Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Nov 12;17(11):e1003269.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003269. eCollection 2020 Nov.

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

Affiliations

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

David Pell et al. PLoS Med. .

Erratum in

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 <8 g of sugar per 100 ml (lower levy tier) are taxed at £0.18 per litre, and drinks with <5 g sugar per 100 ml (no levy) are not taxed. Milk-based drinks, pure fruit juices, drinks sold as powder, and drinks with >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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: AB is a co-applicant on the National Institute for Health Research grant number 16/130/01, evaluating the impact of the UK Soft Drink Industry Levy, and is a past member of the UK Health Forum and current member of the Faculty of Public Health. Both of these organisations have a position statement supporting a soft drink tax. MR is Chair of Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming, a UK-based NGO. Sustain has advocated for the introduction and development of the SDIL. MW is director of the NIHR Public Health Research Funding programme; OM is currently on secondment at the UK Department of Health and Social Care and previously worked with Public Health England. JA is an academic editor for PLOS Medicine. Other than this, there was no support from any organisation for the submitted work other than that described above; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Observed and modelled volume (ml) of drinks liable to the Soft Drinks Industry Levy and weight of confectionery (g) purchased per household per week, March 2014–March 2018.
Notes. Points are observed data, thick lines (with shadows) are modelled data (and 95% confidence intervals); thin lines (without shadows) are the counterfactual had the announcement not happened; blue points and lines are drinks/confectionary; red points and lines are the control category of toiletries; the vertical dashed line indicates the point of announcement of the SDIL; Y-axes vary in scale between panels to maximise the resolution of figures; modelled purchases include all adjustments as described in the methods section.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Observed and modelled amount of sugar (g) in drinks liable to the Soft Drinks Industry Levy and confectionery (g) purchased per household per week, March 2014–March 2018.
Notes. Points are observed data, thick lines (with shadows) are modelled data (and 95% confidence intervals); thin lines (without shadows) are the counterfactual had the announcement not happened; blue points and lines are drinks/confectionary; red points and lines are the control category of toiletries; the vertical dashed line indicates the point of announcement of the SDIL; Y-axes vary in scale between panels to maximise the resolution of figures; modelled purchases include all adjustments as described in the methods section.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Moynihan PJ, Kelly SAM. Effect on Caries of Restricting Sugars Intake: Systematic Review to Inform WHO Guidelines. J Dent Res 2014;93:8–18. doi: 10.1177/0022034513508954 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Imamura F, O’Connor L, Ye Z, Mursu J, Hayashino Y, Bhupathiraju SN, et al.. Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction. Br J Sports Med 2016;50:496–504. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-h3576rep - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Xi B, Huang Y, Reilly KH, Li S, Zheng R, Barrio-Lopez MT, et al.. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of hypertension and CVD: a dose–response meta-analysis. Br J Nutr 2015;113:709–17. doi: 10.1017/S0007114514004383 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tedstone A, Targett V, Allen R. Sugar reduction: the evidence for action. Sugar Reduct Evid Action 2015.
    1. Morgan E, Dent M. The economic burden of obesity. Natl Obes Obs 2010:1–13.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data