Contextual Factors That May Impact on the Development and Implementation of the Sugary Drinks Policy; Comment on “Understanding Marketing Responses to a Tax on Sugary Drinks: A Qualitative Interview Study in the United Kingdom, 2019”

Document Type : Commentary


1 Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain

2 CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain


Forde et al proposed an interesting framework to understand marketing response to a tax in sugary drinks based on stakeholder interviews. Sugary drinks regulation can lead to various strategies in the industry’s marketing activity. That is, it can either result in the industry introducing no changes or it can lead to changes, which can conflict or align with public health objectives. The importance of Forde and colleagues’ analysis lies in the potential for governments to anticipate the industry’s reaction to the legislation and the need of drivers to enable both big and small companies to follow the rules. Governments must not forget the importance of other contextual factors that will have an impact both on the development and implementation of this type of policies and on possible responses that could mitigate their impact such as public acceptance, the influence of mass media and corporate activities aimed at influencing policy.


  1. World Health Organization (WHO). Fiscal Policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases: Technical Meeting Report, 5-6 May 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2015.
  2. Redondo M, Hernández-Aguado I, Lumbreras B. The impact of the tax on sweetened beverages: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018;108(3):548-563. doi:1093/ajcn/nqy135
  3. His Majesty's Treasury (HM Treasury). Soft Drinks Industry Levy Comes into Effect: The 'Sugar Tax' Will Help to Reduce Sugar in Soft Drinks and Tackle Childhood Obesity. HM Treasury; 2018.
  4. Forde H, Penney TL, White M, Levy L, Greaves F, Adams J. Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(11):2618-2629. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.5465
  5. Bandy LK, Scarborough P, Harrington RA, Rayner M, Jebb SA. Reductions in sugar sales from soft drinks in the UK from 2015 to 2018. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):20. doi:1186/s12916-019-1477-4
  6. Pell D, Mytton O, Penney TL, et al. Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: controlled interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2021;372:n254. doi:1136/bmj.n254
  7. Pell D, Penney TL, Mytton O, et al. Anticipatory changes in British household purchases of soft drinks associated with the announcement of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy: a controlled interrupted time series analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17(11):e1003269. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1003269
  8. Adams J, Pell D, Penney TL, Hammond D, Vanderlee L, White M. Public acceptability of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: repeat cross-sectional analysis of the International Food Policy Study (2017-2019). BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e051677. doi:1136/bmjopen-2021-051677
  9. Wright A, Smith KE, Hellowell M. Policy lessons from health taxes: a systematic review of empirical studies. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):583. doi:1186/s12889-017-4497-z
  10. Public Health England. Sugar Reduction: The Evidence for Action. Public Health England; 2015.
  11. Colchero MA, Guerrero-López CM, Molina M, Rivera JA. Beverages sales in Mexico before and after implementation of a sugar sweetened beverage tax. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163463. doi:1371/journal.pone.0163463
  12. Buckton CH, Patterson C, Hyseni L, et al. The palatability of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: a content analysis of newspaper coverage of the UK sugar debate. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0207576. doi:1371/journal.pone.0207576
  13. George A. Not so sweet refrain: sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, industry opposition and harnessing the lessons learned from tobacco control legal challenges. Health Econ Policy Law. 2019;14(4):509-535. doi:1017/s1744133118000178
  14. Lauber K, Rippin H, Wickramasinghe K, Gilmore AB. Corporate political activity in the context of sugar-sweetened beverage tax policy in the WHO European Region. Eur J Public Health. 2022;32(5):786-793. doi:1093/eurpub/ckac117
  15. Hernández-Aguado I, Chilet-Rosell E. Pathways of undue influence in health policy-making: a main actor's perspective. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2018;72(2):154-159. doi:1136/jech-2017-209677
  16. Lee K, Freudenberg N. Public health roles in addressing commercial determinants of health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2022;43:375-395. doi:1146/annurev-publhealth-052220-020447
  17. Mialon M. An overview of the commercial determinants of health. Global Health. 2020;16(1):74. doi:1186/s12992-020-00607-x
  18. Mialon M, Ho M, Carriedo A, Ruskin G, Crosbie E. Beyond nutrition and physical activity: food industry shaping of the very principles of scientific integrity. Global Health. 2021;17(1):37. doi:1186/s12992-021-00689-1
  19. World Health Organization (WHO). Draft Approach on the Prevention and Management of Conflicts of Interests in the Policy Development and Implementation of Nutrition Programs at Country Level. Geneve: WHO; 2017.

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 01 February 2023
  • Receive Date: 29 September 2022
  • Revise Date: 26 January 2023
  • Accept Date: 30 January 2023
  • First Publish Date: 01 February 2023