Perceptions of Arguments in Support of Policies to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption Among Low-Income White, Black and Latinx Parents of Young Children

Abstract

Purpose: To test for racial/ethnic differences in perceived argument strength in favor of structural interventions to curb childhood obesity among lower-income parents of young children. Design: Cross-sectional, self-report. Setting: Online research panel, national sample of 1485 US adults in Fall 2019. Participants: Parents of children (age 0-5 years) with an annual income <$40,000, stratified by White, Black and/or Latinx race/ethnicity. Measures: SSB consumption, policy support, and strength of arguments in favor of marketing restrictions and a penny-per-ounce tax. Analysis: Descriptive statistics, multivariable OLS models. Results: Race/ethnicity was not a significant predictor of the perceived strength of a composite of marketing arguments (pBlack = 0.07; pLatinx = 0.10), however it was a significant predictor of the perceived strength of tax arguments (pBlack = 0.01; pLatinx = 0.01). Perceptions of strength of 12 of 35 discrete SSB tax arguments differed by race/ethnicity (p < .05). Arguments regarding industry targeting of Black children (marketing: pBlack < .001; pLatinx = .001; tax: pBlack < .001; pLatinx = .001), were particularly demonstrative of this difference. In contrast, arguments that these policies would provide support for parents (marketing: pBlack = 0.20; pLatinx = 0.84) and communities (tax: pBlack = 0.24; pLatinx = 0.58) were seen as strong arguments across groups. Conclusions: Black and Hispanic/Latinx parents may be more prepared to move toward SSB policy support than white parents. Emphasizing community benefits of policy may be effective in moving constituents toward policy support across groups.