Oral Presentation ANZOS-OSSANZ-AOCO Joint Annual Scientific Meeting 2017

Receptivity of the Australian community to sugary drink policy interventions: Results from a national survey (#175)

Caroline Miller 1 2 , Joanne Dono 3 , Kerry Ettridge 3 , Melanie Wakefield 4 , Simone Pettigrew 5 , John Coveney 6 , Gary Wittert 1 , Sarah Durkin 4 , David Roder 7 , Jane Martin 8
  1. University of Adelaide , Adelaide, SA, Australia
  2. SAHMRI, Adelaide, SA, Australia
  3. Population Health Research Group, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, SA, Australia
  4. Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. School of Psychology, Curtin University , Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  6. Flinders University , Adelaide, SA, Australia
  7. School of Population Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  8. Obesity Policy Coalition, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Introduction:

Sugary drinks contribute excess added sugars to the diet which is associated with weight gain and obesity and has direct causal links to insulin resistance, Type II diabetes and tooth decay. National and international health agencies are calling for a range of educative and policy interventions to reduce population-level consumption of sugary drinks. Policy reform will face strong industry opposition therefore it is essential that there is community engagement and support.

Methods:

Support for various policy approaches to curb sugary drink consumption was examined using a national survey of adults aged 18 years and over administered via Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews. The survey was conducted between February and April 2017 and random digit dialling of landline and mobile phones was used to obtain a nationally representative sample of 3430.

Results:

Preliminary results indicate that there was majority support (i.e. somewhat or strongly in favour) for all 10 policy interventions that were presented, including having text warning labels about health risks on bottles of sugary drinks (88% in favour) and the Government taxing drinks that are high in added sugar (60% in favour). Policy support was consistently higher among those believing that daily sugary drink consumption leads to health consequences than those who did not (e.g., 89% vs 85% for health-based text warning label policy; 65% vs 47% for supporting tax policy). Support was also higher for each of the proposed policy interventions among those with lower sugary drink consumption levels (none and 1-6 times per week) than those consuming higher amounts (7 or more times per week).

Conclusion:

These findings indicate that the Australian community is receptive to various forms of policy intervention. Furthermore, levels of policy support may increase with improved community awareness of the health risks associated with excess sugary drink consumption.