↓ Skip to main content

Yes, The Government Should Tax Soft Drinks: Findings from a Citizens’ Jury in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Yes, The Government Should Tax Soft Drinks: Findings from a Citizens’ Jury in Australia
Published in
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, February 2014
DOI 10.3390/ijerph110302456
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole Moretto, Elizabeth Kendall, Jennifer Whitty, Joshua Byrnes, Andrew P. Hills, Louisa Gordon, Erika Turkstra, Paul Scuffham, Tracy Comans

Abstract

Taxation has been suggested as a possible preventive strategy to address the serious public health concern of childhood obesity. Understanding the public's viewpoint on the potential role of taxation is vital to inform policy decisions if they are to be acceptable to the wider community. A Citizens' Jury is a deliberative method for engaging the public in decision making and can assist in setting policy agendas. A Citizens' Jury was conducted in Brisbane, Australia in May 2013 to answer the question: Is taxation on food and drinks an acceptable strategy to the public in order to reduce rates of childhood obesity? Citizens were randomly selected from the electoral roll and invited to participate. Thirteen members were purposively sampled from those expressing interest to broadly reflect the diversity of the Australian public. Over two days, participants were presented with evidence on the topic by experts, were able to question witnesses and deliberate on the evidence. The jurors unanimously supported taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks but generally did not support taxation on processed meats, snack foods and foods eaten/ purchased outside the home. They also supported taxation on snack foods on the condition that traffic light labelling was also introduced. Though they were not specifically asked to deliberate strategies outside of taxation, the jurors strongly recommended more nutritional information on all food packaging using the traffic light and teaspoon labelling systems for sugar, salt and fat content. The Citizens' Jury suggests that the general public may support taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks to reduce rates of obesity in children. Regulatory reforms of taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks and improved labelling of nutritional information on product packaging were strongly supported by all members of the jury. These reforms should be considered by governments to prevent childhood obesity and the future burden on society from the consequences of obesity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 167 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 16%
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Other 10 6%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 48 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Social Sciences 18 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 58 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,757,624
of 25,436,226 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
#3,211
of 31,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,396
of 235,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
#19
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,436,226 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,883 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 235,960 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.