» Articles » PMID: 33692200

Changes in Soft Drinks Purchased by British Households Associated with the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: Controlled Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Overview
Journal BMJ
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2021 Mar 11
PMID 33692200
Citations 53
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To determine changes in household purchases of drinks and confectionery one year after implementation of the UK soft drinks industry levy (SDIL).

Design: Controlled interrupted time series analysis.

Participants: Members of a panel of households reporting their purchasing on a weekly basis to a market research company (average weekly number of participants n=22 183), March 2014 to March 2019.

Intervention: A two tiered tax levied on manufacturers of soft drinks, announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018. Drinks with ≥8 g sugar/100 mL (high tier) are taxed at £0.24/L and drinks with ≥5 to <8 g sugar/100 mL (low tier) are taxed at £0.18/L. Drinks with <5 g sugar/100 mL (no levy) are not taxed.

Main Outcome Measures: Absolute and relative differences in the volume of, and amount of sugar in, soft drinks categories, all soft drinks combined, alcohol, and confectionery purchased per household per week one year after implementation of the SDIL compared with trends before the announcement of the SDIL.

Results: In March 2019, compared with the counterfactual estimated from pre-announcement trends, purchased volume of drinks in the high levy tier decreased by 155 mL (95% confidence interval 240.5 to 69.5 mL) per household per week, equivalent to 44.3% (95% confidence interval 59.9% to 28.7%), and sugar purchased in these drinks decreased by 18.0 g (95% confidence interval 32.3 to 3.6 g), or 45.9% (68.8% to 22.9%). Purchases of low tier drinks decreased by 177.3 mL (225.3 to 129.3 mL) per household per week, or 85.9% (95.1% to 76.7%), with a 12.5 g (15.4 to 9.5 g) reduction in sugar in these drinks, equivalent to 86.2% (94.2% to 78.1%). Despite no overall change in volume of no levy drinks purchased, there was an increase in sugar purchased of 15.3 g (12.6 to 17.9 g) per household per week, equivalent to 166.4% (94.2% to 238.5%). When all soft drinks were combined, the volume of drinks purchased did not change, but sugar decreased by 29.5 g (55.8 to 3.1 g), or 9.8% (17.9% to 1.8%). Purchases of confectionery and alcoholic drinks did not change.

Conclusions: Compared with trends before the SDIL was announced, one year after implementation, the volume of soft drinks purchased did not change. The amount of sugar in those drinks was 30 g, or 10%, lower per household per week-equivalent to one 250 mL serving of a low tier drink per person per week. The SDIL might benefit public health without harming industry.

Trial Registration: ISRCTN18042742.

Citing Articles

How is health equity considered in policy evaluations employing quasi-experimental methods? A scoping review and content analysis.

Sell K, Rabbani S, Burns J Eur J Public Health. 2024; 35(1):42-51.

PMID: 39602551 PMC: 11832135. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckae188.


Ultra-processed food consumption in UK adolescents: distribution, trends, and sociodemographic correlates using the National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2008/09 to 2018/19.

Chavez-Ugalde I, De Vocht F, Jago R, Adams J, Ong K, Forouhi N Eur J Nutr. 2024; 63(7):2709-2723.

PMID: 39014218 PMC: 11490440. DOI: 10.1007/s00394-024-03458-z.


The equitable impact of sugary drink taxation structures on sugary drink consumption among Canadians: a modelling study using the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition.

Smith B, Warren C, Anderson L, Hammond D, Manuel D, Li Y Public Health Nutr. 2024; 27(1):e121.

PMID: 38618932 PMC: 11075107. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980024000545.


A Behaviorally Informed Mobile App to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Grocery Shopping (SwapSHOP): Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

Piernas C, Lee C, Hobson A, Harmer G, Payne Riches S, Noreik M JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2024; 12:e45854.

PMID: 38206671 PMC: 10811579. DOI: 10.2196/45854.


New Zealand household purchases of sugar-sweetened, artificially sweetened, and unsweetened beverages: 2015-2019.

Eyles H, Dodd S, Garton K, Jiang Y, Gontijo de Castro T Public Health Nutr. 2023; 27(1):e22.

PMID: 38115219 PMC: 10830360. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980023002793.


References
1.
Mytton O, Eyles H, Ogilvie D . Evaluating the Health Impacts of Food and Beverage Taxes. Curr Obes Rep. 2015; 3(4):432-9. DOI: 10.1007/s13679-014-0123-x. View

2.
Pell D, Penney T, Mytton O, Briggs A, Cummins S, Rayner M . 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 Med. 2020; 17(11):e1003269. PMC: 7660521. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003269. View

3.
Bandy L, Scarborough P, Harrington R, Rayner M, Jebb S . Reductions in sugar sales from soft drinks in the UK from 2015 to 2018. BMC Med. 2020; 18(1):20. PMC: 6956503. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1477-4. View

4.
Pell D, Penney T, Hammond D, Vanderlee L, White M, Adams J . Support for, and perceived effectiveness of, the UK soft drinks industry levy among UK adults: cross-sectional analysis of the International Food Policy Study. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(3):e026698. PMC: 6429875. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026698. View

5.
Law C, Cornelsen L, Adams J, Pell D, Rutter H, White M . The impact of UK soft drinks industry levy on manufacturers' domestic turnover. Econ Hum Biol. 2020; 37:100866. PMC: 7615081. DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100866. View