Willingness to pay for an intervention that reduces soda consumption among a sample of middle-class adult Mexicans.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing public awareness of the adverse health effects of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) consumption in Mexico, little is known about the population's intention to reduce SSB consumption and the social value of interventions to accomplish such behavioral change. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the willingness to pay (WTP) for an intervention that reduces soda consumption by half in Mexico.
METHODS: We applied contingent valuation methods in a sample of 471 Mexican adults from a cohort study. We assessed the relative value of benefits by providing incremental information to participants in three scenarios: soda consumption reduction, + health benefits, + social benefits. To estimate factors associated with the WTP, we ran an interval regression.
RESULTS: 87% of respondents reported they would like to reduce SSB consumption. High soda consumption, intention to reduce soda consumption and higher household income are associated with higher WTP. We found that the WTP increases as additional benefits are provided. The WTP, as a proportion of income, is higher for the lowest income level.
CONCLUSION: The average WTP per person may be seen as the minimum amount the country should invest on interventions to reduce soda consumption.

Introduction

Mexico faces a high burden of chronic diseases with a combined prevalence of overweight and obesity of 33.2% among children between 5 to 11 years old, 36.3% among adolescents, 72.5% among adults [1] and a prevalence of diabetes of 14.4% among adults [2]. One factor linked to weight gain, diabetes, and other chronic diseases is the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) [3-7]. Mexico is one of the highest SSB consumer in the world, estimated at 145 calories per capita sold per day in 2014 [8].

Several interventions have been implemented worldwide to reduce SSB consumption such as fiscal policies, regulation of food and beverages in schools, front-of-pack labeling, regulation of marketing directed to children, and subsidies to healthy food and beverages, among others. Current research is building a body of knowledge on the benefits and welfare implications of these interventions, including reductions in consumption [9], health benefits such as reductions in obesity, diabetes and other chronic disease and higher benefits for the poor [10, 11].

A recent fiscal policy implemented in Mexico reduced SSB household purchases by 7.5% two years after implementation of an excise tax of one peso per liter about a 10% increase in price [12]. The policy also increased sales of bottled water by 5% [13]. Even though modeling exercises predicted reductions in weight and diabetes [14], strokes, myocardial infarctions and ultimately mortality [15], the policy stirred up a political and scholarly debate, questioning the social value of a reduction in SSB consumption in Mexico. Specifically, despite the growing public awareness of the adverse health effects of SSB consumption, little is known about the population’s intention to reduce SSB consumption and the social value of interventions to accomplish such behavioral change.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the intention to reduce soda consumption and the willingness to pay (WTP) for an intervention that reduces soda consumption by half in Mexico. We applied contingent valuation methods in a sample of Mexican adults who participate in a prospective cohort study, the Health Workers Cohort Study in Mexico [16]. We also assessed the relative value of individual and societal benefits by providing incremental information to participants and allowing them to change their WTP. Finally, we estimated the variation of WTP by sex, age, body mass index, intention to reduce soda consumption, consumption levels, and household income. The study is relevant given the high rates of SSB consumption and associated chronic disease in the country.

Methods

The study protocol, questionnaires, procedures, and informed consent forms for the cohort study were approved by the corresponding IRBs of all participating institutions: the Mexican Social Security Institute (12CEI 09 006 14), the National Institute of Public Health (13CEI 17 007 36), and the Autonomous University of the Mexico State (1233008X0236). Signed written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrollment.

As described below, we applied contingent valuation methods using a WTP questionnaire to a sample of individuals from a cohort study.

The Health Workers Cohort Study

The Health Workers Cohort Study (HWCS) aims to study the association between genetics, lifestyle choices and cardiovascular health outcomes. Participants are IMSS employees and their families, living in the City of Cuernavaca in Morelos, Mexico. The cohort includes health providers, administrative staff, and academic personnel. The HWCS comprises three follow-up measurements between 2004 and 2017. In the baseline assessment conducted from March 2004 to April 2006, approximately 2,500 participants enrolled voluntarily. The second assessment took place from 2010 to 2013. The third wave took place between 2016 and 2017. The size of the cohort by 2017 is 1,214 individuals. In addition to a survey on sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics, subjects completed anthropological and biological assessments. Further methodological details of the HWCS are reported elsewhere [16].

Sample

We invited all cohort participants to answer the WTP questionnaire during the third wave through one of two approaches: 1) we reached and interviewed by telephone those who already had completed the third wave of instruments (26.5%); and 2) we interviewed participants in site during their biological assessments (73.5%). We excluded participants who reported no soda consumption in the last twelve months.

WTP questionnaire

Contingent valuation methods are designed to elicit preferences and subjective valuation of hypothetical scenarios. Typically, respondents are asked to assess the economic value of an outcome through an iterative process designed to obtain their maximal WTP. We developed a contingent valuation questionnaire to elicit WTP among individuals who consumed soda in the previous 12 months, as reported in the third wave of the HWCS. Initially, we asked participants whether they wanted to reduce their consumption of soda. Then, we elicited their maximum WTP for a nutrition program designed to decrease in half their current soda intake as long as they remained in the program. We framed the WTP questions slightly different for participants according to their desire to cut soda consumption (see questionnaire in S1 Appendix).

