Natalie R Smith1, Anna H Grummon2, Leah M Frerichs3. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: natsmith@live.unc.edu. 2. Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sugar-sweetened beverages are a key driver of obesity. Portion-size regulations typically limit the volume of unsealed sugar-sweetened beverage containers to 16 fluid ounces. These regulations could reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, but whom these policies would affect remains unknown. This study evaluates demographic groups likely affected by hypothetical national portion-size regulations modeled on policy language and scopes from New York City and California. METHODS: Data from adults (aged 18-65 years, n=6,594) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013‒2016) were used to classify individuals as likely affected if they consumed a sugar-sweetened beverage larger than 16 fluid ounces from a potentially regulated food source during at least 1 eating occasion. Two classifications of affected food sources were evaluated: (1) excluding convenience stores (New York City scope) and (2) including convenience stores (California scope). In 2020, analyses were conducted using logistic regression to examine associations between affected status and age (<35 and ≥35 years), sex, race/ethnicity (white, non-Hispanic, black, non-Hispanic, andHispanic), education (without college degree and with college degree), and income (≤185% and >185% of the federal poverty line). RESULTS: Portion-size regulations would affect 8.87% of adults (New York City scope) and 14.71% of adults (California scope). Regulations had a greater potential effect on adults who were aged <35 years, male, and without a college degree (all p<0.05). Differences between demographic groups would be larger in magnitude using California's policy scope. CONCLUSIONS: Portion-size regulations would likely have a greater effect on younger, male, and less-educated adults. Policy effects would likely be larger if these regulations are written to encompass more food sources.
INTRODUCTION: Sugar-sweetened beverages are a key driver of obesity. Portion-size regulations typically limit the volume of unsealed sugar-sweetened beverage containers to 16 fluid ounces. These regulations could reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, but whom these policies would affect remains unknown. This study evaluates demographic groups likely affected by hypothetical national portion-size regulations modeled on policy language and scopes from New York City and California. METHODS: Data from adults (aged 18-65 years, n=6,594) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013‒2016) were used to classify individuals as likely affected if they consumed a sugar-sweetened beverage larger than 16 fluid ounces from a potentially regulated food source during at least 1 eating occasion. Two classifications of affected food sources were evaluated: (1) excluding convenience stores (New York City scope) and (2) including convenience stores (California scope). In 2020, analyses were conducted using logistic regression to examine associations between affected status and age (<35 and ≥35 years), sex, race/ethnicity (white, non-Hispanic, black, non-Hispanic, andHispanic), education (without college degree and with college degree), and income (≤185% and >185% of the federal poverty line). RESULTS: Portion-size regulations would affect 8.87% of adults (New York City scope) and 14.71% of adults (California scope). Regulations had a greater potential effect on adults who were aged <35 years, male, and without a college degree (all p<0.05). Differences between demographic groups would be larger in magnitude using California's policy scope. CONCLUSIONS: Portion-size regulations would likely have a greater effect on younger, male, and less-educated adults. Policy effects would likely be larger if these regulations are written to encompass more food sources.
Authors: Ali H Mokdad; Katherine Ballestros; Michelle Echko; Scott Glenn; Helen E Olsen; Erin Mullany; Alex Lee; Abdur Rahman Khan; Alireza Ahmadi; Alize J Ferrari; Amir Kasaeian; Andrea Werdecker; Austin Carter; Ben Zipkin; Benn Sartorius; Berrin Serdar; Bryan L Sykes; Chris Troeger; Christina Fitzmaurice; Colin D Rehm; Damian Santomauro; Daniel Kim; Danny Colombara; David C Schwebel; Derrick Tsoi; Dhaval Kolte; Elaine Nsoesie; Emma Nichols; Eyal Oren; Fiona J Charlson; George C Patton; Gregory A Roth; H Dean Hosgood; Harvey A Whiteford; Hmwe Kyu; Holly E Erskine; Hsiang Huang; Ira Martopullo; Jasvinder A Singh; Jean B Nachega; Juan R Sanabria; Kaja Abbas; Kanyin Ong; Karen Tabb; Kristopher J Krohn; Leslie Cornaby; Louisa Degenhardt; Mark Moses; Maryam Farvid; Max Griswold; Michael Criqui; Michelle Bell; Minh Nguyen; Mitch Wallin; Mojde Mirarefin; Mostafa Qorbani; Mustafa Younis; Nancy Fullman; Patrick Liu; Paul Briant; Philimon Gona; Rasmus Havmoller; Ricky Leung; Ruth Kimokoti; Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi; Simon I Hay; Simon Yadgir; Stan Biryukov; Stein Emil Vollset; Tahiya Alam; Tahvi Frank; Talha Farid; Ted Miller; Theo Vos; Till Bärnighausen; Tsegaye Telwelde Gebrehiwot; Yuichiro Yano; Ziyad Al-Aly; Alem Mehari; Alexis Handal; Amit Kandel; Ben Anderson; Brian Biroscak; Dariush Mozaffarian; E Ray Dorsey; Eric L Ding; Eun-Kee Park; Gregory Wagner; Guoqing Hu; Honglei Chen; Jacob E Sunshine; Jagdish Khubchandani; Janet Leasher; Janni Leung; Joshua Salomon; Jurgen Unutzer; Leah Cahill; Leslie Cooper; Masako Horino; Michael Brauer; Nicholas Breitborde; Peter Hotez; Roman Topor-Madry; Samir Soneji; Saverio Stranges; Spencer James; Stephen Amrock; Sudha Jayaraman; Tejas Patel; Tomi Akinyemiju; Vegard Skirbekk; Yohannes Kinfu; Zulfiqar Bhutta; Jost B Jonas; Christopher J L Murray Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Béatrice Lauby-Secretan; Chiara Scoccianti; Dana Loomis; Yann Grosse; Franca Bianchini; Kurt Straif Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 91.245