Search results

Background In March, 2016, the UK government proposed a tiered levy on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs; high, moderate, and no tax for drinks with >8g, 5g to 8g, and <5g sugar per 100ml). We estimate the effect of possible industry responses to the levy on obesity, diabetes, and dental caries. Methods We modelled three possible industry responses: (1) reformulation to reduce sugar concentration, (2) increasing product price, and (3) changing the market share of high-, mid-, and low-sugar drinks. For each response, we defined a better and worse case health scenario. We developed a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the UK health impact of each scenario. Findings The best modelled scenario for health is SSB reformulation, resulting in 144,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 5,100 to 306,700) fewer adults and children with obesity in the UK, 19,000 (6,900 to 32,700) fewer incident cases of diabetes per year, and 269,000 (82,200 to 470,900) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. Increasing the price of SSBs and changes to market share to increase the proportion of low-sugar drinks sold would also result in population health benefits, but to a lesser extent. The greatest benefit for obesity and oral health would be among individuals under 18 years, with people over 65 years experiencing the largest absolute decreases in diabetes incidence. Interpretation The health impact of the soft drink levy is dependent on its implementation by industry. There is uncertainty as to how industry will react and in the estimation of health outcomes. Health gains could be maximised by significant product reformulation with additional benefits possible if the levy is passed onto purchasers through raising the price of high- and mid-sugar drinks, and through activities to increase the market share of low-sugar products.

Background In March, 2016, the UK government proposed a tiered levy on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs; high, moderate, and no tax for drinks with >8g, 5g to 8g, and <5g sugar per 100ml). We estimate the effect of possible industry responses to the levy on obesity, diabetes, and dental caries. Methods We modelled three possible industry responses: (1) reformulation to reduce sugar concentration, (2) increasing product price, and (3) changing the market share of high-, mid-, and low-sugar drinks. For each response, we defined a better and worse case health scenario. We developed a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the UK health impact of each scenario. Findings The best modelled scenario for health is SSB reformulation, resulting in 144,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 5,100 to 306,700) fewer adults and children with obesity in the UK, 19,000 (6,900 to 32,700) fewer incident cases of diabetes per year, and 269,000 (82,200 to 470,900) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. Increasing the price of SSBs and changes to market share to increase the proportion of low-sugar drinks sold would also result in population health benefits, but to a lesser extent. The greatest benefit for obesity and oral health would be among individuals under 18 years, with people over 65 years experiencing the largest absolute decreases in diabetes incidence. Interpretation The health impact of the soft drink levy is dependent on its implementation by industry. There is uncertainty as to how industry will react and in the estimation of health outcomes. Health gains could be maximised by significant product reformulation with additional benefits possible if the levy is passed onto purchasers through raising the price of high- and mid-sugar drinks, and through activities to increase the market share of low-sugar products. ; RT and AK have previously done work on sugar-sweetened beverage taxes funded by the Union of European Soft Drinks Associations. MR is chair of Sustain and the Children's Food Campaign, which have campaigned for sugar drink taxes in the UK. MR is funded by the British Heart Foundation, grant number 006/PSS/CORE/2016/OXFORD. ADMB and OTM are members of the Faculty of Public Health, which has a position statement supporting sugary drink taxes. ADMB is funded by the Wellcome Trust, grant number 102730/Z/13/Z. OTM is a member of the UK Health Forum, which has also supported a UK sugar drinks tax. OTM is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Doctoral Fellowship. SAJ was the independent Chair of the Department of Health Public Health Responsibility Deal Food Network from 2010 to 2015. SAJ is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, National Institute for Health Research, or the Department of Health. PS is funded by the British Heart Foundation, grant number FS/15/34/31656. TB is funded the Health Research Council of New Zealand (16/443). AE declares no competing interests.

The rise of food security up international political, societal and academic agendas has led to increasing interest in novel means of improving primary food production and reducing waste. There are however, also many 'post-farm gate' activities that are critical to food security, including processing, packaging, distributing, retailing, cooking and consuming. These activities all affect a range of important food security elements, notably availability, affordability and other aspects of access, nutrition and safety. Addressing the challenge of universal food security, in the context of a number of other policy goals (e.g. social, economic and environmental sustainability), is of keen interest to a range of UK stakeholders but requires an up-to-date evidence base and continuous innovation. An exercise was therefore conducted, under the auspices of the UK Global Food Security Programme, to identify priority research questions with a focus on the UK food system (though the outcomes may be broadly applicable to other developed nations). Emphasis was placed on incorporating a wide range of perspectives ('world views') from different stakeholder groups: policy, private sector, non-governmental organisations, advocacy groups and academia. A total of 456 individuals submitted 820 questions from which 100 were selected by a process of online voting and a three-stage workshop voting exercise. These 100 final questions were sorted into 10 themes and the 'top' question for each theme identified by a further voting exercise. This step also allowed four different stakeholder groups to select the top 7-8 questions from their perspectives. Results of these voting exercises are presented. It is clear from the wide range of questions prioritised in this exercise that the different stakeholder groups identified specific research needs on a range of post-farm gate activities and food security outcomes. Evidence needs related to food affordability, nutrition and food safety (all key elements of food security) featured highly in the exercise. While there were some questions relating to climate impacts on production, other important topics for food security (e.g. trade, transport, preference and cultural needs) were not viewed as strongly by the participants. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and International Society for Plant Pathology.