The WTP section of our questionnaire included three questions meant to elicit the full economic value of the intervention described above, incrementally under three hypothetical scenarios. First, we measured the maximal WTP for the program without providing any additional information about its benefits, beyond reducing soda intake. The second scenario additionally offered a brief description of the potential health benefits associated with a reduction in soda consumption, before eliciting the maximum WTP. The third scenario added a social element of welfare, by exploring the WTP if the money collected by its sales were to be used to funding treatment of chronic diseases and providing potable water in the most deprived regions and public schools in Mexico.

Within each of the three scenarios, we elicited the maximum WTP through an iterative bidding process. For each scenario, we asked the participants whether they would be willing to pay X amount of money for the intervention. The initial amount X was randomly selected from a list of values between 50 and 500 Mexican pesos (either 50, 100, 200, 300, 400 or 500 pesos—roughly US $2.5, $5, $10, $15, $20 or $25, respectively). A bidding process followed. If participants responded "yes," we asked them whether they were willing to pay the next higher amount on the list—unless the random number was 500 pesos, in which case the process ended. If the participant responded "no" to the initial random amount, we asked for the immediate inferior amount—unless the random amount was 50 pesos. This iterative process was repeated up to three times for each scenario, and the final response represented the maximal WTP, expressed in an interval. S1 Fig provides a hypothetical example of all responses for a sequence of questions when the random start value is 100 pesos.

Data collection started in May 2017 in a subsample of the HWCS and ended in April 2018. Participants who attended their follow-up check-up were invited to participate in a face-to-face interview or by telephone.

Statistical analysis

We first described the average WTP by intention to reduce soda consumption by scenario and the unadjusted distribution of the WTP for the three scenarios: 1) cut in soda consumption, 2) cut in soda consumption + explicitly accounting for individual health benefits, 3) adding social benefits. We also calculated a weighted average WTP by scenario taking the mid-point of each interval (lower and upper bounds) and assuming two values for the higher open-ended option of more than 500 pesos; 600 pesos and 1,000 pesos.

For empirical estimation, we ran an interval regression for each WTO scenario. Interval regressions are used when the dependent variable is expressed as a continuous variable or by intervals, with left- or right-censored data. The method is appropriate when the precise value of the dependent variable is unknown as there is interval censoring. In our study, the exact amount of the maximal WTP is unknown due to the right-censored maximal WTP at 500 pesos. Interval regressions estimations are based on the probability that a censored value fits within a range.

The independent variables included in the interval regression model were selected based on two criteria. First, WTP studies often adjust for sociodemographic characteristics because contingent valuation could vary by income, sex and age. Secondly, we included variables that could be associated with the WTP to reduce soda consumption such as intention to reduce soda consumption, soda consumption and overweight and obesity. Specifically, we included the following binary variables in the model: sex (1 for women, 0 otherwise); age group (1 for individuals 65 or more years old, 0 otherwise); intention to reduce soda consumption (1 = yes, 0 = no); high soda consumption (1 if soda expenditures were higher than the 75th percentile—30 pesos per week, 0 otherwise); overweight or obese (1 if body mass index is higher than 25, 0 otherwise); and household income tertiles. For household income, we imputed 16 missing observations using linear regression adjusted for sex and age, since missing values represent 3.4% of the sample size and this method allowed to preserve the structural relationships among the variables.

We used bootstrap with 1,000 replications and variance-covariance estimation to get bootstrap standard errors in the interval regression. Also, about 30% of participants belong to the same household so we included clustering at the household level in the interval regression.

Using the results of the interval regressions, we estimated the predicted values and upper and lower bounds of the maximal WTP for each scenario and by individual characteristics included in the model.

Finally, we calculated the ratio of the WTP relative to household income by dividing the predicted WTP for each scenario by the individually reported household income. We summarized the estimated ratios by income tertile.

We restricted the sample to respondents with no missing values in all of the variables listed above: we excluded nine observations corresponding to individuals with no BMI available, and 30 more due to inconsistent responses between the WTP scenarios. We encountered this problem at the beginning of data collection but stopped once we reinforced the training of interviewers. The analytic sample included 471 individuals from 510 participants in the WTP survey. We tested for differences in sex, high soda consumption, body mass index and age group between the analytical sample and the excluded observations using chi-square statistics. We also assessed whether the subsample of the WTP study was representative of the HWSC by testing for statistical differences in age, gender and education between our analytical sample and participants of the cohort in the third wave.

Statistical analyses were performed using Stata V13.1.

Results

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the analytical sample. From 471 participants, 75% were females, 23% were 65 years old and older and 57% completed a university degree. We found that 87% intended to reduce their soda consumption and 27% were high soda consumers. Among the 471 participants, 66% were overweight or obese.

Table 1

Characteristics of the 471 participants.

Variable	% or mean
Sex (female = 1)	75%
Age group (more than 65 years old)	23%
Education (university or higher)	57%
Household monthly income (in pesos) by income group
Low	6,304.7
Middle	16,227.8
High	36,924.9
High soda consumption (>$30 pesos/week)	27%
Would like to reduce soda consumption	87%
Overweight or obese (body mass index>25)	66%

Table 2 shows the average WTP by intention to reduce soda consumption and the distribution of the WTP intervals by scenario. Those who had the intention to reduce soda consumption had a higher WTP compared to those who had not intention to reduce soda consumption but their WTP. The average WTP for the soda consumption reduction scenario was 244.9 pesos for those with the intention to reduce soda consumption, 280.5 for the scenario that adds health benefits and 302.6 for the scenario that add social benefits. For those with no intention to reduce soda consumption the average WTP was 162.5, 212.0 and 264.5, respectively.

Table 2

Distribution of the sample population (n = 471) across willingness-to-pay ranges, by scenario.

Intention to reduce soda consumption (Mexican pesos)	Scenarios
	Soda consumption reduction		+ health benefits		+ social benefits
Intention to reduce soda consumption	244.9		280.5		302.6
No intention to reduce soda consumption	162.5		212.0		264.5
WTP Interval (Mexican pesos)
Greater than 0 and lower than100 pesos	29.1% [25.0, 33.2]		26.1% [22.1, 30.1]		21.0% [17.3, 24.7]
Between 100 and 200 pesos	25.1% [21.1, 29.0]		15.3% [12.0, 18.5]		15.5% [12.2, 18.8]
Between 200 and 300 pesos	9.6% [6.9, 12.2]		15.4% [12.2, 18.9]		13.0% [9.9, 16.0]
Between 300 and 400 pesos	10.6% [14.1,8.1]		9% [7.8, 13.4]		12.1% [9.2, 15.0]
Between 400 and 500 pesos	7.2% [4.9, 9.6]		5.9% [3.8, 8.1]		5.7% [3.6, 7.8]
More than 500 pesos	18.5% [15.0, 22.0]		28.0% [24.0, 32.1]		32.7% [28.5, 36.9]
Total	100%		100%		100%
Lower and upper bounds of weighted average WTP in pesos, by scenario
	Soda consumption reduction		+ health benefits		+ social benefits
	Lower	Upper	Lower	Upper	Lower	Upper
Assuming maximum WTP of 600 pesos for participants who chose “more than 500 pesos”	196	296	238	338	267	368
Assuming maximum WTP 1000 pesos for participants who chose “more than 500 pesos”	196	368	238	450	267	500

Confidence intervals in brackets.

For the distribution of the WTP intervals, in the soda consumption reduction scenario, 29% are in the lowest WTP interval and 21% at the highest. The proportion of participants in the most upper range increases to 28% in the scenario that provides information on health benefits and to 33% in the scenario that also offers social benefits. We found a higher proportion of those who would like to reduce consumption in the most upper WTP interval compared with those who had no intention to reduce soda consumption (results not shown). The weighted average WTP ranges from 196 to 500 pesos depending on the scenario and the assumptions made on the point estimate value for the open-ended option: when participants chose the option of 500 pesos or more, we estimated the weighted average WTP under two upper bounds: up to 600 and up to 1,000 pesos.

Table 3 shows results from the interval regression estimations. In the soda consumption reduction scenario, the base average WTP was 121.3 pesos, which represents the WTP among non-obese younger men, who are not interested in reducing their consumption but in the group with the lowest expenditure on soda, and in the lowest income group. Those who would like to reduce soda consumption are willing to pay 85.1 pesos more than those who do not (60% more than the base WTP). Participants in the fourth quartile of soda expenditures are willing to pay 66.7 pesos more compared with those in the lower quartile (47% more than the base WTP). Those in the middle and high tertiles of income reported a higher WTP compared to the lowest income group. Results for the second and third scenarios are consistent with those in the first, with higher WTP as additional benefits of reducing soda consumption are made explicit, statistically significant for willingness to reduce intake and household income.

Table 3

Interval regressions for the willingness to pay for an intervention that reduces soda consumption, by scenario.

Variable	Soda consumption reduction	+ health benefits	+ social benefits
	Coefficients from interval regression, 95% confidence interval
Sex (female = 1)	9.3 [-33.8, 52.4]	12.0 [-42.1, 66.2]	18.2 [-35.8, 72.7]
Age group (>65 years old)	-10.7 [-53.5, 32.1]	-24.9 [-77.2, 27.3]	-36.2 [-88.7, 16.4]
Education (university or higher)	22.5 [-141, 59.2]	42.1+ [-3.9, 88.0]	48.0* [1.5, 94.4]
Household income
Middle	52.1** [12.0, 92.3]	75.7 **[26.6, 124.7]	77.0** [25.4, 128.6]
High	80.2** [35.3, 125.0]	126.7**[68.5, 184.5]	138.8** [78.4, 199.2]
High soda consumption (> $30 pesos)	66.7** [25.8, 107.5]	100.8**[50.3, 151.1]	99.1** [46.3, 151.7]
Would like to reduce soda consumption	85.1** [38.7, 131.5]	83.4** [24.2, 142.4]	56.7+ [-3.9, 117.4]
Overweight and obese	2.1 [-34.7, 39.0]	10.3 [-37.3, 58.0]	5.3 [-42.9, 53.4]
Constant	121.3** [53.4, 189.2]	115.1* [36.4,193.7]	170.3** [86.9, 253.7]

Confidence intervals in brackets. Significance

+ at 10%

* at 5%

** at 1%. Bootstrap robust standard errors, clustered at the household level.

Dependent variable: Willingness to pay.

