Public responses to proposals for a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: A thematic analysis of online reader comments posted on major UK news websites

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 11, 2017, Pages

  Thomas Meyer, Molly ^a   Mytton, Oliver ^b   Adams, Jean ^b  

^a ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; OBESITY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESPONSIBILITY; SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGE; TAX; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; TRUST; UNHEALTHY DIET; UNITED KINGDOM; BEVERAGE; DIET; ECONOMICS; INTERNET; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLICATION;

CARBOHYDRATE; SWEETENING AGENT;

BEVERAGES; DIET; HUMANS; INTERNET; NEWSPAPERS AS TOPIC; OBESITY; PUBLIC OPINION; SUGARS; SWEETENING AGENTS; TAXES; TRUST; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85034829443     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186750     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Gauke D. Budget 2016. London: HM Treasury, 2016.
2. 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. BMJ. 2015; 351. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3576 PMID: 26199070
3. Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Despres JP, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33(11):2477–83. Epub 2010/08/10. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc10-1079 PMID: 20693348; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc2963518.
4. Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006; 84(2):274–88. Epub 2006/08/10. PMID: 16895873; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3210834.
5. Malik VS, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages and BMI in children and adolescents: reanal-yses of a meta-analysis. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2009; 89(1):438–9. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2008.26980 PMID: 19056589
6. Thow AM, Jan S, Leeder S, Swinburn B. The effect of fiscal policy on diet, obesity and chronic disease: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2010; 88:609–14. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.070987 PMID: 20680126
7. Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Khan T, Wada R, Chaloupka FJ. Assessing the potential effectiveness of food and beverage taxes and subsidies for improving public health: a systematic review of prices, demand and body weight outcomes. Obes Rev. 2013; 14(2):110–28. Epub 2012/11/24. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12002 PMID: 23174017; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3556391.
8. Science Media Centre. Expert reaction to announcement in Budget of a soft drinks industry levy targeted at producers of soft drinks that contain added sugars, to be introduced in two years’ time London: Science Media Centre; 2016 [cited 2016 29 March 2016]. Available from: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-announcement-in-budget-of-a-soft-drinks-industry-levytargeted-at-producers-of-soft-drinks-that-contain-added-sugars-to-be-introduced-in-two-years-time/.
9. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, Sheron N, Neal B, Thamarangsi T, et al. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. The Lancet. 2013.
10. Dinkelspiel F. A record $3.6 million spent in Berkeley campaigns. Berkeleyside. 2014.
11. Mytton OT, Eyles H, Ogilvie D. Evaluating the Health Impacts of Food and Beverage Taxes. Current Obesity Reports. 2014; 3(4):432–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-014-0123-x PMID: 26626920
12. Timpson H, Lavin R, Hughes L. Exploring the Acceptability of a Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Insight Work. Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, 2013.
13. Giles EL, Adams JM. Capturing public opinion on public health topics: a comparison of experiences from a systematic review, focus group study, and analysis of online, user-generated content. Frontiers in Public Health. 2015; 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00200 PMID: 26380248
14. Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute. Great Britain: The way we live now. Understanding Society. 2013; December 2013.
15. Beeken RJ, Wardle J. Public beliefs about the causes of obesity and attitudes towards policy initiatives in Great Britain. Public Health Nutr. 2013; 16(12):2132–7. Epub 2013/07/23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980013001821 PMID: 23866723.
16. Dahlgreen W. Most people don’t check their sugar intake: YouGov; 2014 [cited 2016 2 March 2016]. Available from: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/20/most-dont-check-sugar-content-their-food/.
17. ComRes. Daily Mail sugar tax poll 2015 [cited 2016 2 March 2016]. Available from: http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/daily-mail-sugar-tax-poll/.
18. Cancer Research UK, UK Health Forum. Short and sweet: why the government should introduce a sugary drinks tax in the UK. London: 2016.
19. Rivard C, Smith D, McCann SE, Hyland A. Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages: a survey of knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. Public Health Nutr. 2012; 15(8):1355–61. Epub 2012/01/25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980011002898 PMID: 22269063.
20. Niederdeppe J, Gollust SE, Jarlenski MP, Nathanson AM, Barry CL. News coverage of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: pro- and antitax arguments in public discourse. Am J Public Health. 2013; 103(6): e92–8. Epub 2013/04/20. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301023 PMID: 23597354; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3698716.
21. Barry CL, Niederdeppe J, Gollust SE. Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: results from a 2011 national public opinion survey. Am J Prev Med. 2013; 44(2):158–63. Epub 2013/01/22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.065 PMID: 23332333.
22. Roh S, Schuldt JP. Where there’s a will: Can highlighting future youth-targeted marketing increase support for soda taxes? Health Psychol. 2014; 33(12):1610–3. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000021 PMID: 24467253
