Search

Objective: To investigate whether financial constraint and perceived stress modify the effects of food-related taxes on the healthiness of food purchases., Design: Moderation analyses were conducted with data from a trial where participants were randomly exposed to: a control condition with regular food prices, an sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax condition with a two-tiered levy on the sugar content in SSB (5-8 g/100 ml: €0·21 per l and ≥ 8 g/100 ml: €0·28 per l) or a nutrient profiling tax condition where products with Nutri-Score D or E were taxed at a 20 percent level. Outcome measures were overall healthiness of food purchases (%), energy content (kcal) and SSB purchases (litres). Effect modification was analysed by adding interaction terms between conditions and self-reported financial constraint or perceived stress in regression models. Outcomes for each combination of condition and level of effect modifier were visualised., Setting: Virtual supermarket., Participants: Dutch adults ( n 386)., Results: Financial constraint or perceived stress did not significantly modify the effects of food-related taxes on the outcomes. Descriptive analyses suggest that in the control condition, the overall healthiness of food purchases was lowest, and SSB purchases were highest among those with moderate/high levels of financial constraint. Compared with the control condition, in a nutrient profiling tax condition, the overall healthiness of food purchases was higher and SSB purchases were lower, especially among those with moderate/high levels of financial constraint. Such patterns were not observed for perceived stress., Conclusion: Further studies with larger samples are recommended to assess whether food-related taxes differentially affect food purchases of subgroups.

Objective: To measure the effects of health-related food taxes on the environmental impact of consumer food purchases in a virtual supermarket., Design: This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomly assigned to a control condition with regular food prices ( n 152), an experimental condition with a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax ( n 131) or an experimental condition with a nutrient profiling tax based on Nutri-Score ( n 112). Participants were instructed to undertake their typical weekly grocery shopping for their households. Primary outcome measures were three environmental impact indicators: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land use and blue water use per household per week. Data were analysed using linear regression analyses., Setting: Three-dimensional virtual supermarket., Participants: Dutch adults (≥ 18 years) who were responsible for grocery shopping in their household ( n 395)., Results: GHG emissions (-7·6 kg CO 2 -eq; 95 % CI -12·7, -2·5) and land use (-3·9 m 2 /year; 95 % CI -7·7, -0·2) were lower for the food purchases of participants in the nutrient profiling tax condition than for those in the control condition. Blue water use was not affected by the nutrient profiling tax. Moreover, the SSB tax had no significant effect on any of the environmental impact indicators., Conclusions: A nutrient profiling tax based on Nutri-Score reduced the environmental impact of consumer food purchases. An SSB tax did not affect the environmental impact in this study.

An increasing number of governments worldwide have introduced a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) for public health. However, the adoption of such a policy is still debated in many other countries, such as in the Netherlands. We investigated Dutch stakeholder views on taxation of SSB and perceived barriers and facilitators to its adoption in the Netherlands. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2019 with 27 stakeholders from health and consumer organizations, health professional associations, trade associations, academia, advisory bodies, ministries and parliamentary parties. Data were analysed using a thematic content approach. The findings reveal that, between and within sectors, stakeholders expressed contradictory views on the effectiveness, appropriateness and (socio)economic effects of an SSB tax. Perceived barriers to the adoption of an SSB tax in the Netherlands included an unfavourable political context, limited advocacy for an SSB tax, a strong lobby against an SSB tax, perceived public opposition, administrative load and difficulties in defining SSB. Perceived facilitators to its adoption included an increasing prevalence of overweight, disappointing results from voluntary industry actions, a change of government, state budget deficits, a shift in public opinion, international recommendations and a solid legal basis. In conclusion, this study shows that several challenges remain to be overcome for the adoption of an SSB tax in the Netherlands. Similar research on stakeholder views in other countries may further inform SSB tax policy processes., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objective: To investigate the effects of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax and a nutrient profiling tax on consumer food purchases in a virtual supermarket., Design: A randomised controlled trial was conducted with a control condition with regular food prices (n 152), an SSB tax condition (n 130) and a nutrient profiling tax condition based on Nutri-Score (n 112). Participants completed a weekly grocery shop for their household. Primary outcome measures were SSB purchases (ordinal variable) and the overall healthiness of the total shopping basket (proportion of total unit food items classified as healthy). The secondary outcome measure was the energy (kcal) content of the total shopping basket. Data were analysed using regression analyses., Setting: Three-dimensional virtual supermarket., Participants: Dutch adults aged ≥18 years are being responsible for grocery shopping in their household (n 394)., Results: The SSB tax (OR = 1·62, (95 % CI 1·03, 2·54)) and the nutrient profiling tax (OR = 1·88, (95 %CI 1·17, 3·02)) increased the likelihood of being in a lower-level category of SSB purchases. The overall healthiness of the total shopping basket was higher (+2·7 percent point, (95 % CI 0·1, 5·3)), and the energy content was lower (-3301 kcal, (95 % CI -6425, -177)) for participants in the nutrient profiling tax condition than for those in the control condition. The SSB tax did not affect the overall healthiness and energy content of the total shopping basket (P > 0·05)., Conclusions: A nutrient profiling tax targeting a wide range of foods and beverages with a low nutritional quality seems to have larger beneficial effects on consumer food purchases than taxation of SSB alone.

Objective: To investigate the level of public acceptability of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax and its associated factors., Design: Participants completed an online self-administered questionnaire. Acceptability of an SSB tax was measured on a seven-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Associations between acceptability and sociodemographic factors, weight status, SSB consumption and beliefs about effectiveness (e.g., 'An SSB tax would reduce people's SSB consumption'), appropriateness, socioeconomic and economic benefit, implementation and trust were assessed using multivariable linear regression analyses., Setting: The Netherlands., Participants: Dutch adults aged ≥18 years representative of the Dutch population for age, sex, education level and location (n 500)., Results: Of the participants, 40 % supported and 43 % opposed an SSB tax in general. Moreover, 42 % supported (43 % opposed) an SSB tax as a strategy to reduce overweight, and 55 % supported (32 % opposed) an SSB tax if revenue is used for health initiatives. Participants with a low education level (B = -0·82, 95 % CI -1·31, -0·32), overweight (B = -0·49, 95 % CI -0·89, -0·09), moderate or high SSB consumption (B = -0·86, 95 % CI -1·30, -0·43 and B = -1·01, 95 % CI -1·47, -0·56, respectively) and households with adolescents (B = -0·57, 95 % CI -1·09, -0·05) reported a lower acceptability of an SSB tax than their counterparts. Beliefs about effectiveness, appropriateness, socioeconomic and economic benefit, implementation and trust were associated with acceptability (P < 0·001)., Conclusions: Public acceptability of an SSB tax tends to be higher if revenue is used for health initiatives. The factors associated with acceptability should be taken into consideration.

Background: Socioeconomic inequalities in overweight and obesity exist in many European countries. A sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) tax may contribute to a reduction of these inequalities. However, in the Netherlands, the government decided to not (yet) introduce an SSB tax, although the government has acknowledged its potential to be pro-equity. Understanding how various stakeholder groups perceive the potential effects of an SSB tax on different socioeconomic groups may provide useful insights into equity-related considerations in the debate whether or not to implement an SSB tax. This study aims to gain insight into the perceptions of stakeholder groups in the Netherlands on (1) the effects of an SSB tax on the budgets of lower and higher socioeconomic groups and (2) the impact of an SSB tax on socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intake and health., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2019 with 27 participants from various stakeholder groups in the Netherlands (i.e. health and consumer organizations, health professional associations, trade associations, academia, advisory bodies, ministries and parliamentary parties). Data were analyzed using a thematic content approach., Results: Participants from all stakeholder groups indicated that an SSB tax would have a larger impact on the budgets of lower socioeconomic groups. Participants from nearly all stakeholder groups (except trade associations) mentioned that an SSB tax could have greater health benefits among lower socioeconomic groups as these often have a higher SSB consumption and are more likely to be overweight or obese. Some participants mentioned that an SSB tax may have no or adverse health effects among lower socioeconomic groups (e.g. compensation of lower SSB consumption with other unhealthy behaviours). Some participants emphasised that an SSB tax should only be introduced when accompanied by other interventions (e.g. offering healthy alternatives), to make it easier for lower socioeconomic groups to lower their SSB consumption in response to an SSB tax, and to prevent adverse health effects., Conclusions: Participants believed an SSB tax could contribute to a reduction in socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intake and health. However, additional interventions facilitating the reduction of SSB consumption in lower socioeconomic groups were recommended.

Aim: Weight loss success is highly variable among individuals. Cluster analysis contributes to future intervention development by recognising this individual variability and identifying different weight loss patterns. Identifying determinants that differentiate between these patterns would explain the source of variability. Thus, we aimed to identify weight loss patterns and their determinants in adults with overweight and obesity., Methods: The present study is a secondary analysis of data from the PortionControl@HOME study. The weight of 175 adults was measured at 0, 3 and 12 months and potential determinants were self-reported using validated questionnaires at 0 and 3 months. Weight loss patterns were identified based on percent weight change during Phase 1 (0-3 months) and Phase 2 (3-12 months) using cluster analysis. Determinants were assessed using multinomial logistic regression., Results: We identified three weight loss patterns: (i) low success, demonstrating low weight loss achievement, (ii) moderate success, demonstrating successful weight loss in Phase 1 followed by partial regain in Phase 2 and (iii) high success, demonstrating weight loss in Phase 1 followed by continued weight loss in Phase 2. Compared to the moderate success pattern, the low success pattern was negatively associated with power of food at baseline (i.e. the appetitive drive to consume highly palatable food) (odds ratio, OR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.21-0.86) and change in portion control behaviour (i.e. the use of behavioural strategies to control the amount of food consumed) (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.10-0.78)., Conclusions: Three weight loss patterns were identified in adults with overweight and obesity. Adults with greater power of food and increased portion control behaviour were less likely to exhibit an unsuccessful weight loss pattern., (© 2020 Dietitians Association of Australia.)

