Affordable Access

Anticipatory changes in British household purchases of soft drinks associated with the announcement of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy: A controlled interrupted time series analysis.

Authors
  • Pell, David
  • Penney, Tarra L
  • Mytton, Oliver
  • Briggs, Adam
  • Cummins, Steven
  • Rayner, Mike
  • Rutter, Harry
  • Scarborough, Peter
  • Sharp, Stephen
  • Smith, Richard D
  • White, Martin
  • Adams, Jean
Publication Date
Oct 06, 2020
Source
Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown
External links

Abstract

Abstract Background Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is positively associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The World Health Organization recommends that member states implement effective taxes on SSBs to reduce consumption. The UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) is a two tiered tax, announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018. Drinks with ≥8g of sugar per 100ml (higher levy tier) are taxed at £0.24 per litre, drinks with ≥5-<8g of sugar per 100ml (lower levy tier) are taxed at £0.18 per litre and drinks with <5g sugar per 100ml (no levy) are not taxed. Milk-based drinks, pure fruit juices, drinks sold as powder and drinks with >1.2% alcohol by volume are exempt. We aimed to determine if the announcement of the SDIL was associated with anticipatory changes in purchases of soft drinks prior to implementation of the SDIL in April 2018. We explored differences in the volume of, and amount of sugar in, household purchases of drinks in each levy tier at two years post-announcement. Methods and findings We used controlled interrupted time series to compare observed changes associated with the announcement of the SDIL to the counterfactual scenario of no announcement. We used data from Kantar Worldpanel, a commercial household purchasing panel with approximately 30,000 British members that includes linked nutritional data on purchases. We conducted separate analyses for drinks liable for the SDIL in the higher, lower and no levy tiers controlling with household purchase volumes of toiletries. At two years post-announcement there was no difference in volume of, or sugar from, purchases of higher levy tier drinks compared to the counterfactual of no announcement. In contrast, a reversal of the existing upward trend in volume (ml) of, and amount of sugar (g) in, purchases of lower levy tier drinks was seen. These changes led to a -96.1ml (95% CI: -144.2, -48.0) reduction in volume and -6.4g (95% CI: -9.8, -3.1) reduction in sugar purchased in these drinks per household per week. There was a reversal of the existing downward trend in the amount of sugar in household purchases of the no levy drinks, but no change in volume purchased. At two years post-announcement, these changes led to a 6.1g (95% CI: 3.9, 8.2) increase in sugar purchased in these drinks per household per week. There was no evidence that volume of, or amount of sugar in, purchases of all drinks combined was different from the counterfactual. This is an observational study and changes other than the SDIL may have been responsible for the results reported. Purchases consumed outside of the home were not accounted for. Conclusions The announcement of the UK SDIL was associated with reductions in volume and sugar purchased in lower levy tier drinks before implementation. These were offset by increases in sugar purchased from no levy drinks. These findings may reflect reformulation of drinks from the lower levy to no levy tier with removal of some, but not, all sugar, alongside changes in consumer attitudes and beliefs. / DP, JA and MW are supported by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged (grant number MR/K023187/1). Views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the above named funders.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times