Sweet Talk: A Qualitative Study Exploring Attitudes towards Sugar, Sweeteners and Sweet-Tasting Foods in the United Kingdom.

Claudia S Tang, Monica Mars, Janet James, Kees de Graaf, Katherine M Appleton
Author Information
  1. Claudia S Tang: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole House, Talbot Campus, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK. ORCID
  2. Monica Mars: Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University & Research, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE Wageningen, The Netherlands. ORCID
  3. Janet James: Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth House, Lansdowne Campus, Bournemouth BH1 3LH, UK. ORCID
  4. Kees de Graaf: Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University & Research, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE Wageningen, The Netherlands.
  5. Katherine M Appleton: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole House, Talbot Campus, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK. ORCID

Abstract

Worldwide initiatives currently aim to reduce free sugar intakes, but success will depend on consumer attitudes towards sugar and the alternatives. This work aimed to explore attitudes towards sugar, sweeteners and sweet-tasting foods, towards consumption and related policies, in a sample of the general public of the UK. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with 34 adults (7 males, ages: 18-65 years). Thematic analysis identified six themes: 'Value' (e.g., pleasure, emotions), 'Angle' (e.g., disinterest), 'Personal Relevance' (to be concerned and/or change one's own behavior), 'Personal Responsibility' (one has an active relationship with these food items), 'Understanding' (the acquisition, comprehension and application of information) and 'It's Not Up to Me' (a passive approach, because intake is subjected to other factors). Both positive and negative attitudes towards sugar, sweeteners and sweet-tasting foods were expressed in all themes. Participants also reported varied engagement with and motivations towards all food items, with implications for intakes. Suggested challenges and potential strategies for reducing free sugar intakes highlighted the need for differing approaches. Future work should assess associations between attitudes and intakes. For greatest population benefit, evidence of the dominant attitudes in those in greatest need of reduced free sugar intakes would be of value.

Keywords

References

  1. Appetite. 2006 Sep;47(2):187-95 [PMID: 16784795]
  2. PLoS One. 2019 May 15;14(5):e0215127 [PMID: 31091228]
  3. Acta Pharm. 2019 Dec 1;69(4):497-510 [PMID: 31639089]
  4. Qual Health Res. 2013 Sep;23(9):1276-84 [PMID: 23925406]
  5. Lancet. 2001 Aug 11;358(9280):483-8 [PMID: 11513933]
  6. Appetite. 2018 Aug 1;127:303-323 [PMID: 29772293]
  7. Int J Obes (Lond). 2021 Mar;45(3):464-478 [PMID: 33168917]
  8. Obes Rev. 2020 Jul;21(7):e13020 [PMID: 32216045]
  9. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 03;11:616 [PMID: 32719623]
  10. Proc Nutr Soc. 2017 Aug;76(3):316-327 [PMID: 27903310]
  11. Health Educ Behav. 2015 Oct;42(5):677-86 [PMID: 25794520]
  12. Eat Behav. 2006 Nov;7(4):342-7 [PMID: 17056410]
  13. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2016 Apr;29(2):225-40 [PMID: 26453428]
  14. Am J Health Promot. 2015 Nov-Dec;30(2):101-8 [PMID: 25372240]
  15. Acad Pediatr. 2019 Sep - Oct;19(7):748-755 [PMID: 30677540]
  16. Appetite. 2001 Dec;37(3):225-30 [PMID: 11895323]
  17. Appetite. 2018 Jul 1;126:185-194 [PMID: 29634988]
  18. Appetite. 2012 Dec;59(3):912-20 [PMID: 22841815]
  19. Appetite. 2006 May;46(3):332-6 [PMID: 16546294]
  20. Appetite. 2008 Jan;50(1):1-11 [PMID: 17707947]
  21. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jan 31;16(3): [PMID: 30709042]
  22. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Jul;100(1):65-79 [PMID: 24808490]
  23. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Mar;58(3):420-8 [PMID: 14985679]
  24. Int J Pediatr. 2014;2014:819872 [PMID: 25435883]
  25. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e57873 [PMID: 23460912]
  26. Public Health Ethics. 2019 Jun 24;12(2):145-157 [PMID: 31384303]
  27. J Health Psychol. 2020 May 20;:1359105320916540 [PMID: 32431165]
  28. BMJ. 2012 Jan 15;346:e7492 [PMID: 23321486]
  29. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Apr 01;16(7): [PMID: 30939732]
  30. Food Chem Toxicol. 2017 Sep;107(Pt A):302-317 [PMID: 28689062]
  31. Eur J Public Health. 2015 Jun;25(3):472-6 [PMID: 25344963]
  32. Eat Behav. 2018 Dec;31:80-87 [PMID: 30195189]
  33. Foods. 2019 May 27;8(5): [PMID: 31137800]
  34. J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1214S-1218S [PMID: 19420346]
  35. Appetite. 2005 Jun;44(3):299-308 [PMID: 15894404]
  36. Physiol Behav. 2016 Oct 1;164(Pt B):432-437 [PMID: 27174610]
  37. J Dent Res. 2014 Jan;93(1):8-18 [PMID: 24323509]

Grants

  1. N/A/Bournemouth University
  2. N/A/Wageningen University and Research

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0sugartowardsintakesattitudesfreeworksweetenerssweet-tastingfoodsgroupsanalysiseg'PersonalfooditemsneedgreatestWorldwideinitiativescurrentlyaimreducesuccesswilldependconsumeralternativesaimedexploreconsumptionrelatedpoliciessamplegeneralpublicUKFocusinterviewsconducted34adults7malesages:18-65yearsThematicidentifiedsixthemes:'Value'pleasureemotions'Angle'disinterestRelevance'concernedand/orchangeone'sbehaviorResponsibility'oneactiverelationship'Understanding'acquisitioncomprehensionapplicationinformation'It'sMe'passiveapproachintakesubjectedfactorspositivenegativeexpressedthemesParticipantsalsoreportedvariedengagementmotivationsimplicationsSuggestedchallengespotentialstrategiesreducinghighlighteddifferingapproachesFutureassessassociationspopulationbenefitevidencedominantreducedvalueSweetTalk:QualitativeStudyExploringAttitudesSugarSweetenersSweet-TastingFoodsUnitedKingdomfocusperceptionsqualitativeresearchsweettastesweetnessthematic

Similar Articles

Cited By