Background: Taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), as a component of a comprehensive strategy, has emerged as an apparent effective intervention to counteract the rising prevalence of overweight and obesity. Insight into the political and public acceptability may help adoption and implementation in countries with governments that are considering an SSBs tax. Hence, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the existing qualitative and quantitative literature on political and public acceptability of an SSBs tax., Methods: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched until November 2018. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative studies were analyzed using a thematic synthesis. Quantitative studies were analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis for the pooling of proportions., Results: Thirty-seven articles reporting on forty studies were eligible for inclusion. Five themes derived from the thematic synthesis: (i) beliefs about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, (ii) appropriateness, (iii) economic and socioeconomic benefit, (iv) policy adoption and implementation, and (v) public mistrust of the industry, government and public health experts. Results of the meta-analysis indicated that of the public 42% (95% CI = 0.38-0.47) supports an SSBs tax, 39% (0.29-0.50) supports an SSBs tax as a strategy to reduce obesity, and 66% (0.60-0.72) supports an SSBs tax if revenue is used for health initiatives., Conclusions: Beliefs about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, appropriateness, economic and socioeconomic benefit, policy adoption and implementation, and public mistrust of the industry, government and public health experts have important implications for the political and public acceptability of an SSBs tax. We provide recommendations to increase acceptability and enhance successful adoption and implementation of an SSBs tax: (i) address inconsistencies between identified beliefs and scientific literature, (ii) use raised revenue for health initiatives, (iii) communicate transparently about the true purpose of the tax, and (iv) generate political priority for solutions to the challenges to implementation.

The SMARTsize intervention embeds an evidence-based portion control intervention in regular dietetic care. This intervention was evaluated to explore (1) which patients participated, (2) the implementation process, and (3) the outcomes of the intervention. The intervention was evaluated with an observational study design including measures at baseline, and three, six, and nine months after the start of the program. Data concerning the process (participation, dose delivered, dose received, satisfaction) and the outcomes (self-efficacy, intention, portion control strategies, and Body Mass Index (BMI) were collected with forms and questionnaires filled out by dietitians and patients. Descriptive analyses, comparison analyses, and cluster analyses were performed. Patients were mainly obese, moderately to highly educated women of Dutch ethnicity. Use of the intervention components varied from 50% to 100% and satisfaction with the SMARTsize intervention was sufficient to good (grades 7.2⁻8.0). Statistically significant ( p < 0.001) improvements were observed for self-efficacy (+0.5), portion control strategies (+0.7), and BMI (-2.2 kg/m²), with no significant differences between patients with or without counselling. Three clusters of patients with different levels of success were identified. To conclude, implementing an evidence-based portion control intervention in real-life dietetic practice is feasible and likely to result in weight loss.

Background: Portion and package sizes of foods generally influence energy intake in children and adults. However, little is known about this effect in older adults. This study aimed to determine the effect of increasing package size on usage volume of peanut butter in older adults. Furthermore, it is investigated whether older women and men, different age groups (<65, 65-80, and 80+), and non-overweight (BMI<25), overweight (BMI≥25) and obese (BMI>30) older adults had different responses to variation in package size., Methods: A randomized controlled trial among 205 older adults was conducted wherein participants were randomized to either the small (350 g) (n = 103) or the large (1000 g) (n = 102) package size condition. Linear regression analyses were used to determine the association between package size condition and usage volume of peanut butter on a slice of bread. Interactions of sex, age groups and BMI categories with package size were tested to investigate differences in responses to variation in package size., Results: Older adults spread on average 12.4 g (SD = 4.3) of peanut butter on a slice of bread when exposed to a small jar of peanut butter and 12.6 g (SD = 4.4) when exposed to a large jar of peanut butter (B = 0.15; 95%CI = -1.04 to 1.35). Interactions between sex, age groups or BMI categories with package size condition were not statistically significant., Conclusions: Increased package size has no effect on usage volume of peanut butter among older adults. Older women and men, different age groups within older adults, and normal-weight, overweight and obese older adults do not respond differently to variation in package size of spreads., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)