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
- PMID: 33180869
- PMCID: PMC7660521
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003269
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
Erratum in
-
Correction: 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. 2023 Mar 13;20(3):e1004201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004201. eCollection 2023 Mar. PLoS Med. 2023. PMID: 36913652 Free PMC article.
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.
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


Similar articles
-
Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: a controlled interrupted time series analysis.BMJ Open. 2023 Dec 5;13(12):e077059. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077059. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 38052470 Free PMC article.
-
Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: controlled interrupted time series analysis.BMJ. 2021 Mar 10;372:n254. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n254. BMJ. 2021. Retraction in: BMJ. 2023 Dec 5;383:p2705. doi: 10.1136/bmj.p2705. PMID: 33692200 Free PMC article. Retracted.
-
Impact of the announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy on sugar content, price, product size and number of available soft drinks in the UK, 2015-19: A controlled interrupted time series analysis.PLoS Med. 2020 Feb 11;17(2):e1003025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025. eCollection 2020 Feb. PLoS Med. 2020. PMID: 32045418 Free PMC article.
-
Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 12;6(6):CD012292. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012292.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. PMID: 31194900 Free PMC article.
-
Dietary sugar and body weight: have we reached a crisis in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes?: health be damned! Pour on the sugar.Diabetes Care. 2014 Apr;37(4):950-6. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2085. Diabetes Care. 2014. PMID: 24652725 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Correction: 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. 2023 Mar 13;20(3):e1004201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004201. eCollection 2023 Mar. PLoS Med. 2023. PMID: 36913652 Free PMC article.
-
Systematic review on fiscal policy interventions in nutrition.Front Nutr. 2022 Nov 29;9:967494. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.967494. eCollection 2022. Front Nutr. 2022. PMID: 36532551 Free PMC article.
-
Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: a controlled interrupted time series analysis.BMJ Open. 2023 Dec 5;13(12):e077059. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077059. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 38052470 Free PMC article.
-
Effectiveness of implemented global dietary interventions: a scoping review of fiscal policies.BMC Public Health. 2024 Sep 19;24(1):2552. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19988-4. BMC Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39300446 Free PMC article.
-
Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: controlled interrupted time series analysis.BMJ. 2021 Mar 10;372:n254. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n254. BMJ. 2021. Retraction in: BMJ. 2023 Dec 5;383:p2705. doi: 10.1136/bmj.p2705. PMID: 33692200 Free PMC article. Retracted.
References
-
- 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
-
- Tedstone A, Targett V, Allen R. Sugar reduction: the evidence for action. Sugar Reduct Evid Action 2015.
-
- Morgan E, Dent M. The economic burden of obesity. Natl Obes Obs 2010:1–13.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous