To measure the effects of health-related food taxes on the environmental impact of consumer food purchases in a virtual supermarket.

This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomly assigned to a control condition with regular food prices (n 152), an experimental condition with a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax (n 131) or an experimental condition with a nutrient profiling tax based on Nutri-Score (n 112). Participants were instructed to undertake their typical weekly grocery shopping for their households. Primary outcome measures were three environmental impact indicators: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land use and blue water use per household per week. Data were analysed using linear regression analyses.

Three-dimensional virtual supermarket.

Dutch adults (≥ 18 years) who were responsible for grocery shopping in their household (n 395).

GHG emissions (–7·6 kg CO2-eq; 95 % CI –12·7, –2·5) and land use (–3·9 m2/year; 95 % CI –7·7, –0·2) were lower for the food purchases of participants in the nutrient profiling tax condition than for those in the control condition. Blue water use was not affected by the nutrient profiling tax. Moreover, the SSB tax had no significant effect on any of the environmental impact indicators.

A nutrient profiling tax based on Nutri-Score reduced the environmental impact of consumer food purchases. An SSB tax did not affect the environmental impact in this study.

To investigate whether financial constraint and perceived stress modify the effects of food-related taxes on the healthiness of food purchases.

Moderation analyses were conducted with data from a trial where participants were randomly exposed to: a control condition with regular food prices, an sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax condition with a two-tiered levy on the sugar content in SSB (5–8 g/100 ml: €0·21 per l and ≥8 g/100 ml: €0·28 per l) or a nutrient profiling tax condition where products with Nutri-Score D or E were taxed at a 20 percent level. Outcome measures were overall healthiness of food purchases (%), energy content (kcal) and SSB purchases (litres). Effect modification was analysed by adding interaction terms between conditions and self-reported financial constraint or perceived stress in regression models. Outcomes for each combination of condition and level of effect modifier were visualised.

Virtual supermarket.

Dutch adults (n 386).

Financial constraint or perceived stress did not significantly modify the effects of food-related taxes on the outcomes. Descriptive analyses suggest that in the control condition, the overall healthiness of food purchases was lowest, and SSB purchases were highest among those with moderate/high levels of financial constraint. Compared with the control condition, in a nutrient profiling tax condition, the overall healthiness of food purchases was higher and SSB purchases were lower, especially among those with moderate/high levels of financial constraint. Such patterns were not observed for perceived stress.

Further studies with larger samples are recommended to assess whether food-related taxes differentially affect food purchases of subgroups.

To investigate the effects of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax and a nutrient profiling tax on consumer food purchases in a virtual supermarket.

A randomised controlled trial was conducted with a control condition with regular food prices (n 152), an SSB tax condition (n 130) and a nutrient profiling tax condition based on Nutri-Score (n 112). Participants completed a weekly grocery shop for their household. Primary outcome measures were SSB purchases (ordinal variable) and the overall healthiness of the total shopping basket (proportion of total unit food items classified as healthy). The secondary outcome measure was the energy (kcal) content of the total shopping basket. Data were analysed using regression analyses.

Three-dimensional virtual supermarket.

Dutch adults aged ≥18 years are being responsible for grocery shopping in their household (n 394).

The SSB tax (OR = 1·62, (95 % CI 1·03, 2·54)) and the nutrient profiling tax (OR = 1·88, (95 %CI 1·17, 3·02)) increased the likelihood of being in a lower-level category of SSB purchases. The overall healthiness of the total shopping basket was higher (+2·7 percent point, (95 % CI 0·1, 5·3)), and the energy content was lower (−3301 kcal, (95 % CI −6425, −177)) for participants in the nutrient profiling tax condition than for those in the control condition. The SSB tax did not affect the overall healthiness and energy content of the total shopping basket (P > 0·05).

A nutrient profiling tax targeting a wide range of foods and beverages with a low nutritional quality seems to have larger beneficial effects on consumer food purchases than taxation of SSB alone.

To investigate the level of public acceptability of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax and its associated factors.

Participants completed an online self-administered questionnaire. Acceptability of an SSB tax was measured on a seven-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Associations between acceptability and sociodemographic factors, weight status, SSB consumption and beliefs about effectiveness (e.g., ‘An SSB tax would reduce people’s SSB consumption’), appropriateness, socioeconomic and economic benefit, implementation and trust were assessed using multivariable linear regression analyses.

The Netherlands.

Dutch adults aged ≥18 years representative of the Dutch population for age, sex, education level and location (n 500).

Of the participants, 40 % supported and 43 % opposed an SSB tax in general. Moreover, 42 % supported (43 % opposed) an SSB tax as a strategy to reduce overweight, and 55 % supported (32 % opposed) an SSB tax if revenue is used for health initiatives. Participants with a low education level (B = –0·82, 95 % CI –1·31, –0·32), overweight (B = –0·49, 95 % CI –0·89, –0·09), moderate or high SSB consumption (B = –0·86, 95 % CI –1·30, –0·43 and B = –1·01, 95 % CI –1·47, –0·56, respectively) and households with adolescents (B = –0·57, 95 % CI –1·09, –0·05) reported a lower acceptability of an SSB tax than their counterparts. Beliefs about effectiveness, appropriateness, socioeconomic and economic benefit, implementation and trust were associated with acceptability (P < 0·001).

Public acceptability of an SSB tax tends to be higher if revenue is used for health initiatives. The factors associated with acceptability should be taken into consideration.