Taxes and front-of-package labels improve the healthiness of beverage and snack purchases: a randomized experimental marketplace
Taxes and front-of-package labels improve the healthiness of beverage and snack purchases: a randomized experimental marketplace
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12966-019-0799-0
复制
发表时间：
2019-05-21
影响因子：
8.7
通讯作者：
Hammond, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Acton, Rachel B.;Jones, Amanda C.;Hammond, David
背景：糖税和包装正面营养标签系统是应对与饮食有关的非传染性疾病的战略。然而，关于这些策略如何影响消费者行为以及它们如何相互作用的实验数据相对较少。本研究考察了不同糖税和FOP标签系统对饮料和休闲食品购买的相对影响。方法：共有3584名13岁及以上的加拿大人参加了一项实验市场研究，采用5 （FOP标签条件）× 8（税收条件）的组内实验。参与者获得了5美元，并展示了可供购买的20种饮料和20种休闲食品的图片。参与者被随机分配到五种FOP标签条件（无标签、“高”警告、多重红绿灯、健康星级评级、营养等级）中的一种，并完成八种不同税收条件（饮料：无税、含糖饮料20%税、含糖饮料20%税、含糖饮料分层税、含糖饮料分层税、含糖饮料分层税、含糖饮料分层税、含糖饮料分层税、含糖饮料分层税）下的主题内采购任务。休闲食品：无税（高糖食品20%税，高糖食品分级税）。结束后，从8个选择中随机选择一个购买，参与者收到产品和任何更改。结果：与那些没有看到FOP标签的人相比，看到“高”符号的参与者在购买饮料任务中购买的糖（-2.5克）、饱和脂肪（- 0.09克）和卡路里（- 12.6千卡）更少，在食物任务中购买的钠（- 13.5毫克）和卡路里（- 8.9千卡）更少。所有的税收导致购买的平均糖（- 1.4到- 4.7克）和卡路里（- 5.3到- 19.8千卡）的大量减少，在某些情况下，钠（- 2.5到- 6.6毫克）和饱和脂肪（-0.03到- 0.08克）的减少。含有100%果汁（“含糖饮料”税）的税收比不含果汁的税收更能减少糖和卡路里。结论：本研究扩大了糖税和FOP标签策略在促进健康食品和饮料选择方面的有效性的证据。研究结果强调了对100%果汁征税的重要性，以最大限度地发挥政策影响，并表明，在减少目标营养素的消耗方面，特定营养成分的FOP“高含量”标签可能比其他常见标签系统更有效。
Background: Sugar taxes and front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labelling systems are strategies to address diet-related non-communicable diseases. However, there is relatively little experimental data on how these strategies influence consumer behavior and how they may interact. This study examined the relative impact of different sugar taxes and FOP labelling systems on beverage and snack food purchases.Methods: A total of 3584 Canadians 13 years and older participated in an experimental marketplace study using a 5 (FOP label condition) x 8 (tax condition) between-within group experiment. Participants received $5 and were presented with images of 20 beverages and 20 snack foods available for purchase. Participants were randomized to one of five FOP label conditions (no label; 'high in' warning; multiple traffic light; health star rating; nutrition grade) and completed eight within-subject purchasing tasks with different taxation conditions (beverages: no tax, 20% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), 20% tax on sugary drinks, tiered tax on SSBs, tiered tax on sugary drinks; snack foods: no tax, 20% tax on high-sugar foods, tiered tax on high-sugar foods). Upon conclusion, one of eight selections was randomly chosen for purchase, and participants received the product and any change.Results: Compared to those who saw no FOP label, participants who viewed the 'high in' symbol purchased less sugar (-2.5 g), saturated fat (- 0.09 g), and calories (- 12.6 kcal) in the beverage purchasing tasks, and less sodium (- 13.5 mg) and calories (- 8.9 kcal) in the food tasks. All taxes resulted in substantial reductions in mean sugars (- 1.4 to - 4.7 g) and calories (- 5.3 to - 19.8 kcal) purchased, and in some cases, reductions in sodium (- 2.5 to - 6.6 mg) and saturated fat (-0.03 to - 0.08 g). Taxes that included 100% fruit juice ('sugary drink' taxes) produced greater reductions in sugars and calories than those that did not.Conclusions: This study expands the evidence indicating the effectiveness of sugar taxation and FOP labelling strategies in promoting healthy food and beverage choices. The results emphasize the importance of applying taxes to 100% fruit juice to maximize policy impact, and suggest that nutrient-specific FOP 'high in' labels may be more effective than other common labelling systems at reducing consumption of targeted nutrients.