Background
Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages including nondiet sodas, sport drinks, and
energy drinks has been linked with obesity. Recent state and local efforts to tax
these beverages have been unsuccessful. Enactment will be unlikely without public
support, yet little research is available to assess how to effectively make the case
for such taxes.
Purpose
The objectives were to assess public opinion about arguments used commonly in tax
debates regarding sugar-sweetened beverages and to assess differences in public opinion
by respondents' political party affiliation.
Methods
A public opinion survey was fielded in January–March 2011 using a probability-based
sample of respondents from a large, nationally representative online panel to examine
public attitudes about nine pro- and eight anti-tax arguments. These data were analyzed
in August 2011.
Results
Findings indicated greater public agreement with anti- than pro-tax arguments. The
most popular anti-tax argument was that a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is arbitrary
because it does not affect consumption of other unhealthy foods (60%). A majority
also agreed that such taxes were a quick way for politicians to fill budget holes
(58%); an unacceptable intrusion of government into people's lives (53.8%); opposed
by most Americans (53%); and harmful to the poor (51%). No pro-tax arguments were
endorsed by a majority of the public. Respondents reported highest agreement with
the argument that sugar-sweetened beverages were the single largest contributor to
obesity (49%) and would raise revenue for obesity prevention (41%).
Conclusions
Without bolstering public support for existing pro-tax messages or developing alternative
pro-tax messages, enacting such policies will be difficult. Message-framing studies
could be useful in identifying promising strategies for persuading Americans that
taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages are warranted.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis.Lancet. 2001; 357: 505-508
- Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Am J Public Health. 2007; 97: 667-675
- Sugar-sweetened beverages and body mass index in children and adolescents: a metaanalysis.Am J Clin Nutr. 2008; 87: 1662-1671
- Ounces of prevention—the public policy case for taxes on sugared beverages.N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1805-1808
- Soda taxes, soft drink consumption, and children's body mass index.Health Aff. 2010; 29: 1052-1058https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0061
- Effects of decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption on body weight in adolescents: a randomized, controlled pilot study.Pediatrics. 2006; 117: 673-680
- Preventing childhood obesity by reducing consumption of carbonated drinks: cluster randomised controlled trial.Br Med J. 2004; 328: 1237
- State sales tax rates for soft drinks and snacks sold through grocery stores and vending machines.J Public Health Pol. 2008; 29: 226-249
- Associations between state-level soda taxes and adolescent body mass index.J Adolesc Health. 2009; 45: S57-S63
- Taxing soft drinks and restricting access to vending machines to curb child obesity.Health Aff. 2010; 29: 1059-1066
- Can soft drink taxes reduce population weight?.Contemp Econ Policy. 2010; 28: 23-35
- Determining the impact of food price and income changes on body weight.J Health Econ. 2008; 27: 45-68
- Impact of targeted beverage taxes on higher- and lower-income households.Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170: 2028-2034
- Food prices and obesity: evidence and policy implications for taxes and subsidies.Milbank Q. 2009; 87: 229-257
- Sugar-sweetened beverage tax legislative maps.
- Politicians don't pander: political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness.in: University of Chicago Press, Chicago2000
- Tides of consent: how public opinion shapes American politics.in: Cambridge University Press, New York2004
- Dynamic representation.Am Polit Sci Rev. 1995; 89: 543-565
- Quinnapiac public opinion poll.
- Public opinion poll.
- Mississippi public opinion poll.
- Public opinion poll.
- Philadelphia public opinion poll.
- Public opinion poll.
- The Harris Poll, no. 73.Adweek Media, 2010, Jun 2
- Social cognition.in: McGraw Hill, New York1991
- Is anyone responsible?.in: University of Chicago Press, Chicago1991
- Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance.Am Polit Sci Rev. 1997; 91: 567-583
- Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.J Commun. 1993; 43: 51-58
- Agendas and instability in American politics.in: University of Chicago Press, Chicago1993
Niederdeppe J, Gollust SE, Barry CL. News coverage of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: pro- and anti-tax arguments in public discourse. Am J Public Health: In press.
Article info
Identification
Copyright
© 2013 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Talking About Sugar Sweetened–Beverage Taxes: Will Actions Speak Louder Than Words?American Journal of Preventive MedicineVol. 44Issue 2
- PreviewIn this issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Colleen Barry and her colleagues1 present results from a national public opinion survey assessing the level of support for arguments commonly used in public debate about instituting taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. Many in public health want to learn what will persuade the public to support taxing sugary beverages because they are eager to mimic the success in tobacco control, where increasing excise taxes on cigarettes is the single most effective way to reduce consumption, especially among youth.
- Full-Text
- Preview