Fig 1 shows the mean predicted values for each variable category from the interval regression. By age group, we found that individuals aged less than 65 years-old showed an average higher WTP compared to older participants—5%, 12%, and 18% in the first, second and third scenarios, respectively. Average WTP increases with income, with substantial differences among income tertiles, most notably in the case of the lowest income group, with respect to the other two. Participants who wanted to reduce soda consumption reported 27%, 25%, and 17% higher WTP compared to those not willing to reduce intake, in the first, second and third scenarios, respectively. Participants with higher soda consumption reported about 20% higher WTP compared to those with lower soda consumption. Overall, the mean adjusted WTP increased from 272.5 pesos in the basic scenario to 310.5 pesos in the second scenario and 348.1 pesos when social benefits are explicit (results not shown).

Fig 1

Average willingness to pay for an intervention that reduces soda consumption, by scenario and variable.

When we take the ratio of the WTP relative to income, we found that individuals from the lowest income group are willing to pay a more substantial proportion of their income, compared to those in the highest income group (Table 4). For instance, for the low-income group, the WTP for the soda consumption reduction scenario represents 5% of their income compared to 2% and 1% from the middle- and high-income groups, respectively. The results are very similar for the other two scenarios.

Table 4

Ratio of WTP relative to income, by household income group and WTP scenario.

Income group	Soda consumption reduction	+ health benefits	+ social benefits
Low	0.050	0.052	0.059
Middle	0.019	0.021	0.023
High	0.010	0.012	0.013

We found no statistical differences between the analytical sample (471) and the excluded observations in the covariates of interest (39). Also, we did not find statistically significant differences in age, gender or education between the analytical sample of individuals that participated in the WTP study with participants in the third wave of the HWSC.

Discussion

We estimated the WTP for an intervention that reduces soda consumption by half in a subsample of 471 participants in the HWCS. The study provides an estimate of the social value for such an intervention, and therefore of the social value reducing soda consumption in this cohort. Our results showed that individuals with high soda consumption, with the intention to reduce soda consumption, and in the higher household income group, reported higher WTP. We also found that as we included additional benefits in the description of the intervention the respondents increased their WTP (average adjusted WTP increases from 272.5 to 348.4 pesos). Finally, we found that the WTP, as a proportion of income, was higher among the lowest income level group. The results show the potential acceptability of public policies to reduce consumption of perceived harmful products.

Our study also revealed that 87% of respondents reported they would like to reduce SSB consumption. From a welfare perspective, an SSB tax increase would potentially represent a net benefit for those willing to reduce SSB consumption. This result reveals a relatively high awareness of the adverse health effects of soda consumption or at least, the potential value of reducing consumption—although we were not able to measure whether social desirability bias influenced our respondents.

Our findings are consistent with previous literature. A study in the US showed that people were willing to pay about 46 USD for a 50% reduction in childhood obesity policies, which was greater than current per capita public health spending [17]. Although their questions are different from our study, both studies show support from taxpayers to invest in public policies to reduce the burden of chronic diseases.

As in our study, in general, high income individuals declared higher willingness to pay [18]. A study shows that high sugar-sweetened beverage consumers are more responsive to increases in prices [19] which could explain our findings that high soda spending was associated with a greater WTP. In general, for high consumers of harmful goods, a reduction in consumption represents a benefit because it aligns their observed consumption with their rational consumption [20, 21].

The results of the study reveal individual preferences associated with their willingness to reduce soda consumption. The higher WTP is for the scenario that adds social benefits, can be used to frame a policy aimed at reducing soda consumption by including that the money collected from the program could be used to fund treatment of chronic diseases and to provide potable in the most deprived regions and public schools in Mexico.

The study has some limitations. We set-up the upper amount to 500 pesos based on national data on household expenditures from the 2014 National Income and Expenditure Survey [22]. Given that more than 20% of the participants WTP is in the highest interval, we acknowledge the possibility that the real average WTP may be higher had we allowed for a higher upper amount. We acknowledge that imputation using linear regression for the 16 missing values for income could reduce the variability. However, missing values represented only 3.4% of the sample and the literature recognizes that less than 10% of missing values leads to unbiased results [23-25].

We also acknowledge that the representativeness of the results is determined by the HWSC, which includes individuals with an average higher education and income compared to the general population. However, future studies using a representative sample would get a more accurate estimate of the average national WTP for interventions to reduce soda consumption. We did not make specific the duration of the intervention which is a limitation for future studies, nor the specific mechanism of payment, as is recommended elsewhere [17].

The sample size was limited to available funding, we followed the sample used by Cawley in a study that estimated the willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity (n = 477) [17]. To address the potential limitation of a small sample size, we ran the interval regressions using bootstrap to get robust standard errors.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued some recommendations to maximize the reliability of contingent valuation estimates [20, 26]. Our study complies with most of the recommendations. We applied the questionnaire in a face-to-face or telephone interviews, not on the mail. We also pretested the questionnaire although we failed to include the “would not answer” option. We broke down the WTP by a set of characteristics of interest such as sex, income level, and attitudes towards soda consumption, and body mass index. We also reminded the respondents of their actual budget constraint when considering their willingness to pay as an out-of-pocket expenditure, as the NOAA recommended. We measured "willingness to pay" rather than "willingness to accept," as recommended. We used a subsample of the HWSC, which does not include a probabilistic sample design. However, the WTP subsample is representative of the entire cohort.

The WTP reflects the preference to reduce soda consumption. We acknowledge that we cannot translate this social value as if we would implement an intervention that restricts the choice set. For those who had the intention to reduce soda consumption, the nutrition program aligns their preferences to their habits. For those who did not have the intention to reduce soda consumption, the program changes their preferences. In both cases, the program does not restrict the choice set.

