» Articles » PMID: 22186747

Patterns and Trends of Beverage Consumption Among Children and Adults in Great Britain, 1986-2009

Overview
Journal Br J Nutr
Date 2011 Dec 22
PMID 22186747
Citations 69
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Many dietary recommendations include reduction of excessive intake of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) and other energy-rich beverages such as juices and alcohol. The present study examines surveys of both individual dietary intake data and household food expenditure surveys to provide a picture of patterns and trends in beverage intake and purchases in Great Britain from 1986 to 2009, and estimates the potential for pricing policy to promote more healthful beverage purchase patterns. In 2008-9, beverages accounted for 21, 14 and 18 % of daily energy intake for children aged 1·5-18 and 4-18 years, and adults (19-64 years), respectively. Since the 1990s, the most important shifts have been a reduction in consumption of high-fat dairy products and an increased consumption of fruit juices and reduced-fat milk among preschoolers, children and adolescents. Among adults, consumption of high-fat milk beverages, sweetened tea and coffee and other energy-containing drinks fell, but reduced-fat milk, alcohol (particularly beer) and fruit juice rose. In testing taxation as an option for shifting beverage purchase patterns, we calculate that a 10 % increase in the price of SSB could potentially result in a decrease of 7·5 ml/capita per d. A similar 10 % tax on high-fat milk is associated with a reduction of high-fat milk purchases by 5 ml/capita per d and increased reduced-fat milk purchase by 7 ml/capita per d. This analysis implies that taxation or other methods of shifting relative costs of these beverages could be a way to improve beverage choices in Great Britain.

Citing Articles

The impact of exposure to sugary drink marketing on youth brand preference and recall: a cross-sectional and multi-country analysis.

Remedios L, Roy-Gagnon M, Vanderlee L, Hammond D, Potvin Kent M BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):3275.

PMID: 39592972 PMC: 11590244. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-20770-9.


Exploring the sugar-sweetened beverage tax (SSBT) pass-through rate in the Irish hospitality sector.

Houghton F, Moran Stritch J, Auerbach J, Daly M, Houghton D BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):2360.

PMID: 39215358 PMC: 11363438. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19891-y.


Substituting Low-Calorie Sweetened Beverages for Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Prevent Obesity and Cardiometabolic Diseases: Still a Good Idea?.

Chatelan A, Raeisi-Dehkordi H, Salehi-Abargouei A Curr Dev Nutr. 2024; 8(3):102105.

PMID: 38440361 PMC: 10911947. DOI: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.102105.


Associations of sugar-sweetened, artificially sweetened, and naturally sweet juices with Alzheimer's disease: a prospective cohort study.

Chen Y, Zhang Y, Yang H, Li H, Zhou L, Zhang M Geroscience. 2023; 46(1):1229-1240.

PMID: 37526906 PMC: 10828427. DOI: 10.1007/s11357-023-00889-0.


Energy labelling of alcoholic drinks: An important or inconsequential obesity policy?.

Robinson E, Boyland E, Evans R, Finlay A, Halsall L, Humphreys G Obes Sci Pract. 2023; 9(2):75-86.

PMID: 37034571 PMC: 10073822. DOI: 10.1002/osp4.638.


References
1.
Heitmann B, Lissner L, Osler M . Do we eat less fat, or just report so?. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000; 24(4):435-42. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801176. View

2.
Mourao D, Bressan J, Campbell W, Mattes R . Effects of food form on appetite and energy intake in lean and obese young adults. Int J Obes (Lond). 2007; 31(11):1688-95. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803667. View

3.
Choi H, Curhan G . Soft drinks, fructose consumption, and the risk of gout in men: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2008; 336(7639):309-12. PMC: 2234536. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39449.819271.BE. View

4.
Mytton O, Gray A, Rayner M, Rutter H . Could targeted food taxes improve health?. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007; 61(8):689-94. PMC: 2652984. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2006.047746. View

5.
Lissner L, Heitmann B, Lindroos A . Measuring intake in free-living human subjects: a question of bias. Proc Nutr Soc. 1998; 57(2):333-9. DOI: 10.1079/pns19980048. View