Member Matters
Consumer perspective on taxes, warning labels and marketing bans applied to 100% juice and non-sugar sweetened beverages
19 June 2025
Many countries have policies to target the overconsumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), largely through sugar taxes. The inclusion of non-sugar sweetened beverages (NSSBs) or 100% juice in policies varies.
A recent Australian study (1) looked at what people think about different government policies that aim to reduce the number of sugar-sweetened beverages people consume. The research measured public support for three kinds of policies:
- Warning labels on beverage packaging (e.g. “high in sugar”)
- Banning advertising of beverages to children
- Introducing taxes on these beverages
They looked at public opinion on these policies in relation to SSBs, non-SSBs, and 100% fruit juice. SSBs included drinks with added sugar, including soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks, iced teas, natural mineral water, flavoured milks, and cordials.
The research surveyed nearly 2,900 adults from across Australia. Here’s what they found:
Support was strongest for policies targeting sugar-sweetened beverages.
- 83% supported warning labels
- 73% supported bans on advertising to children
- 56% supported taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages
People were also supportive of warning labels on non-sugar sweetened beverages with 82% agreeing with that idea. But fewer supported banning marketing of these beverages to children (60%), and even fewer supported taxes (39%).
Support dropped a lot for 100% fruit juice.
- 71% supported warning labels for juice
- Only 25% supported banning advertising juice to children
- Just 14% supported taxing juice
Who supports these policies?
The consumers surveyed most likely to support these policies were:
- Women
- Older adults
- People with higher education
- People living in less disadvantaged areas
- People who rarely consume sugar-sweetened beverages or non-sugar-sweetened (diet) beverages
In contrast, consumers surveyed who regularly drank sugar sweetened beverages or juice were much less supportive—especially when it came to taxes. Support was lower among those surveyed from disadvantaged communities and those with lower education, with the authors noting these are also the groups who tend to consume more sugar-sweetened beverages.
The authors state that the paper provides the following consumer insights for governments thinking about how to reduce consumption of sugar sweetened beverages and improve public health:
- Warning labels were the most popular option across all beverage types. Consumers surveyed seem to want clear, simple information on packaging that tells them if a beverage is high in sugar or contains non-nutritive (“artificial”) sweeteners.
- There’s less support for taxes and advertising bans, especially for beverages such as juice. This perception, the authors surmise, makes it more challenging for the government to build public support for regulations.
- Education is essential. Consumers need clearer information about the nutrition and health of beverages. The authors state that campaigns that explain “the risks” could help the public understand why stronger policies are needed.
- Policies need to be fair and accessible. Support was lower among those surveyed from disadvantaged communities and those with lower education. The authors state that these are also the groups who tend to consume more sugar-sweetened beverages. This means that policies must be paired with support—such as subsidies for healthier beverages (e.g. water) and targeted education campaigns.
Like any study, there are some things to keep in mind: the results were based on people’s self-reported answers, which may not always be accurate. The survey was done in one moment in time (2022), and people’s opinions might change, especially as the cost of living goes up. The reasons behind people’s support or opposition to policies weren’t explored—just the yes/no responses. Additionally, the survey was done online and in English, so people without internet access or limited English may not be represented.
The authors conclude by calling for governments to implement polices to reduce overconsumption of SSBs, starting with labelling, improved public understanding of the health risks, while making sure policies are fair for all groups through pairing with support such as subsides for healthier beverages.
Reference
(1) Miller C, Ettridge K, Kay E, Dono J. What about 100% juice and non-sugar sweeteners? A national study of support for taxes, labelling and marketing bans applied to sugary beverages, non-sugar sweetened beverages and 100% juice in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anzjph.2025.100238