We acknowledge a potential reverse causality if willingness to reduce soda consumption, that we use as an independent variable, causes WTP. We followed two approaches. We first ran the interval regression excluding willingness to reduce soda consumption and found that the results are very similar. We also ran a probit model with a binary variable of willingness to reduce soda consumption as the dependent variable, willingness to pay as independent variable, and the other covariates but the coefficient for WTP was not statistically significant.

In conclusion, our study provides an estimate of how much people value an intervention that helps them reducing soda consumption. Even for individuals reporting they would not like their intake when informed about the positive effects of reducing SSB consumption, their WTP increased, which implies that information on the harmful effects of SSB intake is needed to make better decisions. Our findings illustrate two relevant policy implications. First, interventions aimed at reducing SSB consumption -such as fiscal policies, front of pack labeling or school restrictions on unhealthy food and beverages sales-, represent a benefit for people who are willing to reduce soda consumption (a high percentage in our study). Secondly, the average WTP per person ranged from 272.5 to 348.4 pesos per month. This amount represents the social value on an intervention to reduce soda consumption which provides a benchmark for policy makers to allocating more resources o on obesity prevention strategies and on providing water fountains in the poorest regions on the country and in public schools. Moreover, based on the 2018 National Income and Expenditure Survey, SSB consumers spend $261 monthly pesos (excluding away from home purchases), which is in the range of the WTP. This value the how much SSB consumers value the potential benefits on health from an intervention to reduce SSB consumption.

Survey instrument (translated from Spanish to English).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Example of responses in the bidding process for a sequence of questions when the random start value is 100 pesos.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

10 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-34196

Willingness to pay for an intervention that reduces soda consumption among a sample of middle-class adult Mexicans

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Colchero,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers raised substanial concerns and their recommendations are split. One reviewer recommended rejection. Please try to address their concerns as much as you can. I also have a question as I read your paper: the elicited WTP is for reduicng half the soda consumption. how much is half? Can you also estimate the WTP for reducing one liter? I think this number is more relevant for policy makers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shihe Fu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright license more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information"

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Mexico has adopted a SSB tax to control the obesity and related chronical diseases. It has been discovered to be significantly decreases the soda consumption. This article contributes to the literature in assessing the willingness to reduce soda consumption and the willingness to pay (WTP) for various interventions that reduces soda consumption. This article focuses on providing knowledges of the benefits and welfare implications of these interventions, including reductions in consumption, health benefits such as reductions in obesity, diabetes and other chronic disease, and using money collected by SSB sales to treatment of chronic diseases and to potable water in the most deprived regions and public schools in Mexico. The author(s) found that people would like to reduce soda consumption, and as more beneficial information is provided, people’s WTP increases.

In general, the topic is interesting. This article fills the gap in exploring the relation between WTP for soda drinks and interventions—health benefits and social benefits.

Major comments

1.There are 1241 obs. in the third wave of HWSC, however the analytical sample is 470 in this study. Why did the rest of the individuals not participate in the WTP study? Is there any sample selection criterion? Are sample weights used in the estimation?

2.In page 8, “We also assessed whether the subsample of the WTP study was representative of the HWSC by testing for statistical differences in the co-variables included in the analysis between our analytical sample and all participants of the cohort in the third wave.” Can you provide the details? Whether the difference is significant or not for each explanatory variable?

3.Although by reading the whole manuscript, we are able to figure out that interval regression is applied in the empirical estimation. I strongly suggest the author(s) to provide detailed description on the methodology used in the manuscript.

4.Sample size is too small (471). Robustness check should be conducted. Proper empirical approach should be used to address the data limitation, i.e., bootstrap.

5.Whether the estimation (Table 3) is clustered by household or else, there is no specification on it.

6.I think authors should focus more on potential policy implications regarding to various responses to tax revenue recycling. For example, if individuals are discovered to be more altruistic –using the collected money to help the poor, what kind of policy should the government adopt? Or else, individuals are revealed to be more conscious of heath benefits, what kind of scenario should be used?

Reviewer #2: In this paper, the authors assess the willingness to pay (WTP) for an intervention that would reduces soda consumption by half in Mexico. Using contingent valuation methods in a sample of 471 Mexican adults from a cohort study, they find that high soda consumption, willingness to reduce soda consumption , higher household income, and additional information about the health and social benefits of reducing soda consumption are associated with higher WTP. They also find that the WTP, as a proportion of income, is higher for the lowest income level.

This paper contributes to the policy debate on the social value of a reduction in soda consumption in Mexico by directly eliciting the population's WTP to reduce soda consumption. However, the contribution is severely compromised by the way the intervention was interpreted in the questionnaire.

Question 2 in the survey asks ``Imagine there is a nutrition program that aims to change your soda consumption habits that would reduce in half your current consumption as long you remain in the program. This program does not require you to take pills or any surgery. You are supposed to pay for it, and it is not provided by the government or any other Health institution." The wording implies that the method through which the hypothetical intervention would reduce soda consumption is a change in preferences without restricting the choice set, which differs from what actual interventions usually do, such as a tax on soda consumption and regulation of the beverage in schools. In the latter cases, there might be large reduction in consumer's maximized utility caused by the shrinking of the choice set. Because they are not informed about these potential losses, the respondents will considerably overestimate their WTP.

