What happens when sugar-sweetened beverage labelling and tax policies are extended to non-sugar sweetened beverages? A national study of Australians’ responses
4 affiliations
- 1Health Policy Centre, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute
- 2School of Public Health, Adelaide University
- 3College of Human Science and Culture, Flinders University Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing, Flinders University
- 4School of Psychology, Adelaide University
Abstract
Warning labels and taxes can effectively contribute to reducing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption as part of a comprehensive public health strategy, but may also result in substitution to alternative drinks, including to those with uncertain health effects (e.g., those with non-sugar substitutes). Participants of a nationally representative sample of Australian adults (18 + years) were randomly allocated to a hypothetical warning label ( n = 1,442) or 20% SSB tax ( n = 1,428) policy condition. Each policy was first applied to SSBs alone, then extended to include non-sugar sweetened beverages (NSSBs). Participants reported whether each policy would discourage consumption and indicated likely alternative drinks (NSSBs, 100% juice, low sugar, water). Around half of participants agreed that warning labels (56%) or an SSB tax (51%) would discourage their SSB consumption, with slightly lower agreement when policies were extended to NSSBs (44% for both). Across all scenarios, water was the most common intended alternative (68–70%), followed by 100% juice (53–58%), and NSSBs (43–46%, SSB-only policies). Those who regularly consumed alternative beverages were more likely to indicate they would switch to them in response to SSB policies, with similar patterns observed when policies targeted NSSBs. Overall, SSB labelling and taxes show potential for reducing SSB consumption and encouraging water consumption. However, substitution towards other beverages, such as NSSBs, remains a potential risk for many consumers. Extending beverage policies to incorporate NSSBs may help align consumer responses with public health objectives.
Related
- Understanding consumption patterns of sugar-sweetened beverages across stages of adolescence in Mumbai city, India: an exploratory cross-sectional study for insights to develop innovative sugar reduction strategies
- Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Childhood Obesity: A Life-Course Perspective
- Bittersweet: a multi-method qualitative analysis of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSB) tax discussion in the Nigerian media.
- Youth perspectives on sugar-sweetened beverages and the UK soft drinks industry levy: secondary analysis of focus group data using the theory of planned behaviour
- Food-Related Online Media Viewing (Mukbang and Cookbang) and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage and Artificially Sweetened Beverage Consumption Among Korean Adolescents: Using the 2025 Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey
BibTeX
@article{ettridge2026what,
title = {{What happens when sugar-sweetened beverage labelling and tax policies are extended to non-sugar sweetened beverages? A national study of Australians’ responses}},
author = {Kerry Ettridge and Enola Kay and Joanne Dono and Caroline Miller},
journal = {Frontiers in Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3389/fpubh.2026.1976473},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1976473/full},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - What happens when sugar-sweetened beverage labelling and tax policies are extended to non-sugar sweetened beverages? A national study of Australians’ responses
AU - Kerry Ettridge
AU - Enola Kay
AU - Joanne Dono
AU - Caroline Miller
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/04
JO - Frontiers in Public Health
DO - 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1976473
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1976473/full
AB - Warning labels and taxes can effectively contribute to reducing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption as part of a comprehensive public health strategy, but may also result in substitution to alternative drinks, including to those with uncertain health effects (e.g., those with non-sugar substitutes). Participants of a nationally representative sample of Australian adults (18 + years) were randomly allocated to a hypothetical warning label ( n = 1,442) or 20% SSB tax ( n = 1,428) policy condition. Each policy was first applied to SSBs alone, then extended to include non-sugar sweetened beverages (NSSBs). Participants reported whether each policy would discourage consumption and indicated likely alternative drinks (NSSBs, 100% juice, low sugar, water). Around half of participants agreed that warning labels (56%) or an SSB tax (51%) would discourage their SSB consumption, with slightly lower agreement when policies were extended to NSSBs (44% for both). Across all scenarios, water was the most common intended alternative (68–70%), followed by 100% juice (53–58%), and NSSBs (43–46%, SSB-only policies). Those who regularly consumed alternative beverages were more likely to indicate they would switch to them in response to SSB policies, with similar patterns observed when policies targeted NSSBs. Overall, SSB labelling and taxes show potential for reducing SSB consumption and encouraging water consumption. However, substitution towards other beverages, such as NSSBs, remains a potential risk for many consumers. Extending beverage policies to incorporate NSSBs may help align consumer responses with public health objectives.
SN - 2296-2565
ER -