23. Donaldson EA, Cohen JE, Rutkow L, Villanti AC, Kanarek NF, Barry CL. Public support for a sugar-sweetened beverage tax and pro-tax messages in a Mid-Atlantic US state. Public Health Nutr. 2015; 18 (12):2263–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980014002699 PMID: 25430945
24. Simon PA, Chiang C, Lightstone AS, Shih M. Public Opinion on Nutrition-Related Policies to Combat Child Obesity, Los Angeles County, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014; 11:E96. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.140005 PMID: 24901796
25. Jou J, Niederdeppe J, Barry CL, Gollust SE. Strategic messaging to promote taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages: lessons from recent political campaigns. Am J Public Health. 2014; 104(5):847–53. Epub 2014/03/15. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301679 PMID: 24625177.
26. Julia C, Mejean C, Vicari F, Peneau S, Hercberg S. Public perception and characteristics related to acceptance of the sugar-sweetened beverage taxation launched in France in 2012. Public Health Nutr. 2015; 18(14):2679–88. Epub 2015/01/30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980014003231 PMID: 25627337.
27. Moretto N, Kendall E, Whitty J, Byrnes J, Hills AP, Gordon L, et al. Yes, the government should tax soft drinks: findings from a citizens’ jury in Australia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11(3):2456–71. Epub 2014/03/04. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110302456 PMID: 24583829; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3986986.
28. Nixon L, Mejia P, Cheyne A, Dorfman L. Big Soda’s long shadow: news coverage of local proposals to tax sugar-sweetened beverages in Richmond, El Monte and Telluride. Critical Public Health. 2015; 25 (3):333–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2014.987729
29. Somerville C, Marteau TM, Kinmonth AL, Cohn S. Public attitudes towards pricing policies to change health-related behaviours: a UK focus group study. The European Journal of Public Health. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv077 PMID: 25983329
30. Langer R, Beckman SC. Sensitive research topics: netnography revisited. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 2005; 8(2):189–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750510592454
31. Giles E, Holmes M, McColl E, Sniehotta F, Adams J. Acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding: thematic analysis of readers’ comments to UK online news reports. BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth. 2015; 15(1):116. Epub 2015/05/20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0549-5 PMID: 25982305.
32. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 PMID: 17872937
33. Sustain. A children’s future fund: how food duties could provide the money to protect children’s health and the world they grow up in. London: 2013.
34. Kantar Media, Ofcom. News consumption in the UK, 2013: Report and Data Tables 2013. Available from: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/tv-research/news-2013/.
35. Gale N, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13(1):117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 PMID: 24047204
36. British Psychological Society. Code of human research ethics. http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/code_of_human_research_ethics_dec_2014_inf180_web.pdf: 2014.
37. Salzmann-Erikson M, Eriksson H. LiLEDDA: a six step forum-based netnographic research method for nursing science. Aporia The nursing journal,. 2012; 4(4):7–18.
38. Salzmann-Erikson M, Eriksson H. Fathers sharing about early parental support in health-care—virtual discussions on an Internet forum. Health Soc Care Community. 2013; 21(4):381–90. Epub 2013/03/19. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12028 PMID: 23496139.
39. Curtice J, Park A. A tale of two crises. In: Bryson C, editor. British social attitudes2010. p. 131–54.
40. Mazzocchi M, Cagnone S, Bech-Larsen T, Niedźwiedzka B, Saba A, Shankar B, et al. What is the public appetite for healthy eating policies? Evidence from a cross-European survey. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2015; 10(03):267–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133114000346 PMID: 25170630
41. Marmot M, Atkinson T, Bell J, Black C, Broadfoot P, Cumberlege J, et al. Fair society, healthy lives, the Marmot Review: Strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies; 2010.
42. Appleby J, Thompson J, Jabbal J. How is the NHS performing? London: The King’s Fund, 2015.
43. Gershlick B, Charlesworth A, Taylor E. Public attitudes to the NHS. London: The Health Foundation, 2015.
44. Giles E, McColl E, Sniehotta F, Adams J. Acceptability of financial incentives and penalties for encouraging uptake of healthy behaviours: focus groups. BMC public health. 2015; 15(58): https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1409-y PMID: 25636330
45. McNaughton RJ, Adams J, Shucksmith J. Acceptability of financial incentives or quasi-mandatory schemes to increase uptake of immunisations in preschool children in the United Kingdom: Qualitative study with parents and service delivery staff. Vaccine. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.009.
46. Davison C, Smith GD, Frankel S. Lay epidemiology and the prevention paradox: the implications of coronary candidacy for health education. Sociol Health Illn. 1991; 13(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.1991.tb00085.x
47. Fredheim R, Moore A, Naughton J, editors. Anonymity and Online Commenting: The Broken Windows Effect and the End of Drive-by Commenting. ACM Web Science; 2015; University of Oxford.
48. Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage; 2003.
49. Prescott C. Internet access—households and individuals: 2015. London: Office for National Statistics, 2015.
50. Hilton S, Wood K, Patterson C, Katikireddi SV. Implications for alcohol minimum unit pricing advocacy: What can we learn for public health from UK newsprint coverage of key claim-makers in the policy debate? Soc Sci Med. 2014; 102:157–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.041 PMID: 24565153