Modeling the Impact of Restricting Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages from SNAP Purchases on Children's Consumption and Risk of Dental Caries and Obesity

Are Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Restrictions on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Effective in Reducing Purchase or Consumption? A Systematic Review

The participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) consume greater amounts of sugar and sweetened beverages (SSBs) compared to non-eligible individuals, which could result in potential negative health outcomes. This can be attributed to the lack of restrictions on SSB purchases with SNAP benefits. In view of the increasing calls from advocates and policymakers to restrict the purchase of SSBs with SNAP benefits, we performed a systematic review to assess its impact towards SSB purchases and consumption. We searched articles from five databases-Cochrane, EBSCO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed-and selected seven studies, four of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three were simulation modeling studies. All three simulation studies and one RCT reported outcomes in terms of consumption, while the other three RCTs reported outcomes in terms of purchases. All seven studies found that an SSB restriction led to a decrease in SSB consumption or purchases, with six studies reporting significant results. Nonetheless, limitations exist. These include limited studies on this subject, potential workarounds circumventing SSB restrictions, like making purchases using personal cash, potentially differed estimated effects when combined with incentives or other initiatives, and the limited geographical scope among the selected RCTs.

Effectiveness and Policy Determinants of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes

Sugar consumption is on the rise globally with detrimental (oral) health effects. There is ample evidence that sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes can efficiently reduce sugar consumption. However, evidence alone is seldom enough to implement a policy. In this article, we present a narrative synthesis of evidence, based on real-world SSB tax evaluations, and we combine this with lessons from policy development case studies. This article is structured according to the Health Policy Analysis Triangle, which identifies a policy's content and process and important contextual factors. SSB tax policy content needs to be coupled to existing problems and public sentiment, which depend on more aspects than aspects related to (oral) health alone. Whether or not to include artificially sweetened beverages, therefore, is not solely a matter of showing the evidence of their oral health impact but also dependent on the stated aim of a tax and public sentiment toward tax policies in general. SSB taxes also need to be in line with existing tax and decision-making rules. Earmarking revenue for specific (health promotion) purposes may therefore be less straightforward as it might appear. The policy process of creating context-sensitive SSB tax policy content is not easy either. Advocacy coalitions need to be formed early in the process, and stamina, expertise, and flexibility are required to get a SSB tax adopted in a specific community. This requires a meticulously considered SSB tax structure implementation process. Oral health professionals who want to lead the way in advocating for SSB taxes should realize that evidence-based arguments on potential effectiveness alone will not be enough to realize change. The oral health community can learn important lessons from other "doctor-activists" such as pulmonologists, who have successfully advocated for higher tobacco taxes by being visible in the public debate with clear messaging and robust policy proposals.