Suchergebnisse

In March 2016, the UK government announced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) which came into effect in April 2018. In common with the reaction to sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes in other countries, the SDIL announcement was met with strong industry opposition, with claims that it would harm their profits. The SDIL was designed to incentivise reformulation of SSBs by providing a 2-year delay between the announcement and the enforcement of the levy, and adopting a two-tiered rate based on the sugar content of the drinks. Using interrupted time series analysis, this paper examines how the domestic turnover of UK soft drinks manufacturers changed after the announcement and the implementation of the SDIL. Our results show some evidence of a short-term negative impact of the SDIL announcement on the domestic turnover of the UK soft drinks manufacturers. This effect, however, did not continue post-implementation. These findings suggest that manufacturers were, to a large extent, able to mitigate the effects of levy before it came into effect.

On 16th March 2016, the government of the United Kingdom announced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), under which UK soft-drink manufacturers were to be taxed according to the volume of products with added sugar they produced or imported. We use 'event study' methodology to assess the likely financial effect of the SDIL on parts of the soft drinks industry, using stock returns of four UK-operating soft-drink firms listed on the London Stock Exchange. We found that three of the four firms experienced negative abnormal stock returns on the day of announcement. A cross-sectional analysis revealed that the cumulative abnormal returns of soft drink stocks were not significantly less than that of other food and drinks-related stocks beyond the day of the SDIL announcement. Our findings suggest that the SDIL announcement was initially perceived as detrimental news by the market but negative stock returns were short-lived, indicating a lack of major concerns for industry. There was limited evidence of a negative stock market reaction to the two subsequent announcements: release of draft legislation on 5th December 2016, and confirmation of the tax rates on 8th March 2017.

In March 2016, the UK government announced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) which came into effect in April 2018. In common with the reaction to sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes in other countries, the SDIL announcement was met with strong industry opposition, with claims that it would harm their profits. The SDIL was designed to incentivise reformulation of SSBs by providing a 2-year delay between the announcement and the enforcement of the levy, and adopting a two-tiered rate based on the sugar content of the drinks. Using interrupted time series analysis, this paper examines how the domestic turnover of UK soft drinks manufacturers changed after the announcement and the implementation of the SDIL. Our results show some evidence of a short-term negative impact of the SDIL announcement on the domestic turnover of the UK soft drinks manufacturers. This effect, however, did not continue post-implementation. These findings suggest that manufacturers were, to a large extent, able to mitigate the effects of levy before it came into effect.

On 16th March 2016, the government of the United Kingdom announced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), under which UK soft-drink manufacturers were to be taxed according to the volume of products with added sugar they produced or imported. We use 'event study' methodology to assess the likely financial effect of the SDIL on parts of the soft drinks industry, using stock returns of four UK-operating soft-drink firms listed on the London Stock Exchange. We found that three of the four firms experienced negative abnormal stock returns on the day of announcement. A cross-sectional analysis revealed that the cumulative abnormal returns of soft drink stocks were not significantly less than that of other food and drinks-related stocks beyond the day of the SDIL announcement. Our findings suggest that the SDIL announcement was initially perceived as detrimental news by the market but negative stock returns were short-lived, indicating a lack of major concerns for industry. There was limited evidence of a negative stock market reaction to the two subsequent announcements: release of draft legislation on 5th December 2016, and confirmation of the tax rates on 8th March 2017.

On 16th March 2016, the UK government announced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL). Under the SDIL, soft drinks manufacturers were to be taxed according to the volume of products with added sugar they produced or imported, with proceeds used to increase funding for initiatives in schools and other activities to promote child health (House of Commons 2017). The SDIL explicitly aimed to bring about changes in the behaviour of soft drinks companies, specifically to reformulate their products to reduce sugar content as there were three bands – a zero rate for those with total sugar content lower than 5g per 100ml, one rate for those with 5-8g per 100ml and a higher rate for drinks with more than 8g per 100ml. Drinks classed as pure fruit juices, milk-based drinks, and those containing more than 0.5% alcohol by volume were exempt. Companies were given two years before the SDIL was enforced to achieve such changes. The draft of the SDIL legislation and consultation summary were released on 5th December 2016. The levy rates were confirmed on 8th March 2017. ; Evaluation of the SDIL is funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, Public Health Research programme [Grant numbers: 16/49/01 & 16/130/01]. LC is funded by an MRC Fellowship Grant (MR/P021999/1). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the MRC, NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health.

Funder: Robinson College, University of Cambridge ; Funder: Medical Research Council; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265 ; Funder: British Heart Foundation; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000274 ; Funder: UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence ; Funder: Economic and Social Research Council; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000269 ; Funder: Cancer Research UK; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000289 ; Funder: Wellcome Trust; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440 ; Funder: Yates Unilever Fund ; Funder: The Ministry of Health of the Government of Barbados ; Funder: National Institute for Health Research; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272 ; Funder: Gates Cambridge PhD Scholarship ; Funder: Smuts Memorial Fund, University of Cambridge; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000710 ; Funder: Global Food Security Fund ; Funder: Luca D'Agliano Scholarship ; Objective: Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes have been implemented widely. We aimed to use a pre-existing nutritional survey data to inform SSB tax design by assessing: (1) baseline consumption of SSBs and SSB-derived free sugars, (2) the percentage of SSB-derived free sugars that would be covered by a tax and (3) the extent to which a tax would differentiate between high-sugar SSBs and low-sugar SSBs. We evaluated these three considerations using pre-existing nutritional survey data in a developing economy setting. Methods: We used data from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey in Barbados (2012–2013, prior to SSB tax implementation). Data were available on 334 adults (25–64 years) who completed two non-consecutive 24-hour dietary recalls. We estimated the prevalence of SSB consumption and its contribution to total energy intake, overall and stratified by taxable status. We assessed the percentage of SSB-derived free sugars subject to the tax and identified the consumption-weighted sugar concentration of SSBs, stratified by taxable status. Findings: Accounting for sampling probability, 88.8% of adults (95% CI 85.1 to 92.5) reported SSB consumption, with a geometric mean of 2.4 servings/day (±2 SD, 0.6, 9.2) among SSB consumers. Sixty percent (95% CI 54.6 to 65.4) of SSB-derived free sugars would be subject to the tax. The tax did not clearly differentiate between high-sugar beverages and low-sugar beverages. Conclusion: Given high SSB consumption, targeting SSBs was a sensible strategy in this setting. A substantial percentage of free sugars from SSBs were not covered by the tax, reducing possible health benefits. The considerations proposed here may help policymakers to design more effective SSB taxes.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has advocated for sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes as part of a broader non-communicable disease prevention strategy, and these taxes have been recently introduced in a wide range of settings. However, much is still unknown about how SSB taxes operate in various contexts and as a result of different tax designs. In 2015, the Government of Barbados implemented a 10% ad valorem (value-based) tax on SSBs. It has been hypothesized that this tax structure may inadvertently encourage consumers to switch to cheaper sugary drinks. We aimed to assess whether and to what extent there has been a change in sales of SSBs following implementation of the SSB tax. METHODS: We used electronic point of sale data from a major grocery store chain and applied an interrupted time series (ITS) design to assess grocery store SSB and non-SSB sales from January 2013 to October 2016. We controlled for the underlying time trend, seasonality, inflation, tourism and holidays. We conducted sensitivity analyses using a cross-country control (Trinidad and Tobago) and a within-country control (vinegar). We included a post-hoc stratification by price tertile to assess the extent to which consumers may switch to cheaper sugary drinks. RESULTS: We found that average weekly sales of SSBs decreased by 4.3% (95%CI 3.6 to 4.9%) compared to expected sales without a tax, primarily driven by a decrease in carbonated SSBs sales of 3.6% (95%CI 2.9 to 4.4%). Sales of non-SSBs increased by 5.2% (95%CI 4.5 to 5.9%), with bottled water sales increasing by an average of 7.5% (95%CI 6.5 to 8.3%). The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the uncontrolled results. After stratifying by price, we found evidence of substitution to cheaper SSBs. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the Barbados SSB tax was associated with decreased sales of SSBs in a major grocery store chain after controlling for underlying trends. This finding was robust to sensitivity analyses. We found evidence to suggest that consumers may have changed their behaviour in response to the tax by purchasing cheaper sugary drinks, in addition to substituting to untaxed products. This has important implications for the design of future SSB taxes. ; MA is funded through a Gates Cambridge PhD Scholarship, and received travel funding from Robinson College, the Global Food Security Fund, the Luca D'Agliano Scholarship, the Yates Unilever Fund and the Smuts Memorial Fund. JA is funded by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

Background: The World Health Organization has advocated for sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes as part of a broader non-communicable disease prevention strategy, and these taxes have been recently introduced in a wide range of settings. However, much is still unknown about how SSB taxes operate in various contexts and as a result of different tax designs. In 2015, the Government of Barbados implemented a 10% ad valorem (value-based) tax on SSBs. It has been hypothesized that this tax structure may inadvertently encourage consumers to switch to cheaper sugary drinks. We aimed to assess whether and to what extent there has been a change in sales of SSBs following implementation of the SSB tax. Methods: We used electronic point of sale data from a major grocery store chain and applied an interrupted time series (ITS) design to assess grocery store SSB and non-SSB sales from January 2013 to October 2016. We controlled for the underlying time trend, seasonality, inflation, tourism and holidays. We conducted sensitivity analyses using a cross-country control (Trinidad and Tobago) and a within-country control (vinegar). We included a post-hoc stratification by price tertile to assess the extent to which consumers may switch to cheaper sugary drinks. Results: We found that average weekly sales of SSBs decreased by 4.3% (95%CI 3.6 to 4.9%) compared to expected sales without a tax, primarily driven by a decrease in carbonated SSBs sales of 3.6% (95%CI 2.9 to 4.4%). Sales of non-SSBs increased by 5.2% (95%CI 4.5 to 5.9%), with bottled water sales increasing by an average of 7.5% (95%CI 6.5 to 8.3%). The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the uncontrolled results. After stratifying by price, we found evidence of substitution to cheaper SSBs. Conclusions: This study suggests that the Barbados SSB tax was associated with decreased sales of SSBs in a major grocery store chain after controlling for underlying trends. This finding was robust to sensitivity analyses. We found evidence to suggest that consumers may have ...

$\textbf{Background:}$ Takeaway food has a relatively poor nutritional profile. Providing takeaway outlets with reduced-holed salt shakers is one method thought to reduce salt use in takeaways, but effects have not been formally tested. We aimed to determine if there was a difference in sodium content of standard fish and chip meals served by Fish & Chip Shops that use standard (17 holes) versus reduced-holed (5 holes) salt shakers, taking advantage of natural variations in salt shakers used. $\textbf{Methods:}$ We conducted a cross-sectional study of all Fish & Chip Shops in two local government areas ($n$ = 65), where servers added salt to meals as standard practice, and salt shaker used could be identified ($n$ = 61). Standard fish and chip meals were purchased from each shop by incognito researchers and the purchase price and type of salt shaker used noted. Sodium content of full meals and their component parts (fish, chips, and fish batter) was determined using flame photometry. Differences in absolute and relative sodium content of meals and component parts between shops using reduced-holed versus standard salt-shakers were compared using linear regression before and after adjustment for purchase price and area. $\textbf{Results:}$ Reduced-holed salt shakers were used in 29 of 61 (47.5 %) included shops. There was no difference in absolute sodium content of meals purchased from shops using standard versus reduced-holed shakers (mean = 1147 mg [equivalent to 2.9 g salt]; SD = 424 mg; $p$ > 0.05). Relative sodium content was significantly lower in meals from shops using reduced-holed (mean = 142.5 mg/100 g [equivalent to 0.4 g salt/100 g]; SD = 39.0 mg/100 g) versus standard shakers (mean = 182.0 mg/100 g; [equivalent to 0.5 g salt/100 g]; SD = 68.3 mg/100 g; $p$ = 0.008). This was driven by differences in the sodium content of chips and was extinguished by adjustment for purchase price and area. Price was inversely associated with relative sodium content ($p$ < 0.05). $\textbf{Conclusions:}$ Using reduced-holed salt shakers in Fish & Chip Shops is associated with lower relative sodium content of fish and chip meals. This is driven by differences in sodium content of chips, making our results relevant to the wide range of takeaways serving chips. Shops serving higher priced meals, which may reflect a more affluent customer base, may be more likely to use reduced-holed shakers. ; This study was funded as part of the National Institute of Health Research's School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR) project "Transforming the 'foodscape': development and feasibility testing of interventions to promote healthier takeaway, pub or restaurant food", with additional support from Durham and Newcastle Universities. NIHR SPHR is funded by NIHR. SPHR is a partnership between the Universities of Sheffield, Bristol, Cambridge, Exeter, University College London; The London School for Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; the LiLaC collaboration between the Universities of Liverpool and Lancaster; and Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, a collaboration between Newcastle, Durham, Northumbria, Sunderland and Teesside Universities. Authors FHB, CDS, WLW, AJA, VAS and AAL are members of Fuse; and JA and MW are funded by Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR). Fuse and CEDAR are UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Public Health Research Centres of Excellence. Funding for Fuse and CEDAR comes from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of UKCRC, and is gratefully acknowledged. AJA is funded by the NIHR as a NIHR Research Professor.

