Search

Intervention: This study examined whether the impacts of sugar taxes and front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels differ across socio-demographic subgroups., Research Question: What are the main and moderating effects of individual-level characteristics on the nutrient content of participants' purchases in response to varying taxation levels and FOP labels?, Methods: Data from an experimental marketplace were analyzed. A sample of 3584 Canadians aged 13 years and older received $5 to purchase an item from a selection of 20 beverages and 20 snack foods. Participants were shown products with one of five FOP labels and completed eight within-subject purchasing tasks with different tax conditions. Linear mixed models were used to estimate the main and moderating effects of 11 individual-level variables on the sugars, sodium, saturated fats, and calorie content of participants' purchases., Results: Participants who were younger, male, and more frequent consumers of sugary drinks purchased products containing more sugars, sodium, saturated fats, and calories. Sex and age moderated the relationship between tax condition and sugars or calories purchased: female participants were more responsive than males to a tax that included fruit juice, and younger participants were more responsive to all sugar tax conditions than older participants. Reported thirst and education level also moderated the relationship between tax condition and calories purchased. No individual-level characteristics moderated the effects of FOP labels., Conclusion: A small proportion (7 of 176) of the moderating effects tested in this study were significant. Sugar taxes and FOP labelling policies may therefore produce similar effects across key socio-demographic groups.

Objective: Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes are increasingly used to discourage sugar intake; however, the impact on consumer preferences for particular products is largely unknown. This study explored the impact of two tax structures (tiered vs. nontiered and inclusive vs. exclusive of 100% fruit juice) on participants' probability of purchasing moderately sugary beverages and 100% fruit juice., Methods: A sample of 3,584 Canadians aged 13 years and older completed a series of beverage purchasing tasks, each corresponding to a different tax condition, within an experimental marketplace. Tax conditions included a no-tax control, plus four taxes varying by structure (tiered vs. nontiered) and whether or not 100% fruit juice was included., Results: The odds of purchasing a moderately sugary beverage were higher under tiered versus nontiered taxes. Purchases of higher sugar beverages differed little across tiered versus nontiered structures. Odds of purchasing 100% fruit juice were lower when these products were taxed versus not taxed., Conclusions: Results suggest that two key tax structures are likely to function as expected; taxes including 100% fruit juice products may lead to lower probability of purchasing fruit juice, and taxes incorporating multiple tiers may be more likely to encourage purchases of moderately sugary products than nontiered formats., (© 2020 The Obesity Society.)

Background: Sugar taxes and front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labelling systems are strategies to address diet-related non-communicable diseases. However, there is relatively little experimental data on how these strategies influence consumer behavior and how they may interact. This study examined the relative impact of different sugar taxes and FOP labelling systems on beverage and snack food purchases., Methods: A total of 3584 Canadians 13 years and older participated in an experimental marketplace study using a 5 (FOP label condition) × 8 (tax condition) between-within group experiment. Participants received $5 and were presented with images of 20 beverages and 20 snack foods available for purchase. Participants were randomized to one of five FOP label conditions (no label; 'high in' warning; multiple traffic light; health star rating; nutrition grade) and completed eight within-subject purchasing tasks with different taxation conditions (beverages: no tax, 20% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), 20% tax on sugary drinks, tiered tax on SSBs, tiered tax on sugary drinks; snack foods: no tax, 20% tax on high-sugar foods, tiered tax on high-sugar foods). Upon conclusion, one of eight selections was randomly chosen for purchase, and participants received the product and any change., Results: Compared to those who saw no FOP label, participants who viewed the 'high in' symbol purchased less sugar (- 2.5 g), saturated fat (- 0.09 g), and calories (- 12.6 kcal) in the beverage purchasing tasks, and less sodium (- 13.5 mg) and calories (- 8.9 kcal) in the food tasks. All taxes resulted in substantial reductions in mean sugars (- 1.4 to - 4.7 g) and calories (- 5.3 to - 19.8 kcal) purchased, and in some cases, reductions in sodium (- 2.5 to - 6.6 mg) and saturated fat (- 0.03 to - 0.08 g). Taxes that included 100% fruit juice ('sugary drink' taxes) produced greater reductions in sugars and calories than those that did not., Conclusions: This study expands the evidence indicating the effectiveness of sugar taxation and FOP labelling strategies in promoting healthy food and beverage choices. The results emphasize the importance of applying taxes to 100% fruit juice to maximize policy impact, and suggest that nutrient-specific FOP 'high in' labels may be more effective than other common labelling systems at reducing consumption of targeted nutrients.

Taxes and front-of-package (FOP) labels can be effective interventions for reducing consumption of sugar, saturated fat, and sodium; however, few studies have examined their impact on intake of 'positive' nutrients. The current study explored the impact of sugar taxes and FOP labels on the protein, calcium and fibre density of snack food purchases. A total of 3584 Canadians aged 13 years and older participated in an experimental marketplace using a 3 × 8 between-within group experiment. Participants received $5 and viewed images of 20 snack food products available for purchase. Participants were randomized to one of five FOP label conditions (no label, high in, multiple traffic light, health star rating, or nutrition grade) and completed three within-subject purchasing tasks with different sugar tax conditions (no tax, 20%, tiered). Upon conclusion, participants received the product and any change from one of the purchasing tasks. The results indicate that participants purchased snack foods with higher fibre density when either sugar tax was applied (+0.1 g/100 kcal) compared to no tax, and when they were assigned to see the multiple traffic light (+0.4 g/100 kcal) or health star rating (+0.3 g/100 kcal) FOP labels, compared to no FOP label. There were no significant differences in the protein or calcium density of snack foods purchased across the tax or FOP labelling conditions. Overall, the findings suggest that as consumers respond to tax or labelling policies by moving away from sugars, sodium, and saturated fat, there may be no downside-or even an increase-in 'positive' nutrient density. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]