The Instrumental Role of Strategic Communication to Counter Industry Marketing Responses to Sugary Drink Taxes; Comment on “Understanding Marketing Responses to a Tax on Sugary Drinks: A Qualitative Interview Study in the United Kingdom, 2019”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

Policy Advocacy and Communication Division, Vital Strategies, New York City, NY, USA

Abstract

Strong sugary drink taxes are effective at reducing sugary drinks consumption. In response, the sugary drinks industry employs various marketing strategies to undermine the taxes to protect and maintain its customer base. In their recent article in this journal, Forde et al present a framework for understanding how sugary drinks companies use marketing for this purpose. In this commentary, we reflect on this framework by drawing from recent experiences of sugary drinks industry marketing responses. Further, we review the global evidence on the instrumental role that strategic communication can play in protecting strong taxes from industry responses. We make a case for strategic communication as a vital tool in promoting and protecting sugary drinks tax proposals, both prior to and after their introduction.

Keywords

References

  1. 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
  2. Andreyeva T, Marple K, Marinello S, Moore TE, Powell LM. Outcomes following taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(6):e2215276. doi:1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.15276
  3. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Manual on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation Policies to Promote Healthy Diets. Geneva: WHO; 2022.
  4. Alvarado M, Penney TL, Unwin N, Murphy MM, Adams J. Evidence of a health risk 'signalling effect' following the introduction of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Food Policy. 2021;102:102104. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2021.102104
  5. Colchero MA, Popkin BM, Rivera JA, Ng SW. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ. 2016;352:h6704. doi:1136/bmj.h6704
  6. James E, Lajous M, Reich MR. The politics of taxes for health: an analysis of the passage of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Mexico. Health Syst Reform. 2020;6(1):e1669122. doi:1080/23288604.2019.1669122
  7. Murukutla N, Cotter T, Wang S, et al. Results of a mass media campaign in South Africa to promote a sugary drinks tax. Nutrients. 2020;12(6):1878. doi:3390/nu12061878
  8. Christian D, Maharjan M, Kotov A, et al. How the "are we drinking ourselves sick?" Communication campaign built support for policy action on sugary drinks in Jamaica. Nutrients. 2022;14(14):2866. doi:3390/nu14142866
  9. Sheikh ZD, Branston JR, Gilmore AB. Tobacco industry pricing strategies in response to excise tax policies: a systematic review. Tob Control. 2021. doi:1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056630
  10. Chriqui JF, Sansone CN, Powell LM. The sweetened beverage tax in Cook County, Illinois: lessons from a failed effort. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(7):1009-1016. doi:2105/ajph.2020.305640
  11. Grummon AH, Roberto CA, Krieger JW. Is the association between beverage taxes and reductions in sales driven by communication of health consequences in addition to price increases? JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2032537. doi:1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32537
  12. 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
  13. Ponce J, Yuan H, Schillinger D, et al. Retailer perspectives on sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in the California Bay Area. Prev Med Rep. 2020;19:101129. doi:1016/j.pmedr.2020.101129
  14. 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

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 September 2022
  • Revise Date: 30 January 2023
  • Accept Date: 31 January 2023
  • First Publish Date: 01 February 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics