AU - Martin, Jane

AU - Ettridge, Kerry

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - Objective To assess public support for 10 potential policy initiatives to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption. Design A 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). Participants Study 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. Results In 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%; χ 2 =15.7, p<0.001) and graphic health warnings (52%vs68%; χ 2 =23.4. p<0.001). Conclusions There 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.

AB - Objective To assess public support for 10 potential policy initiatives to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption. Design A 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). Participants Study 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. Results In 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%; χ 2 =15.7, p<0.001) and graphic health warnings (52%vs68%; χ 2 =23.4. p<0.001). Conclusions There 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.

KW - policy

KW - sugar tax

KW - sugar-sweetened beverages

KW - warning labels

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068267440&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027962

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027962

M3 - Review article

VL - 9

JO - BMJ Open

T2 - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 6

M1 - e027962

ER -