Background: Takeaway food has a relatively poor nutritional profile. Providing takeaway outlets with reduced-holed salt shakers is one method thought to reduce salt use in takeaways, but effects have not been formally tested. We aimed to determine if there was a difference in sodium content of standard fish and chip meals served by Fish & Chip Shops that use standard (17 holes) versus reduced-holed (5 holes) salt shakers, taking advantage of natural variations in salt shakers used. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all Fish & Chip Shops in two local government areas (n = 65), where servers added salt to meals as standard practice, and salt shaker used could be identified (n = 61). Standard fish and chip meals were purchased from each shop by incognito researchers and the purchase price and type of salt shaker used noted. Sodium content of full meals and their component parts (fish, chips, and fish batter) was determined using flame photometry. Differences in absolute and relative sodium content of meals and component parts between shops using reduced-holed versus standard salt-shakers were compared using linear regression before and after adjustment for purchase price and area. Results: Reduced-holed salt shakers were used in 29 of 61 (47.5 %) included shops. There was no difference in absolute sodium content of meals purchased from shops using standard versus reduced-holed shakers (mean = 1147 mg [equivalent to 2.9 g salt]; SD = 424 mg; p > 0.05). Relative sodium content was significantly lower in meals from shops using reduced-holed (mean = 142.5 mg/100 g [equivalent to 0.4 g salt/100 g]; SD = 39.0 mg/100 g) versus standard shakers (mean = 182.0 mg/100 g; [equivalent to 0.5 g salt/100 g]; SD = 68.3 mg/100 g; p = 0.008). This was driven by differences in the sodium content of chips and was extinguished by adjustment for purchase price and area. Price was inversely associated with relative sodium content (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Using reduced-holed salt shakers in Fish & Chip Shops is associated with lower relative sodium content of fish and chip meals. This is driven by differences in sodium content of chips, making our results relevant to the wide range of takeaways serving chips. Shops serving higher priced meals, which may reflect a more affluent customer base, may be more likely to use reduced-holed shakers.

Introduction One in five UK children aged 10-11 years live with obesity. They are more likely to continue living with obesity into adulthood and to develop obesity-related chronic health conditions at a younger age. Regulating the marketing of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) foods and beverages has been highlighted as a promising approach to obesity prevention. In 2019, Transport for London implemented restrictions on the advertisement of HFSS products across its network. This paper reports on a process evaluation of the design and implementation of this intervention. Methods In 2019-2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 stakeholders. Interviews with those responsible for implementation (n=13) explored stakeholder roles, barriers and facilitators to policy development/implementation and unintended consequences. Interviews with food industry stakeholders (n=10) explored perceptions and acceptability of the policy, changes to business practice and impact on business. Data were analysed using a General Inductive Approach. Results Practical challenges included limited time between policy announcement and implementation, translating the concept of 'junk food' into operational policy, the legal landscape and reported uneven impacts across industry stakeholders. Political challenges included designing a policy the public views as appropriate, balancing health and financial impacts, and the perceived influence of political motivations. Consultation during policy development and close communication with industry reportedly facilitated implementation, as did the development of an exceptions process that provided a review pathway for HFSS products that might not contribute to children's HFSS consumption. Conclusions Findings suggest that restricting the outdoor advertisement of HFSS foods and beverages at scale is feasible within a complex policy and business landscape. We outline practical steps that may further facilitate the development and implementation of similar policies and we report on the importance of ensuring such policies are applied in a way that is perceived as reasonable by industry and the public.

INTRODUCTION: One in five UK children aged 10-11 years live with obesity. They are more likely to continue living with obesity into adulthood and to develop obesity-related chronic health conditions at a younger age. Regulating the marketing of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) foods and beverages has been highlighted as a promising approach to obesity prevention. In 2019, Transport for London implemented restrictions on the advertisement of HFSS products across its network. This paper reports on a process evaluation of the design and implementation of this intervention. METHODS: In 2019-2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 stakeholders. Interviews with those responsible for implementation (n = 13) explored stakeholder roles, barriers and facilitators to policy development/implementation and unintended consequences. Interviews with food industry stakeholders (n = 10) explored perceptions and acceptability of the policy, changes to business practice and impact on business. Data were analysed using a general inductive approach. RESULTS: Practical challenges included limited time between policy announcement and implementation, translating the concept of 'junk food' into operational policy, the legal landscape, and reported uneven impacts across industry stakeholders. Political challenges included designing a policy the public views as appropriate, balancing health and financial impacts, and the perceived influence of political motivations. Consultation during policy development and close communication with industry reportedly facilitated implementation, as did the development of an exceptions process that provided a review pathway for HFSS products that might not contribute to children's HFSS consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that restricting the outdoor advertisement of HFSS foods and beverages at scale is feasible within a complex policy and business landscape. We outline practical steps that may further facilitate the development and implementation of similar policies and we report on the importance of ensuring such policies are applied in a way that is perceived as reasonable by industry and the public.

Introduction One in five UK children aged 10–11 years live with obesity. They are more likely to continue living with obesity into adulthood and to develop obesity-related chronic health conditions at a younger age. Regulating the marketing of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) foods and beverages has been highlighted as a promising approach to obesity prevention. In 2019, Transport for London implemented restrictions on the advertisement of HFSS products across its network. This paper reports on a process evaluation of the design and implementation of this intervention. Methods In 2019–2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 stakeholders. Interviews with those responsible for implementation (n = 13) explored stakeholder roles, barriers and facilitators to policy development/implementation and unintended consequences. Interviews with food industry stakeholders (n = 10) explored perceptions and acceptability of the policy, changes to business practice and impact on business. Data were analysed using a general inductive approach. Results Practical challenges included limited time between policy announcement and implementation, translating the concept of 'junk food' into operational policy, the legal landscape, and reported uneven impacts across industry stakeholders. Political challenges included designing a policy the public views as appropriate, balancing health and financial impacts, and the perceived influence of political motivations. Consultation during policy development and close communication with industry reportedly facilitated implementation, as did the development of an exceptions process that provided a review pathway for HFSS products that might not contribute to children's HFSS consumption. Conclusions Findings suggest that restricting the outdoor advertisement of HFSS foods and beverages at scale is feasible within a complex policy and business landscape. We outline practical steps that may further facilitate the development and implementation of similar policies and we report on the importance of ensuring such policies are applied in a way that is perceived as reasonable by industry and the public.

Restricting children's exposures to marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages is a global obesity prevention priority. Monitoring marketing exposures supports informed policymaking. This study presents a global overview of children's television advertising exposure to healthy and unhealthy products. Twenty-two countries contributed data, captured between 2008 and 2017. Advertisements were coded for the nature of foods and beverages, using the 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) Europe Nutrient Profile Model (should be permitted/not-permitted to be advertised). Peak viewing times were defined as the top five hour timeslots for children. On average, there were four times more advertisements for foods/beverages that should not be permitted than for permitted foods/beverages. The frequency of food/beverages advertisements that should not be permitted per hour was higher during peak viewing times compared with other times (P < 0.001). During peak viewing times, food and beverage advertisements that should not be permitted were higher in countries with industry self-regulatory programmes for responsible advertising compared with countries with no policies. Globally, children are exposed to a large volume of television advertisements for unhealthy foods and beverages, despite the implementation of food industry programmes. Governments should enact regulation to protect children from television advertising of unhealthy products that undermine their health.

Public health in the early 21st century increasingly considers how social inequalities impact on individual health, moving away from the focus on how disease relates to the individual person. This 'new public health' identifies how social, economic and political factors affect the level and distribution of individual health, through their effects on individual behaviours, the social groups people belong to, the character of relationships to others and the characteristics of the societies in which people live. The rising social inequalities that can be seen in nearly every country in the world today present not just a moral danger, but a mortal danger as well. Social inequality and public health brings together the latest research findings from some of the most respected medical and social scientists in the world. It surveys four pathways to understanding the social determinants of health: differences in individual health behaviours; group advantage and disadvantage; psychosocial factors in individual health; and healthy and unhealthy societies, shedding light on the costs and consequences of today's high-inequality social models. This exciting book brings together leaders in the field discussing their latest research and is a must-read for anyone interested in public health and social inequalities internationally