Andrea E Bombak1,2, Taylor E Colotti3, Dolapo Raji3, Natalie D Riediger4,5. 1. Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick, Tilley Hall, Room 9, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada. andrea.bombak@unb.ca. 2. School of Health Sciences, Community Health Division, Central Michigan University, 1280 E Campus Dr, Mt Pleasant, MI, 48859, USA. andrea.bombak@unb.ca. 3. School of Health Sciences, Community Health Division, Central Michigan University, 1280 E Campus Dr, Mt Pleasant, MI, 48859, USA. 4. Department of Food and Human Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Manitoba, 407 Human Ecology Building, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada. Natalie.riediger@umanitoba.ca. 5. Department of Community Health Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Natalie.riediger@umanitoba.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While policies to address "obesity" have existed for decades, they have commonly focused on behavioral interventions. More recently, the taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages is gaining traction globally. This study sought to explore individuals' attitudes and beliefs about sugar-sweetened beverages being taxed in a rural Michigan setting. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted using critical policy analysis. Data were collected in 25 semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews with adult Michiganders. Following data collection, transcripts were coded into themes using NVivo software. RESULTS: Four themes emerged in participants' perspectives regarding sugar-sweetened beverages being taxed: resistance, unfamiliarity, tax effects, and need for education. While some participants were unfamiliar with sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, many viewed taxation as a "slippery slope" of government intervention, which invoked feelings of mistrust. In addition, participants predicted a sugar-sweetened beverage tax would be ineffective at reducing intake, particularly among regular consumers, who were frequently perceived as mostly low income and/or of higher weight. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to explore perceptions of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in different geographic areas in the USA to examine how perceptions vary. Policymakers should be aware of the potential implications of this health policy with respect to government trust and stigma towards lower income and higher-weight individuals.
BACKGROUND: While policies to address "obesity" have existed for decades, they have commonly focused on behavioral interventions. More recently, the taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages is gaining traction globally. This study sought to explore individuals' attitudes and beliefs about sugar-sweetened beverages being taxed in a rural Michigan setting. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted using critical policy analysis. Data were collected in 25 semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews with adult Michiganders. Following data collection, transcripts were coded into themes using NVivo software. RESULTS: Four themes emerged in participants' perspectives regarding sugar-sweetened beverages being taxed: resistance, unfamiliarity, tax effects, and need for education. While some participants were unfamiliar with sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, many viewed taxation as a "slippery slope" of government intervention, which invoked feelings of mistrust. In addition, participants predicted a sugar-sweetened beverage tax would be ineffective at reducing intake, particularly among regular consumers, who were frequently perceived as mostly low income and/or of higher weight. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to explore perceptions of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in different geographic areas in the USA to examine how perceptions vary. Policymakers should be aware of the potential implications of this health policy with respect to government trust and stigma towards lower income and higher-weight individuals.
Authors: Jennifer Falbe; Hannah R Thompson; Christina M Becker; Nadia Rojas; Charles E McCulloch; Kristine A Madsen Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Charles Gessert; Stephen Waring; Lisa Bailey-Davis; Pat Conway; Melissa Roberts; Jeffrey VanWormer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anne Marie Thow; Shauna M Downs; Christopher Mayes; Helen Trevena; Temo Waqanivalu; John Cawley Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 9.408