Minor Comments:

[1] It is not clear if sample weights are used to infer the WTP of the population. Weighting could be important when the demographic composition in the sample is different from that in the population to the extent that 75% of the sample are female. \\\\

[2] One of the independent variables in the regression analysis is the 0-1 variable ``would like to reduce soda." It would be a bad control if it is an outcome rather than a cause of the WTP to reduce soda.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Reviewer report.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: Referee Report PONE-D-20-34196.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: CoverLetter PONE-D-20-34196.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

11 May 2021

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Mexico has adopted a SSB tax to control the obesity and related chronical diseases. It has been discovered to be significantly decreases the soda consumption. This article contributes to the literature in assessing the willingness to reduce soda consumption and the willingness to pay (WTP) for various interventions that reduces soda consumption. This article focuses on providing knowledges of the benefits and welfare implications of these interventions, including reductions in consumption, health benefits such as reductions in obesity, diabetes and other chronic disease, and using money collected by SSB sales to treatment of chronic diseases and to potable water in the most deprived regions and public schools in Mexico. The author(s) found that people would like to reduce soda consumption, and as more beneficial information is provided, people’s WTP increases.

In general, the topic is interesting. This article fills the gap in exploring the relation between WTP for soda drinks and interventions—health benefits and social benefits.

Major comments

1.There are 1241 obs. in the third wave of HWSC, however the analytical sample is 470 in this study. Why did the rest of the individuals not participate in the WTP study? Is there any sample selection criterion? Are sample weights used in the estimation?

Response: The sample size was limited by the available funding; this was a sub study funded independently of the cohort. There are few studies that could be used to estimate sample size. We followed the sample used by Cawley in a study that estimated the willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity (n=477). We did not use weights for the estimation. We added the following in the discussion section.

“The sample size was limited to available funding, we followed the sample used by Cawley in a study that estimated the willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity (n=477). To address the potential limitation of a small sample size, we ran the interval regressions using bootstrap to get robust standard errors.“

2.In page 8, “We also assessed whether the subsample of the WTP study was representative of the HWSC by testing for statistical differences in the co-variables included in the analysis between our analytical sample and all participants of the cohort in the third wave.” Can you provide the details? Whether the difference is significant or not for each explanatory variable?

Response: We appreciate the comment. We added the following:

Methods

“We also assessed whether the subsample of the WTP study was representative of the HWSC by testing for statistical differences in age, gender and education between our analytical sample and all participants of the cohort in the third wave”.

Results

“We did not find statistically significant differences in age, gender or education between the analytical sample of individuals that participated in the WTP study with participants in the third wave of the HWSC”.

3.Although by reading the whole manuscript, we are able to figure out that interval regression is applied in the empirical estimation. I strongly suggest the author(s) to provide detailed description on the methodology used in the manuscript.

Response: In the new version of the manuscript, we provide more details on the methods used for empirical estimation. As mentioned in the methods (statistical analysis), we first describe the distribution of the WTP intervals for the three scenarios then we applied interval regression for empirical estimation. We added the following to provide more details:

We first describe the unadjusted distribution of the WTP for the three scenarios…

For empirical estimation, we ran an interval regression for each WTP scenario. Interval regressions are used when the dependent variable is expressed as a continuous variable or by intervals, with left- or right-censored data….

The independent variables included in the interval regression model were selected based on two criteria….

4.Sample size is too small (471). Robustness check should be conducted. Proper empirical approach should be used to address the data limitation, i.e., bootstrap.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We conducted a robustness check using bootstrap and the results are almost identical. We left the specification with robust standard errors as the main specification. We added the following in the methods and results section:

“We used bootstrap with 1000 replications and variance-covariance estimation to get bootstrap standard errors”.

5.Whether the estimation (Table 3) is clustered by household or else, there is no specification on it.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have about 30% of participants in the same household. The new version of the models includes clustering at the household level. We added the following:

“About 30% of participants belong to the same household so we included clustering at the household level in the interval regression”.

6.I think authors should focus more on potential policy implications regarding to various responses to tax revenue recycling. For example, if individuals are discovered to be more altruistic –using the collected money to help the poor, what kind of policy should the government adopt? Or else, individuals are revealed to be more conscious of heath benefits, what kind of scenario should be used?

Response: We agree with the reviewer. The results or the study reveal their preferences and how to frame a policy. We added the following:

“The results of the study reveal individual preferences associated with their willingness to reduce soda consumption. The higher WTP is for the scenario that adds social benefits, can be used to frame a policy aimed at reducing soda consumption by including that the money collected from the program could be used to fund treatment of chronic diseases and to provide potable in the most deprived regions and public schools in Mexico.”

Reviewer #2: In this paper, the authors assess the willingness to pay (WTP) for an intervention that would reduces soda consumption by half in Mexico. Using contingent valuation methods in a sample of 471 Mexican adults from a cohort study, they find that high soda consumption, willingness to reduce soda consumption , higher household income, and additional information about the health and social benefits of reducing soda consumption are associated with higher WTP. They also find that the WTP, as a proportion of income, is higher for the lowest income level.

This paper contributes to the policy debate on the social value of a reduction in soda consumption in Mexico by directly eliciting the population's WTP to reduce soda consumption. However, the contribution is severely compromised by the way the intervention was interpreted in the questionnaire.

Question 2 in the survey asks ``Imagine there is a nutrition program that aims to change your soda consumption habits that would reduce in half your current consumption as long you remain in the program. This program does not require you to take pills or any surgery. You are supposed to pay for it, and it is not provided by the government or any other Health institution." The wording implies that the method through which the hypothetical intervention would reduce soda consumption is a change in preferences without restricting the choice set, which differs from what actual interventions usually do, such as a tax on soda consumption and regulation of the beverage in schools. In the latter cases, there might be large reduction in consumer's maximized utility caused by the shrinking of the choice set. Because they are not informed about these potential losses, the respondents will considerably overestimate their WTP.

Response: We agree with the reviewer. We added the following in the discussion section.

“The WTP reflects the preference to quit or to reduce soda consumption. We acknowledge that we cannot translate this social value as if we would implement an intervention that restricts the choice set.”

Minor Comments:

[1] It is not clear if sample weights are used to infer the WTP of the population. Weighting could be important when the demographic composition in the sample is different from that in the population to the extent that 75% of the sample are female. \\\\

Response: There are no sample weights in the data set. As acknowledged in the discussion section, the cohort is not representative of the population as it is for the Health Workers Cohort Study. However, we tested for statistical differences in basic characteristics between our analytic sample and the third wave of the Health Workers Cohort Study and we did not find significant differences.

[2] One of the independent variables in the regression analysis is the 0-1 variable ``would like to reduce soda." It would be a bad control if it is an outcome rather than a cause of the WTP to reduce soda.

Response: We understand the concern. We ran the model without the variable and the results are very similar. We also ran a probit model with the “would like to reduce soda” as the dependent variable and WTP as an independent variable, adjusting for the same variables and we did not find a significant association. We added the following in the discussion section:

“We acknowledge a potential reverse causality if willingness to reduce soda consumption, that we use as an independent variable, causes WTP. We followed two approaches. We first ran the interval regression excluding willingness to reduce soda consumption and found that the results are very similar. We also ran a probit model with a binary variable of willingness to reduce soda consumption as the dependent variable, willingness to pay as independent variable, and the other covariates but the coefficient for WTP was not statistically significant”.

Submitted filename: WTP_Responses to reviewers_2May21.docx

Click here for additional data file.

16 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-34196R1

Willingness to pay for an intervention that reduces soda consumption among a sample of middle-class adult Mexicans

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Colchero,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your paper is close to be publishable. One reviewer recommended accaptance and another provided a few useful comments for a minor revision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 31 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shihe Fu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author has addressed most of my questions. Although sample size and its representativeness still bothers, the use of bootstrap method and appropriate empirical approaches could to some extent address it.

Reviewer #2: Question 2 in the survey asks ``Imagine there is a nutrition program that aims to change your soda consumption habits that would reduce in half your current consumption as long you remain in the program. This program does not require you to take pills or any surgery. You are supposed to pay for it, and it is not provided by the government or any other Health institution." The wording implies that the method through which the hypothetical intervention would reduce soda consumption is a change in preferences without restricting the choice set, which differs from what actual interventions usually do, such as a tax on soda consumption and regulation of the beverage in schools. In the latter cases, there might be large reduction in consumer's maximized utility caused by the shrinking of the choice set. Because they are not informed about these potential losses, the respondents will considerably overestimate their WTP.

Response: We agree with the reviewer. We added the following in the discussion section.

“The WTP reflects the preference to quit or to reduce soda consumption. We acknowledge that we cannot translate this social value as if we would implement an intervention that restricts the choice set.”

Response to authors’ response: The word “quit” plays a key role in clarifying that the WTP is for removing soda addiction instead of restricting soda consumption. The ambiguity between the two was central in the issue in my previous comments. It might be helpful to solve the issue if you could also implement this clarification to the ambiguous “willingness to reduces SSB consumption” in the abstract and many other places in the manuscript.

Minor Comments:

[1] It is not clear if sample weights are used to infer the WTP of the population. Weighting could be important when the demographic composition in the sample is different from that in the population to the extent that 75% of the sample are female.

Response: There are no sample weights in the data set. As acknowledged in the discussion section, the cohort is not representative of the population as it is for the Health Workers Cohort Study. However, we tested for statistical differences in basic characteristics between our analytic sample and the third wave of the Health Workers Cohort Study and we did not find significant differences.

Response to authors’ response: I have no further issue with sample weights.

[2] One of the independent variables in the regression analysis is the 0-1 variable ``would like to reduce soda." It would be a bad control if it is an outcome rather than a cause of the WTP to reduce soda.

Response: We understand the concern. We ran the model without the variable and the results are very similar. We also ran a probit model with the “would like to reduce soda” as the dependent variable and WTP as an independent variable, adjusting for the same variables and we did not find a significant association. We added the following in the discussion section:

“We acknowledge a potential reverse causality if willingness to reduce soda consumption, that we use as an independent variable, causes WTP. We followed two approaches. We first ran the interval regression excluding willingness to reduce soda consumption and found that the results are very similar. We also ran a probit model with a binary variable of willingness to reduce soda consumption as the dependent variable, willingness to pay as independent variable, and the other covariates but the coefficient for WTP was not statistically significant”.

Response to authors’ response: Does “Would like to reduce soda=0” imply “WTP=0” in theory? How does isolating the effect of “WTP>0” on WTP help us understand WTP?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

28 Jun 2021

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: The author has addressed most of my questions. Although sample size and its representativeness still bothers, the use of bootstrap method and appropriate empirical approaches could to some extent address it.

Response: Thank you.

Reviewer #2: Question 2 in the survey asks ``Imagine there is a nutrition program that aims to change your soda consumption habits that would reduce in half your current consumption as long you remain in the program. This program does not require you to take pills or any surgery. You are supposed to pay for it, and it is not provided by the government or any other Health institution." The wording implies that the method through which the hypothetical intervention would reduce soda consumption is a change in preferences without restricting the choice set, which differs from what actual interventions usually do, such as a tax on soda consumption and regulation of the beverage in schools. In the latter cases, there might be large reduction in consumer's maximized utility caused by the shrinking of the choice set. Because they are not informed about these potential losses, the respondents will considerably overestimate their WTP.

Response: We agree with the reviewer. We added the following in the discussion section.

“The WTP reflects the preference to quit or to reduce soda consumption. We acknowledge that we cannot translate this social value as if we would implement an intervention that restricts the choice set.”

Response to authors’ response: The word “quit” plays a key role in clarifying that the WTP is for removing soda addiction instead of restricting soda consumption. The ambiguity between the two was central in the issue in my previous comments. It might be helpful to solve the issue if you could also implement this clarification to the ambiguous “willingness to reduces SSB consumption” in the abstract and many other places in the manuscript.

Response: We agree with the reviewer. We are not measuring willingness to reduce SSB consumption. The questionnaire asks individuals for their intention to reduce soda consumption. We replaced “willingness to reduce soda consumption” to “intention to reduce soda consumption” all over the manuscript.

We also agree that we are not restricting the choice set.

We added the following:

“The WTP reflects the preference to reduce soda consumption. We acknowledge that we cannot translate this social value as if we would implement an intervention that restricts the choice set. For those who had the intention to reduce soda consumption, the nutrition program aligns their preferences to their habits. For those who did not have the intention to reduce soda consumption, the program changes their preferences. In both cases, the program does not restrict the choice set.”

Minor Comments:

[1] It is not clear if sample weights are used to infer the WTP of the population. Weighting could be important when the demographic composition in the sample is different from that in the population to the extent that 75% of the sample are female.

Response: There are no sample weights in the data set. As acknowledged in the discussion section, the cohort is not representative of the population as it is for the Health Workers Cohort Study. However, we tested for statistical differences in basic characteristics between our analytic sample and the third wave of the Health Workers Cohort Study and we did not find significant differences.

Response to authors’ response: I have no further issue with sample weights.

Response: Thank you.

[2] One of the independent variables in the regression analysis is the 0-1 variable ``would like to reduce soda." It would be a bad control if it is an outcome rather than a cause of the WTP to reduce soda.

Response: We understand the concern. We ran the model without the variable and the results are very similar. We also ran a probit model with the “would like to reduce soda” as the dependent variable and WTP as an independent variable, adjusting for the same variables and we did not find a significant association. We added the following in the discussion section:

“We acknowledge a potential reverse causality if willingness to reduce soda consumption, that we use as an independent variable, causes WTP. We followed two approaches. We first ran the interval regression excluding willingness to reduce soda consumption and found that the results are very similar. We also ran a probit model with a binary variable of willingness to reduce soda consumption as the dependent variable, willingness to pay as independent variable, and the other covariates but the coefficient for WTP was not statistically significant”.

Response to authors’ response: Does “Would like to reduce soda=0” imply “WTP=0” in theory? How does isolating the effect of “WTP>0” on WTP help us understand WTP?

Response: We are not assuming that those who did not have an intention to reduce soda had a willingness to pay equal to zero since, as mentioned above, the program can change their preferences. Actually, their WTP is greater than zero, lower than those who had the intention to reduce soda but not zero. We added in table 2, the average WTP by intention to reduce soda consumption by scenario.

We added the following in the methods section:

“We first described the average WTP by intention to reduce soda consumption by scenario and the unadjusted distribution of the WTP for the three scenarios: 1) cut in soda consumption, 2) cut in soda consumption + explicitly accounting for individual health benefits, 3) adding social benefits.”

We added the following in the results section (description of table 2):

“Table 2 shows the average WTP by intention to reduce soda consumption and the distribution of the WTP intervals by scenario. Those who had the intention to reduce soda consumption had a higher WTP compared to those who had not intention to reduce soda consumption but their WTP. The average WTP for the soda consumption reduction scenario was 244.9 pesos for those with the intention to reduce soda consumption, 280.5 for the scenario that adds health benefits and 302.6 for the scenario that add social benefits. For those with no intention to reduce soda consumption the average WTP was 162.5, 212.0 and 264.5, respectively.”

Submitted filename: WTP_Responses to reviewers R2_21Jun21.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jul 2021

Willingness to pay for an intervention that reduces soda consumption among a sample of middle-class adult Mexicans

PONE-D-20-34196R2

Dear Dr. Colchero,

I have read your second-round revsied version and I think you have addressed the referee comments well. We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Shihe Fu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

21 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-34196R2

Willingness to pay for an intervention that reduces soda consumption among a sample of middle-class adult Mexicans

Dear Dr. Colchero:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Shihe Fu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE