Background: Evidence indicates that taxing and advisory labels can effectively reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). However, there is risk of substitution to other beverages like non-sugar sweetened beverages (NSSBs), for which the health risks of consumption are unclear. This study assessed responses to two hypothetical policy scenarios (tax and warning labels) applied first to SSBs only and then broadened to include NSSBs.
Method: A nationally representative sample of Australian adults (18+ years) were randomly assigned to one of the two policy scenarios: a beverage tax (20% price increase; n=1,434) or warning labels (n=1,442). Each policy was applied in two rounds: (1) SSBs only; and (2) SSBs and NSSBs. In both rounds, participants were asked whether interventions would discourage consumption, and which alternative drink(s) they would consider.
Results: Preliminary analyses indicate that in round 1, most participants in both conditions (tax and labelling) believed the intervention would discourage their consumption of SSBs; significantly more so in the labelling condition (61% versus 53%; p<.001). Agreement decreased slightly once NSSBs were incorporated into the intervention and was similar between conditions (48% and 44%). Moderate-high consumers of affected beverages were less likely to report the interventions would discourage consumption across conditions and rounds, compared to low consumers. In both rounds, participants from both conditions were most likely to consider water as an alternative. However, moderate-high NSSB consumers were more likely to consider switching to NSSBs in round 1 and were also the most likely to not consider any alternative drink in round 2 (NSSBs included in intervention).
Conclusion: Findings indicate that both taxing and labelling interventions could be effective for encouraging healthier drink choices. However, regular NSSB consumers were less willing to consider switching to different drinks when NSSBs were included in the intervention.