IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • David Pell
  • Tarra L Penney
  • Oliver Mytton
  • Adam Briggs
  • Steven Cummins
  • Mike Rayner
  • Harry Rutter
  • Peter Scarborough
  • Stephen J Sharp
  • Richard D Smith
  • Martin White
  • Jean Adams

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 United Kingdom Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) is a two-tiered tax, announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018. Drinks with ≥8 g of sugar per 100 ml (higher levy tier) are taxed at £0.24 per litre, drinks with ≥5 to 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 2 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 2 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 −96.1 ml (95% confidence interval [CI] −144.2 to −48.0) reduction in volume and −6.4 g (95% CI −9.8 to −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 2 years post announcement, these changes led to a 6.1 g (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. Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN18042742. David Pell and colleagues report differences in the volume of household purchases of drinks and sugar in these drinks 2 years after the sugar levy in the UK.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • David Pell & Tarra L Penney & Oliver Mytton & Adam Briggs & Steven Cummins & Mike Rayner & Harry Rutter & Peter Scarborough & Stephen J Sharp & Richard D Smith & Martin White & Jean Adams, 2020. "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," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-20, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003269
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003269
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003269&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003269?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina H Buckton & Chris Patterson & Lirije Hyseni & S Vittal Katikireddi & Ffion Lloyd-Williams & Alex Elliott-Green & Simon Capewell & Shona Hilton, 2018. "The palatability of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: A content analysis of newspaper coverage of the UK sugar debate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Falbe, J. & Rojas, N. & Grummon, A.H. & Madsen, K.A., 2015. "Higher retail prices of sugar-sweetened beverages 3 months after implementation of an excise tax in Berkeley, California," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(11), pages 2194-2201.
    3. Falbe, J. & Thompson, H.R. & Becker, C.M. & Rojas, N. & McCulloch, C.E. & Madsen, K.A., 2016. "Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(10), pages 1865-1871.
    4. Peter Scarborough & Vyas Adhikari & Richard A Harrington & Ahmed Elhussein & Adam Briggs & Mike Rayner & Jean Adams & Steven Cummins & Tarra Penney & Martin White, 2020. "Impact of the announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy on sugar content, price, product size and number of available soft drinks in the UK, 2015-19: A controlled interrupted," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Ariel Linden, 2015. "Conducting interrupted time-series analysis for single- and multiple-group comparisons," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 15(2), pages 480-500, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Le Bodo, Yann & Etilé, Fabrice & Julia, Chantal & Friant-Perrot, Marine & Breton, Eric & Lecocq, Sébastien & Boizot-Szantai, Christine & Bergeran, Céline & Jabot, Françoise, 2022. "Public health lessons from the French 2012 soda tax and insights on the modifications enacted in 2018," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(7), pages 585-591.
    2. repec:ags:aaea22:335813 is not listed on IDEAS

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Le Bodo, Yann & Etilé, Fabrice & Julia, Chantal & Friant-Perrot, Marine & Breton, Eric & Lecocq, Sébastien & Boizot-Szantai, Christine & Bergeran, Céline & Jabot, Françoise, 2022. "Public health lessons from the French 2012 soda tax and insights on the modifications enacted in 2018," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(7), pages 585-591.
    2. Stacey, Nicholas & Edoka, Ijeoma & Hofman, Karen & Swart, Elizabeth C & Popkin, Barry & Ng, Shu Wen, 2021. "Changes in beverage purchases following the announcement and implementation of South Africa's Health Promotion Levy: an observational study," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109878, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Michael Essman & Lindsey Smith Taillie & Tamryn Frank & Shu Wen Ng & Barry M Popkin & Elizabeth C Swart, 2021. "Taxed and untaxed beverage intake by South African young adults after a national sugar-sweetened beverage tax: A before-and-after study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(5), pages 1-17, May.
    4. Nano Barahona & Cristóbal Otero & Sebastián Otero, 2023. "Equilibrium Effects of Food Labeling Policies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(3), pages 839-868, May.
    5. Gonçalves, Judite & Pereira dos Santos, João, 2020. "Brown sugar, how come you taste so good? The impact of a soda tax on prices and consumption," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    6. Alyssa J. Moran & Yuxuan Gu & Sasha Clynes & Attia Goheer & Christina A. Roberto & Anne Palmer, 2020. "Associations between Governmental Policies to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Supermarket Purchases and Individual, Retailer, and Community Health Outcomes: An Integrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Rebecca L. C. Taylor & Scott Kaplan & Sofia B. Villas‐Boas & Kevin Jung, 2019. "Soda Wars: The Effect Of A Soda Tax Election On University Beverage Sales," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(3), pages 1480-1496, July.
    8. Powell, Lisa M. & Leider, Julien, 2020. "The impact of Seattle’s Sweetened Beverage Tax on beverage prices and volume sold," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    9. Hagenaars, Luc Louis & Jeurissen, Patrick Paulus Theodoor & Klazinga, Niek Sieds, 2017. "The taxation of unhealthy energy-dense foods (EDFs) and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs): An overview of patterns observed in the policy content and policy context of 13 case studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 887-894.
    10. Maria L. Alva, 2018. "A Review of the Impacts of Different Approaches for Diabetes Prevention and a Framework for Making Investment Decisions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-11, March.
    11. Taylor, Rebecca & Kaplan, Scott & Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Jung, Kevin, 2016. "Soda Wars: Effect of a Soda Tax Election on Soda Purchases," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0q18s7b7, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    12. Law, Cherry & Cornelsen, Laura & Adams, Jean & Pell, David & Rutter, Harry & White, Martin & Smith, Richard, 2020. "The impact of UK soft drinks industry levy on manufacturers’ domestic turnover," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    13. Bryan Bollinger & Steven E. Sexton, 2023. "Local excise taxes, sticky prices, and spillovers: evidence from Berkeley’s soda tax," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 281-331, June.
    14. Leider, Julien & Powell, Lisa M., 2022. "Longer-term impacts of the Oakland, California, sugar-sweetened beverage tax on prices and volume sold at two-years post-tax," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    15. Cornelsen, Laura & Smith, Richard D., 2018. "Viewpoint: Soda taxes – Four questions economists need to address," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 138-142.
    16. Schmacker, Renke & Smed, Sinne, 2020. "Do prices and purchases respond similarly to soft drink tax increases and cuts?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    17. Zhen, Chen & Chen, Yu & Lin, Biing-Hwan & Karns, Shawn & Mancino, Lisa & Ver Ploeg, Michele, 2021. "Do Obese and Nonobese Consumers Respond Differently to Price Changes? Implications of Preference Heterogeneity for Using Food Taxes and Subsidies to Reduce Obesity," MPRA Paper 112697, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Castro, P. & Pedroso, R. & Lautenbach, S. & Vicens, R., 2020. "Farmland abandonment in Rio de Janeiro: Underlying and contributory causes of an announced development," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    19. KAMKOUM, Arnaud Cedric, 2023. "The Federal Reserve’s Response to the Global Financial Crisis and its Effects: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis of the Impact of its Quantitative Easing Programs," Thesis Commons d7pvg, Center for Open Science.
    20. Mendez Lopez, Ana & Loopstra, Rachel & McKee, Martin & Stuckler, David, 2017. "Is trade liberalisation a vector for the spread of sugar-sweetened beverages? A cross-national longitudinal analysis of 44 low- and middle-income countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 21-27.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003269. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.