Strategic messaging to promote taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages: lessons from recent political campaigns.

Publisher: American Public Health Association Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 1254074 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1541-0048 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00900036 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Am J Public Health Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: Washington, DC : American Public Health Association
Original Publication: New York [etc.]

Beverages* ; Dietary Sucrose* ; Politics*; Taxes/*legislation & jurisprudence; California ; Cultural Competency ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/prevention & control ; Humans ; Interviews as Topic ; Obesity/prevention & control ; Policy ; Public Opinion

Objectives: This study explored the use of strategic messaging by proponents of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation to influence public opinion and shape the policy process, emphasizing the experiences in El Monte and Richmond, California, with SSB tax proposals in 2012.
Methods: We conducted 18 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders about the use and perceived effectiveness of messages supporting and opposing SSB taxation, knowledge sharing among advocates, message dissemination, and lessons learned from their messaging experiences.
Results: The protax messages most frequently mentioned by respondents were reinvesting tax revenue into health-related programs and linking SSB consumption to health outcomes such as obesity and diabetes. The most frequently mentioned antitax messages addressed negative economic effects on businesses and government restriction of personal choice. Factors contributing to perceived messaging success included clearly defining "sugar-sweetened beverage" and earmarking funds for obesity prevention, incorporating cultural sensitivity into messaging, and providing education about the health effects of SSB consumption.
Conclusions: Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation has faced significant challenges in gaining political and public support. Future campaigns can benefit from insights gained through the experiences of stakeholders involved in previous policy debates.

JAMA. 2010 Jan 20;303(3):235-41. (PMID: 20071471)
Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Aug;84(2):274-88. (PMID: 16895873)
Diabetes Care. 2010 Nov;33(11):2477-83. (PMID: 20693348)
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Feb;44(2):158-63. (PMID: 23332333)
JAMA. 2012 Feb 1;307(5):483-90. (PMID: 22253364)
Pediatrics. 2006 Mar;117(3):673-80. (PMID: 16510646)
Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Sep-Oct;28(5):w822-31. (PMID: 19635784)
Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1758-72. (PMID: 17286625)
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):372-81. (PMID: 19056548)
N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 11;367(15):1397-406. (PMID: 22998340)
N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 30;360(18):1805-8. (PMID: 19357400)
Commun Methods Meas. 2011 Mar 4;5(1):48-75. (PMID: 25568663)
N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 11;367(15):1407-16. (PMID: 22998339)
Pediatrics. 2008 Jun;121(6):e1604-14. (PMID: 18519465)
Pediatrics. 2011 Jul;128(1):132-45. (PMID: 21690111)
N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct 15;361(16):1599-605. (PMID: 19759377)
Am J Public Health. 2013 Jun;103(6):e92-8. (PMID: 23597354)

0 (Dietary Sucrose)

Date Created: 20140315 Date Completed: 20140602 Latest Revision: 20220316

20240104

PMC3987612

10.2105/AJPH.2013.301679

24625177