The 'sugar tax' in Bermuda: a mixed methods study of general population and key stakeholder perceptions.

Bermuda Discretionary foods tax Health tax Mixed-methods analysis Sugar tax

Journal

BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 08 2022
Historique:
received: 25 03 2022
accepted: 02 08 2022
entrez: 16 8 2022
pubmed: 17 8 2022
medline: 19 8 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Taxes on discretionary foods and sugar-sweetened beverages have emerged as a strategy for health promotion. Between 2018-2019, the Bermuda government introduced a phased tax on imported sugar-sweetened beverages, confectionery, products containing cocoa and pure sugar, and eliminated import duties on select healthy food items. The aim of this study was to conduct an mixed methods evaluation of perceptions of the tax among the general population and key stakeholders. We conducted a survey of the general population (N = 400), and semi-structured interviews with key informants (N = 14) from the government, food and beverage, and health sectors to understand awareness, acceptability, and perceived impact of the tax after implementation. Survey data was analysed using thematic analysis, summary statistics, and Chi-squared tests. Key informant interviews were analysed using the framework method. General population respondents had high awareness of the sugar tax (94%) but low awareness of the healthy food subsidy (32%). Most respondents (67%) felt the tax was not an appropriate way to motivate healthier consumption due to beliefs the tax would not be effective (44%), and because of the high price of healthy food (20%). However, nearly half (48%) reported consuming fewer taxed products, primarily for health reasons but also motivated by price increases. Key informants indicated there was high awareness but limited understanding of the tax policy. Informants expressed support for taxation as a health promotion strategy, conditional on policy implementation. The lack of clear price differentiation between taxed and un-taxed products and the absence of accompanying health education were key factors believed to affect the impact of the tax. No informants were aware of use of tax revenues for health purposes and tax revenue was reportedly re-directed to other priorities after implementation. There was high awareness, but limited acceptability of the Bermuda sugar tax as implemented. Clarity in the tax policy, appropriateness of the tax mechanism, and use of revenue in alignment with the tax aim are critical components for acceptance. The absence of complementary education and health promotion affected acceptance and may limit potential health impacts. The lessons learned in Bermuda can inform similar policies in other settings.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Taxes on discretionary foods and sugar-sweetened beverages have emerged as a strategy for health promotion. Between 2018-2019, the Bermuda government introduced a phased tax on imported sugar-sweetened beverages, confectionery, products containing cocoa and pure sugar, and eliminated import duties on select healthy food items. The aim of this study was to conduct an mixed methods evaluation of perceptions of the tax among the general population and key stakeholders.
METHODS
We conducted a survey of the general population (N = 400), and semi-structured interviews with key informants (N = 14) from the government, food and beverage, and health sectors to understand awareness, acceptability, and perceived impact of the tax after implementation. Survey data was analysed using thematic analysis, summary statistics, and Chi-squared tests. Key informant interviews were analysed using the framework method.
RESULTS
General population respondents had high awareness of the sugar tax (94%) but low awareness of the healthy food subsidy (32%). Most respondents (67%) felt the tax was not an appropriate way to motivate healthier consumption due to beliefs the tax would not be effective (44%), and because of the high price of healthy food (20%). However, nearly half (48%) reported consuming fewer taxed products, primarily for health reasons but also motivated by price increases. Key informants indicated there was high awareness but limited understanding of the tax policy. Informants expressed support for taxation as a health promotion strategy, conditional on policy implementation. The lack of clear price differentiation between taxed and un-taxed products and the absence of accompanying health education were key factors believed to affect the impact of the tax. No informants were aware of use of tax revenues for health purposes and tax revenue was reportedly re-directed to other priorities after implementation.
CONCLUSIONS
There was high awareness, but limited acceptability of the Bermuda sugar tax as implemented. Clarity in the tax policy, appropriateness of the tax mechanism, and use of revenue in alignment with the tax aim are critical components for acceptance. The absence of complementary education and health promotion affected acceptance and may limit potential health impacts. The lessons learned in Bermuda can inform similar policies in other settings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35974346
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13945-9
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13945-9
pmc: PMC9379233
doi:

Substances chimiques

Sugars 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1557

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 27;18(9):
pubmed: 33925290
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Aug;6(8):
pubmed: 34413076
Public Health Nutr. 2015 Oct;18(14):2679-88
pubmed: 25627337
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018 Jan/Feb;24(1):4-8
pubmed: 28257409
BMC Public Health. 2019 Nov 21;19(1):1553
pubmed: 31752787
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Sep 4;16(1):78
pubmed: 31484538
Milbank Q. 2019 Mar;97(1):74-90
pubmed: 30693564
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2020 Jun;52(6):626-631
pubmed: 31919006
Public Health Nutr. 2021 Jun;24(8):2354-2364
pubmed: 32495730
Tob Control. 2012 Mar;21(2):172-80
pubmed: 22345242
PLoS Med. 2020 Feb 11;17(2):e1003025
pubmed: 32045418
Health Promot Int. 2011 Mar;26(1):55-64
pubmed: 20739326
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
BMJ. 2016 Jan 06;352:h6904
pubmed: 26739899
BMC Public Health. 2017 Jun 19;17(1):583
pubmed: 28629470
Nutrients. 2020 Jun 23;12(6):
pubmed: 32586040
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 22;13(8):e0199337
pubmed: 30133438
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2022 Mar 31;19(1):38
pubmed: 35361251
BMC Public Health. 2020 Sep 3;20(1):1342
pubmed: 32883244
N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct 15;361(16):1599-605
pubmed: 19759377
Obes Rev. 2019 Sep;20(9):1187-1204
pubmed: 31218808
Yale J Biol Med. 2018 Jun 28;91(2):185-190
pubmed: 29955223
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2022 Jun 15;19(1):69
pubmed: 35705983
J Public Health Policy. 2013 Aug;34(3):403-23
pubmed: 23698157
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285

Auteurs

Kelsey K Case (KK)

School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London, W2 1PG, UK. k.case@imperial.ac.uk.

Elisa Pineda (E)

School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London, W2 1PG, UK.
Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation, Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Jack Olney (J)

Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation, Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Alexa Blair Segal (AB)

Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation, Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Franco Sassi (F)

Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation, Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH