Effects of plain packaging, warning labels, and taxes on young people's predicted sugar-sweetened beverage preferences: an experimental study

Tessa Bollard, Ninya Maubach, Natalie Walker, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Tessa Bollard, Ninya Maubach, Natalie Walker, Cliona Ni Mhurchu

Abstract

Background: Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is associated with increased risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and dental caries. Our aim was to assess the effects of plain packaging, warning labels, and a 20 % tax on predicted SSB preferences, beliefs and purchase probabilities amongst young people.

Methods: A 2 × 3 × 2 between-group experimental study was conducted over a one-week period in August 2014. Intervention scenarios were delivered, and outcome data collected, via an anonymous online survey. Participants were 604 New Zealand young people aged 13-24 years who consumed soft drinks regularly. Participants were randomly allocated using a computer-generated algorithm to view one of 12 experimental conditions, specifically images of branded versus plain packaged SSBs, with either no warning, a text warning, or a graphic warning, and with or without a 20 % tax. Participant perceptions of the allocated SSB product and of those who might consume the product were measured using seven-point Likert scales. Purchase probabilities were measured using 11-point Juster scales.

Results: Six hundred and four young people completed the survey (51 % female, mean age 18 (SD 3.4) years). All three intervention scenarios had a significant negative effect on preferences for SSBs (plain packaging: F (6, 587) = 54.4, p <0.001; warning label: F (6, 588) = 19.8, p <0.001; 20 % tax: F (6, 587) = 11.3, p <0.001). Plain packaging and warning labels also had a significant negative impact on reported likelihood of purchasing SSB's (p = <0.001). A 20 % tax reduced participants' purchase probability but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.2).

Conclusions: Plain packaging and warning labels significantly reduce young people's predicted preferences for, and reported probability of purchasing, SSBs.

Keywords: Experiment; Nutrition labels; Plain packaging; Sugar sweetened beverage; Tax.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Experimental treatment conditions
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean ‘likelihood to buy’ SSB’s by experimental condition. Means are scores on 11-point Juster scale. Error bars represent 95 % confidence intervals around the means

References

    1. Fung T, Malik V, Rexrode K, Manson J, Willet W, Hu F. Sweetened beverage consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(4):1037–1042. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.27140.
    1. Te Morenga L, Mallard S, Mann J. Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ. 2013;346 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7492.
    1. Vartanian L, Schwartz M, Brownell K. Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(4):667–675. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.083782.
    1. World Health Organization . Guideline. Sugars intake for adults and children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
    1. Gortmaker S, Swinburn B, Levy D, et al. Changing the future of obesity: science, policy, and action. Lancet. 2011;378:838–847. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60815-5.
    1. Germain D, Wakefield M, Durkin S. Adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette brand image: does plain packaging make a difference? Journal Adolesc Health. 2010;46(4):385–392. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.08.009.
    1. Guindon GE. The impact of tobacco prices on smoking onset: a methodological review. Tob Control. 2014;23:e5. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050496.
    1. Hammond D. Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control. 2011;20(5):327–337. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.037630.
    1. Hoek J, Wilson N, Allen M, Edwards R, Thomson G, Li J. Lessons from New Zealand’s introduction of pictorial health warnings on tobacco packaging. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(11):861–866. doi: 10.2471/BLT.10.076695.
    1. Huang J, Chaloupka F. The impact of the 2009 Federal Tobacco Excise Tax increase on youth tobacco use. NBER Working Paper No. 18026. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2012.
    1. Hawkes C, Smith T, Jewell J, et al. Smart food policies for obesity prevention. Lancet. 2015;385:2410–2421. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61745-1.
    1. Colchero M, Popkin B, Rivera J, Ng S. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ. 2016;352:h6704. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h6704.
    1. Pietinen P, Valsta L, Hirvonen T, Sinkko H. Labelling the salt content in foods: a useful tool in reducing sodium intake in Finland. Public Health Nutr. 2008;11:335–340. doi: 10.1017/S1368980007000249.
    1. Webster J, Dunford E, Hawkes C, Neal B. Salt reduction initiatives around the world. J Hypertens. 2011;29(6):1043–1050. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328345ed83.
    1. Schucker RE, Stokes RC, Stewart ML, Henderson DP. The Impact of the Saccharin Warning Label on Sales of Diet Soft Drinks in Supermarkets. J Public Policy Mark. 1983;2:46–56.
    1. Taylor J. New York Will Be the First US City to Put Salt Warnings on Restaurant Menus. ; 2015 [30 November 2015]. Accessed May 2016.
    1. Roberto C, Wong D, Musicus A, Hammond D. The influence of sugar-sweetened bevarge health warning labels on parents’ choices. Pediatrics. 2016;137(2):e20153185. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3185.
    1. Carroll R. California takes fight to soft drink industry with plan for warning labels. The Guardian. Retrieved from: . Accessed May 2016.
    1. Steinmetz K. San Francisco Approves Warning Label for Sugary Drink Ads. Vol June 9, 2015. . Accessed May 2016.
    1. Roberto CA, Baik J, Harris JL, Brownell KD. Influence of Licensed Characters on Children’s Taste and Snack Preferences. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):88–93. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-3433.
    1. Robinson TN, Borzekowski DG, Matheson DM, Kraemer HC. Effects of fast food branding on young children’s taste preferences. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(8):792–797. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.161.8.792.
    1. NOURISHING framework - Nutrition Labels. World Cancer Research Fund International; 2016. Accessed 20 May 2016.
    1. Moynihan PJ, Kelly SAM. Effect on Caries of Restricting Sugars Intake: Systematic Review to Inform WHO Guidelines. Journal of Dental Research December. 2013;9:2013.
    1. Freeman B, Chapman S, Rimmer M. The case for the plain packaging of tobacco products. Addiction. 2008;103(4):580–590. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02145.x.
    1. Brennan M, Esselmont D. The accuracy on the Juster scale for predicting purchase rates of branded, fast-moving consumer goods. Mark Bull. 1994;5:47–52.
    1. Wakefield M, Coomber K, Zacher M, Durkin S, Brennan E, Scollo M. Australian adult smokers’ responses to plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: results from a national cross-sectional tracking survey. Tob Control. 2015;24:ii26–ii32. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052050.
    1. O’Hegarty M, Pederson L, Nelson D, Mowery P, Gable J, Wortley P. Reactions of young adult smokers to warning labels on cigarette packages. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(6):467–473. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.01.018.
    1. Harris J, Chan S. The continuum of addiction: cigarette smoking in relation to price among Americans aged 15–29. Electronic Health Economics Letters. 1998;2(2):3–12.
    1. Frank B. The formation of consumer attitudes and intentions towards fast food restaurants: How do teenagers differ from adults? Managing Service Quality: An International Journal. 2012;22(3):260–282. doi: 10.1108/09604521211230987.
    1. Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2007;118(525):215–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02110.x.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться