Skip to main content

Table 2 Differences across countries in the perception of each beverage category as “unhealthy” (2018–2021)

From: Perceived healthiness of sugary drinks and related social norms among adults in five countries: evidence from the International Food Policy Study

 

Regular soft drinksa(n = 70 367)

100% juice (n = 8577)

Diet soft drinks (n = 8704)

Energy drinks (n = 8406)

Sports drinks (n = 8009)

Chocolate milk (n = 8048)

Iced tea (n = 8094)

Specialty coffee (n = 8193)

 

AOR(99%CI)

p

AOR(99%CI)

p

AOR(99%CI)

p

AOR(99%CI)

p

AOR(99%CI)

p

AOR(99%CI)

p

AOR(99%CI)

p

AOR(99%CI)

p

Australia vs. Mexicob

2.69 (2.35;3.09)

< 0.001

0.91 (0.73;1.15)

0.297

1.49 (1.11;1.99)

0.001

1.81 (1.22;2.67)

< 0.001

4.03 (3.16;5.12)

< 0.001

3.20 (2.49;4.11)

< 0.001

1.50 (1.19;1.89)

< 0.001

2.92 (2.27;3.75)

< 0.001

Australia vs. UK

1.37 (1.19;1.58)

< 0.001

1.46 (1.19;1.79)

< 0.001

1.93 (1.49;2.50)

< 0.001

1.11 (0.74;1.65)

0.520

0.80 (0.62;1.02)

0.019

1.87 (1.49;2.36)

< 0.001

2.08 (1.67;2.59)

< 0.001

1.41 (1.11;1.80)

< 0.001

Australia vs. US

2.34 (2.06;2.67)

< 0.001

2.90 (2.31;3.65)

< 0.001

1.45 (1.11;1.90)

< 0.001

1.73 (1.20;2.50)

< 0.001

3.93 (3.12;4.94)

< 0.001

4.51 (3.57;5.71)

< 0.001

3.11 (2.48;3.90)

< 0.001

1.15 (0.90;1.48)

0.137

Australia vs. Canada

1.01 (0.86;1.17)

0.926

2.12 (1.71;2.63)

< 0.001

0.86 (0.64;1.15)

0.177

0.70 (0.45;1.11)

0.046

1.60 (1.27;2.01)

< 0.001

2.84 (2.26;3.56)

< 0.001

0.75 (0.60;0.94)

0.001

0.85 (0.66;1.11)

0.117

Mexico vs. UK

0.51 (0.45;0.58)

< 0.001

1.60 (1.28;2.01)

< 0.001

1.30 (0.99;1.70)

0.012

0.61 (0.42;0.89)

0.001

0.20 (0.15;0.26)

< 0.001

0.59 (0.46;0.74)

< 0.001

1.39 (1.10;1.75)

< 0.001

0.48 (0.38;0.62)

< 0.001

Mexico vs. US

0.87 (0.78;0.98)

0.002

3.18 (2.49;4.07)

< 0.001

0.98 (0.74;1.29)

0.817

0.96 (0.68;1.34)

0.743

0.98 (0.77;1.23)

0.787

1.41 (1.12;1.78)

< 0.001

2.08 (1.65;2.62)

< 0.001

0.40 (0.31;0.51)

< 0.001

Mexico vs. Canada

0.37 (0.32;0.43)

< 0.001

2.32 (1.83;2.95)

< 0.001

0.58 (0.43;0.78)

< 0.001

0.39 (0.25;0.60)

< 0.001

0.40 (0.31;0.50)

< 0.001

0.89 (0.70;1.12)

0.191

0.50 (0.39;0.64)

< 0.001

0.29 (0.22;0.38)

< 0.001

UK vs. US

1.71 (1.59;1.94)

< 0.001

1.99 (1.58;2.51)

< 0.001

0.75 (0.59;0.96)

0.003

1.57 (1.09;2.25)

0.001

4.93 (3.84;6.32)

< 0.001

2.41 (1.92;3.02)

< 0.001

1.50 (1.19;1.88)

< 0.001

0.82 (0.64;1.05)

0.036

UK vs. Canada

0.73 (0.63;0.85)

< 0.001

1.45 (1.16;1.81)

< 0.001

0.44 (0.34;0.58)

< 0.001

0.64 (0.40;1.01)

0.013

2.01 (1.56;2.58)

< 0.001

1.51 (1.21;1.89)

< 0.001

0.36 (0.29;0.46)

< 0.001

0.60 (0.46;0.79)

< 0.001

US vs. Canada

0.43 (0.37;0.49)

< 0.001

0.73 (0.57;0.93)

0.001

0.59 (0.45;0.79)

< 0.001

0.41 (0.26;0.62)

< 0.001

0.41 (0.32;0.51)

< 0.001

0.63 (0.50;0.79)

< 0.001

0.24 (0.19;0.31)

< 0.001

0.74 (0.56;0.97)

0.004

  1. Abbreviations: UK United Kingdom, US United States, AOR Adjusted odds ratio, CI Confidence interval
  2. a Each model was adjusted for year, and sociodemographic variables including age, ethnicity, sex, perceived income adequacy, education, and the presence of a child under 18 at home
  3. b Second listed country is the reference country
Back to article page

Nutrition Journal

ISSN: 1475-2891

Contact us