Skip to main content Accessibility help

Pattern and correlates of public support for public health interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages

  • Ariane Bélanger-Gravel (a1) (a2), Sophie Desroches (a3) (a4), Isidora Janezic (a2), Marie-Claude Paquette (a5) and Philippe De Wals (a2) (a6)...



To examine the pattern and correlates of public support for twelve public health interventions aimed at reducing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption.


Cross-sectional population-based survey. Respondents were recruited using a random digit dialling procedure (landline telephone) and a random selection of telephone numbers (mobile telephone). Sampling quotas were applied for age, and the sample was stratified according to administrative regions.


The province of Québec, Canada.


One thousand adults aged between 18 and 64 years and able to answer the survey questionnaire in French or English.


Support was observed for a number of public health interventions, but the more intrusive approaches were less supported. Support for taxation as well as for sale and access restriction was positively associated with the perceived relevance of the government intervention, perceived effectiveness, and perceived associations between SSB consumption and chronic diseases. Believing that SSB consumption is a personal choice and daily consumption were generally negatively associated with strong support and positively associated with strong opposition. Sparse associations between sociodemographic and socio-economic characteristics were observed, with the exception of sex and age: women were generally more likely to support the examined public health strategies, while younger respondents were less likely to express support.


Increasing perceived effectiveness and government responsibility for addressing the issue of SSB consumption could lead to increased support for SSB interventions. Increasing the belief that SSB consumption could be associated with chronic diseases would increase support, but SSB consumers and younger individuals are expected to be resistant.


Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email


Hide All
1. Twells, LK, Gregory, DM, Reddigan, J et al. (2014) Current and predicted prevalence of obesity in Canada: a trend analysis. CMAJ Open 2, E18E26.
2. Diabetes Canada (2018) Diabetes Statistics in Canada. (accessed 23 March 2018).
3. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (2016) Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: a pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4.4 million participants. Lancet 387, 15131530.
4. Rippe, JM & Angelopoulos, TJ (2016) Relationship between added sugars consumption and chronic disease risk factors: current understanding. Nutrients. Published online: 4 November 2016. doi: 10.3390/nu8110697.
5. Stanhope, KL (2016) Sugar consumption, metabolic disease and obesity: the state of the controversy. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 53, 5267.
6. Khan, TA & Sievenpiper, JL (2016) Controversies about sugars: results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on obesity, cardiometabolic disease and diabetes. Eur J Nutr 55, 2543.
7. Malik, VS, Popkin, BM, Bray, GA et al. (2010) Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 33, 24772483.
8. Vartanian, LR, Schwartz, MB & Brownell, KD (2007) Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J public Health 97, 667675.
9. Deshpande, G, Mapanga, RF & Essop, MF (2017) Frequent sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and the onset of cardiometabolic diseases: cause for concern? J Endocr Soc 1, 13721385.
10. Yang, Q, Zhang, Z, Gregg, EW et al. (2014) Added sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA Intern Med 174, 516524.
11. Basu, S, Yoffe, P, Hills, N et al. (2013) The relationship of sugar to population-level diabetes prevalence: an econometric analysis of repeated cross-sectional data. PloS One. Published online: 27 February 2013. doi: 10.1371/journalépone.0057873.
12. Moynihan, PJ & Kelly, SA (2014) Effect on caries of restricting sugars intake: systematic review to inform WHO guidelines. J Dent Res 93, 818.
13. WHO (2015) Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults and Children. Geneva: WHO.
14. Johnson, RK, Appel, LJ, Brands, M et al. (2009) Dietary sugars intake and cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 120, 10111020.
15. Heart and Stroke Foundation (2014) Sugar, Heart Disease and Stroke: Position Statement. Ottawa: HSF.
16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015) 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 8th ed. Washington: USDA and HHS.
17. Mitka, M (2016) New dietary guidelines place added sugars in the crosshairs. JAMA 315, 14401441.
18. Yon, BA & Johnson, RK (2014) Dietary patterns and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among adolescents and adults. Curr Nutr Rep 3, 4350.
19. Institute of Medicine (2012) Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation. Washington: IOM.
20. Hsiao, A & Wang, YC (2013) Reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption: evidence, policies, and economics. Curr Obes Rep 2, 191199.
21. World Health Organization (2015) Using Price Policies to Promote Healthier Diets. Copenhagen: WHO.
22. Sacks, G, Swinburn, B & Lawrence, M (2009) Obesity policy action framework and analysis grids for a comprehensive policy approach to reducing obesity. Obes Rev 10, 7686.
23. Hayne, CL, Moran, PA & Ford, MM (2004) Regulating environments to reduce obesity. J Public Health Policy 25, 391407.
24. Guyon, A (2012) Intensify the development of public policy has the health: approaches strategic for the authorities of health public. Can J Public Health 103, e459e461.
25. Thompson, K, Hillier-Brown, F, Todd, A et al. (2017) The effects of public health policies on health inequalities: a review of reviews. The Lancet 390, 12.
26. Pomeranz, JL (2012) Advanced policy options to regulate sugar-sweetened beverages to support public health. J Public Health Policy 33, 7588.
27. World Health Organization (2013) Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013–2020. Geneva: WHO.
28. Diepeveen, S, Ling, T, Suhrcke, M et al. (2013) Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health. Published online: 15 August 2013. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-756.
29. Morestin, F, Gauvin, F-P, Hogue, M-C et al. (2010) Method for Synthesizing Knowledge about Public Policies. Montréal: National collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.
30. Burstein, P (2003) The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Pol Res Q 56, 2940.
31. Monroe, AD (1998) Public opinion and public policy, 1980-1993. Public Opin Q 62, 628.
32. Page, BI & Shapiro, RY (1983) Effects of public opinion on policy. Am Pol Sci Rev 77, 175190.
33. Rivard, C, Smith, D, McCann, SE et al. (2012) Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages: a survey of knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. Public Health Nutr 15, 13551361.
34. Julia, C, Mejean, C, Vicari, F et al. (2015) Public perception and characteristics related to acceptance of the sugar-sweetened beverage taxation launched in France in 2012. Public Health Nutr 18, 26792688.
35. Gollust, SE, Barry, CL & Niederdeppe, J (2014) Americans’ opinions about policies to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. Prev Med 63, 5257.
36. Petrescu, DC, Hollands, GJ, Couturier, DL et al. (2016) Public acceptability in the UK and USA of nudging to reduce obesity: the example of reducing sugar-sweetened beverages consumption. PloS One. Published online: 8 June 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155995.
37. Ipsos-Reid (2011) Canadians’ Perceptions of, and Support for, Potential Measures to Prevent and Reduce Childhood Obesity. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada.
38. Niederdeppe, J, Gollust, SE & Barry, CL (2014) Inoculation in competitive framing: examining message effects on policy preferences. Pub Opin Q 78, 634655.
39. Niederdeppe, J, Heley, K & Barry, CL (2015) Inoculation and narrative strategies in competitive framing of three health policy issues. J Com 65, 838862.
40. Donaldson, EA, Cohen, JE, Rutkow, L et al. (2015) Public support for a sugar-sweetened beverage tax and pro-tax messages in a Mid-Atlantic US state. Public Health Nutr 18, 22632273.
41. Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (2018) Plan d’action interministériel 2017-2021. Politique gouvernementale de prévention en santé. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
42. Godin, G, Belanger-Gravel, A, Amireault, S et al. (2011) The effect of mere-measurement of cognitions on physical activity behavior: a randomized controlled trial among overweight and obese individuals. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8, 2.
43. Hedrick, VE, Savla, J, Comber, DL et al. (2012) Development of a brief questionnaire to assess habitual beverage intake (BEVQ-15): sugar-sweetened beverages and total beverage energy intake. J Acad Nutr Diet 112, 840849.
44. Institut de la statistique du Québec (2016) L’Enquête québécoise sur la santé de la population, 2014-2015: pour en savoir plus sur la santé des Québécois. Québec: Institut de la statistique du Québec.
45. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2007) Public Health: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
46. Promberger, M, Dolan, P & Marteau, TM (2012) “Pay them if it works”: discrete choice experiments on the acceptability of financial incentives to change health related behaviour. Soc Sci Med 75, 25092514.
48. Branson, C, Duffy, B, Perry, CL et al. (2012) Acceptable Behaviour? Public Opinion on Behaviour Change Policy. UK: Ipsos MORI.
49. Perse, EM & Lambe, JL. (2017) Political communication and public opinion. In Media Effects and Society, pp. 87125. New York: Routledge.
50. Barry, CL, Brescoll, VL, Brownell, KD et al. (2009) Obesity metaphors: how beliefs about the causes of obesity affect support for public policy. Milbank Q 87, 747.
51. Dorfman, L & Krasnow, ID (2014) Public health and media advocacy. Annu Rev Public Health 35, 293306.
52. Entman, RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43, 5158.
53. Niederdeppe, J, Roh, S & Shapiro, MA (2015) Acknowledging individual responsibility while emphasizing social determinants in narratives to promote obesity-reducing public policy: a randomized experiment. PloS one 10, e0117565.
54. Baker, P, Gill, T, Friel, S et al. (2017) Generating political priority for regulatory interventions targeting obesity prevention: an Australian case study. Soc Sci Med 177, 141149.
55. Vallgarda, S, Holm, L & Jensen, JD (2015) The Danish tax on saturated fat: why it did not survive. Eur J Clin Nutr 69, 223226.
56. Bowen, DJ, Barrington, WE & Beresford, SA (2015) Identifying the effects of environmental and policy change interventions on healthy eating. Annu Rev Public Health 36, 289306.
57. Sears, DO & Funk, CL (1991) The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 24, 191.
58. Hilton, S, Buckton, CH, Katikireddi, S et al. (2017) Who says what about sugar-sweetened beverage tax? Stakeholders’ framing of evidence: a newspaper analysis. Lancet 390, 44.
59. Mialon, M, Swinburn, B, Allender, S et al. (2016) Systematic examination of publicly-available information reveals the diverse and extensive corporate political activity of the food industry in Australia. BMC Public Health. Published online: 22 March 2016. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2955-7.


Pattern and correlates of public support for public health interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages

  • Ariane Bélanger-Gravel (a1) (a2), Sophie Desroches (a3) (a4), Isidora Janezic (a2), Marie-Claude Paquette (a5) and Philippe De Wals (a2) (a6)...


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed