ArticleBMJ open2023
Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: a controlled interrupted time series analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modeling and empirical evidence of the impact of implementation of sugar sweetened-beverages tax to reduce non-communicable diseases prevalence: a systematic review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic review on fiscal policy interventions in nutrition.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Relationship between 39 dietary markers of ultra-processed food and incident depression: evidence from the prospective UK Biobank cohort study.European journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Ten-year trends in sugar-sweetened beverages consumption among Koreans, 2014-2023.Nutrition research and practice · 2026Article
- Integrating Policies that Enable Minimally Processed Foods with Policies that Restrict Ultra-Processed Foods for Obesity and Noncommunicable Disease Prevention.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Is there a healthy-food premium? A cross-sectional analysis of the UK online food delivery sector.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- How Have Alcohol Producers Changed the Alcohol Content of Their Products? A Descriptive Analysis of Reformulation in the Off-Trade Alcohol Market in Great Britain, 2018-2025.Drug and alcohol review · 2026Article
- Reduced meat and dairy consumption improves health, environmental and most nutritional outcomes without increasing diet costs among Scottish adults.Nature food · 2026Article
- The distribution of school-aged adolescents' free sugar intake across the day: A cross-sectional study.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- The case for mandatory reporting to enable targets for healthy and environmentally sustainable food: means, motive and opportunity.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Reduction in sugar intake after the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland: a difference-in-differences analysis.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- 'Give Up Loving Pop': reimagining oral health promotion through sport, social practice, and prevention.British dental journal · 2026Article
- A systematic scoping review of adult obesity policy actions and weight-related services in a region of the United Kingdom using the behaviour change wheel.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Estimating the cost of not setting the Health Promotion Levy at 20% in South Africa: an extended cost-effectiveness analysis.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Breaking the obesity-cancer link: assessing European school-based and complementary obesity-prevention strategies and their implementation obstacles.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Changes in out-of-home food purchasing following the introduction of England's calorie labelling regulations: a population-level controlled interrupted time series analysis.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Strategic decoupling through legitimacy: the sustainability-innovation gap in the food processing sector and its health implications.Globalization and health · 2025Article
- Trends in childhood obesity for upper tier local authorities in England between 2007/08 and 2023/24: a latent trajectory analysis.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Exploring the contribution of risk factors on major illness: a microsimulation study in England, 2023-2043.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Calorie labelling regulations in England: menu change not behaviour change?Public health nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine changes in household purchases of drinks 1 year after implementation of the UK soft drinks industry levy (SDIL).
designControlled interrupted time series.
participantsHouseholds reporting their purchasing to a market research company (average weekly n=22 091), March 2014 to March 2019.
interventionA two-tiered tax levied on soft drinks manufacturers, announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018. Drinks with ≥8 g sugar/100 mL (high tier) are taxed at £0.24/L, drinks with ≥5 to <8 g sugar/100 mL (low tier) are taxed at £0.18/L.
main outcome measuresAbsolute and relative differences in the volume of, and amount of sugar in, soft drinks categories, all soft drinks combined, alcohol and confectionery purchased per household per week 1 year after implementation.
resultsIn March 2019, compared with the counterfactual, purchased volume of high tier drinks decreased by 140.8 mL (95% CI 104.3 to 177.3 mL) per household per week, equivalent to 37.8% (28.0% to 47.6%), and sugar purchased in these drinks decreased by 16.2 g (13.5 to 18.8 g), or 42.6% (35.6% to 49.6%). Purchases of low tier drinks decreased by 170.5 mL (154.5 to 186.5 mL) or 85.8% (77.8% to 93.9%), with an 11.5 g (9.1 to 13.9 g) reduction in sugar in these drinks, equivalent to 87.8% (69.2% to 106.4%). When all soft drinks were combined irrespective of levy tier or eligibility, the volume of drinks purchased increased by 188.8 mL (30.7 to 346.9 mL) per household per week, or 2.6% (0.4% to 4.7%), but sugar decreased by 8.0 g (2.4 to 13.6 g), or 2.7% (0.8% to 4.5%). Purchases of confectionery and alcoholic drinks did not increase.
conclusionsCompared with trends before the SDIL was announced, 1 year after implementation, volume of all soft drinks purchased combined increased by 189 mL, or 2.6% per household per week. The amount of sugar in those drinks was 8 g, or 2.7%, lower per household per week. Further studies should determine whether and how apparently small effect sizes translate into health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18042742.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.