What about 100% juice and non-sugar sweeteners? A national study of support for taxes, labelling and marketing bans applied to sugary drinks, non-sugar sweetened beverages and 100% juice in Australia.

OBJECTIVE

To assess levels of support for potential policy interventions (labelling, banning marketing to children, taxes) to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption; and to assess levels of support when these policies were extended to non-sugar sweetened beverages and 100% fruit juice.

METHODS

Data, collected via a nationally representative online survey of Australian adults (N=2,876), measured support (5-point Likert scales; strongly/somewhat in favour/against, or neutral) for front-of-pack warning labels, banning marketing to children, and taxes, applied to the three beverages. Chi-square (unadjusted) and logistic regressions (adjusted) assessed support.

RESULTS

Support was highest for sugar-sweetened beverage policies, followed by non-sugar-sweetened beverages, and lowest for juice. Across all beverages, support was highest for labelling (83%, 82%, 71%, respectively), followed by marketing bans (73%, 60%, 25%), and taxes (56%, 39%, 14%). Support was typically lower among younger, less educated, most socioeconomically disadvantaged and regular consumers.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate high receptiveness among the Australian community for beverage policies, especially warning labels, with lower receptiveness towards some policies targeting juice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

These findings can inform the development of effective public health strategies for encouraging healthier beverage consumption, and point to prioritising front-of-pack warning labels, given the consistently high support for this policy.