Public Support for the Imposition of a Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and the Determinants of Such Support in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. In terms of sample selection and statistical processing, I have no remarks, although telephone interviews have many disadvantages, I recognize that this is one of the research methods.

I haven't seen subheads like "bacground", "methods", "results" and "conclusion" appear in the ABSTRACT. I propose to extend the description of research results and conclusions of the studies.

The market for sweetened beverages in Spain has not been adequately delineated. It would be interesting to supplement the market data with the structure of the beverage market, popular brands, average sugar content in sweetened beverages, consumption models, packaging sizes and the impact of advertising on society, and expenditure on advertising beverages vs. expenditure on social campaigns .
A discussion on the "sugar tax" and the ban on the sale of sweetened sodas in schools would also be an appropriate complement.
The study was conducted in Septempber 2018, i.e. more than three years ago - there are no references to events that could have had an impact on consumer attitudes. I believe that such a supplement to the review of legal requirements and perhaps other research on this topic would give a sense of up-to-date content.

Extending the introduction would definitely increase the scientific significance of this study. Strong conclusions set against the background of Europe would make it possible to highlight the case of Spain. I leave the decision to the Authors. The article is correct, but not memorable.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors report the results of a cross-sectional study exploring the population reaction to possible imposition of tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Spain.

In my opinion, the topic is of interest, the methods are solid, and the manuscript is easy-to-read.

I have some minor comments:

• Could the authors better explain the grouping variable “social class”? It would help to contextualize the results.
• How the authors define regular or occasional consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages?
• In the results section, please always provide p-values and percentages; some of them are missing in paragraph 3.2.
• Could the authors explain the definition of “relative difference” in Table 3? It is never mentioned throughout the manuscript.
• Lines 195 and 196: “…18% and 24% lower… PR=0.82… PR=0.66 respectively”, I think it should be 18% and 34%, please revise since values are not concordant.
• In line 219, the support prevalence in Germany is missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for this valuable study on food-related taxes. Your results do not only shed light on the support of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Spain but also on how to communicate them successfully to get public support and acceptance. The implications for communicating the introduction of a tax could be highlighted more. But since the focus is more on acceptance, the presentation of the results is actually sufficient.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf