THE EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX Baseline report: pre-implementation of the tax AUGUST 2018 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 SECTION 1 TAXED AND NON-TAXED BEVERAGE PRICES USING STORE AUDITS 9 Introduction Store audits Child cohort Adult survey: norms and attitudes Stakeholder interviews and focus groups Conclusions Next steps 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 Abstract Objective Methods Results 9 10 10 14 Discussion Future work Considerations for ongoing evaluation 23 24 24 Baseline beverage pricing by Sweetened Beverage Tax status Baseline beverage pricing by beverage tax status and beverage type Baseline beverage pricing across store types Baseline marketing Baseline snacks 14 14 16 21 22 SECTION 2 CHILD COHORT SURVEY: HEALTH BEHAVIORS 26 29 30 31 Abstract Objective Methods Results Child beverage consumption Child diet quality Parent beverage consumption Discussion Future work & considerations for ongoing evaluation SECTION 3 ADULT SURVEY: NORMS AND ATTITUDES Abstract Objective Methods Results 26 27 27 27 33 34 35 35 36 36 39 Perceptions of health and economic impacts of the tax and healthfulness of sugary beverages in Seattle:overall and according to income and race/ethnicity 39 Perceptions of health and economic impacts of the tax and healthfulness of sugary beverages in Seattle versus the comparison area 47 Discussion Future work Considerations for ongoing evaluation SECTION 4 PROCESS EVALUATION OF STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS Abstract Objective Methods 51 51 52 53 53 54 54 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 2 Results 56 Discussion Future work & considerations for ongoing evaluation 60 61 Key themes from focus groups and interviews 56 APPENDIX A EVALUATION TEAM STRUCTURE AND TEAM BIOGRAPHIES 62 APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 68 Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax Evaluation Team structure Biographies Acknowledgments Item 1 - Store audit survey instruments 63 63 67 69 i. Beverage store ii. Fast food iii. Grocery store 69 80 115 Item 2 - Child cohort survey instruments 204 Item 3 - Adult survey instruments Item 4 - Stakeholder instruments 227 241 i. Screening questionnaire ii. Dietary screener questionnaire iii. Child survey iv. Adult survey v. Household Information survey 204 207 213 217 221 APPENDIX C STORE DEFINITIONS APPENDIX D PRICING OF "GRAB-AND-GO" SIZE BEVERAGES 249 252 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction On June 6, 2017, the Seattle City Council passed Ordinance 125324 imposing a tax on engaging in the business of distributing sugar-sweetened beverages in Seattle. The tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is set at 1.75-cent-perounce and went into effect on January 1, 2018. Section 5B of the ordinance specifies that the “City Auditor shall contract with academic researchers to complete an annual evaluation of the effects of the tax. In contracting with academic researchers, the City Auditor should consider researchers with a proven track record of rigorous policy evaluation for impacts on behavior, health, and economic outcomes. A minimum of $500,000 per year for at least the first five years, beginning with the date of adoption of this ordinance, shall be dedicated to this evaluation. The evaluation shall assess, but not be limited to, the impact of the tax on 1) economic outcomes (such as household food expenditures, beverage prices and sales, jobs, and store revenues) and 2) health behaviors (such as dietary purchases and consumption), 3) intermediate health outcomes, and 4) identification and assessment of food deserts in the city, and 5) the effectiveness and efficiency of the foodbank network in the city. The evaluation shall also assess, but not be limited to, the process of implementing the tax, including perceptions of city residents and specifically low income households, food retailers, tax administrators, and city officials. The evaluator will collaborate with the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board to develop the evaluation. The evaluation will rely on data collected specifically for the purposes of the evaluation from populations in Seattle as well as outside Seattle to enable a rigorous comparison of trends in behavior, health, and economic outcomes as a result of this ordinance.” The Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) Evaluation Team (Appendix A) proposed a five-year evaluation that seeks to address all aspects outlined in the ordinance around evaluation. The evaluation capitalizes on existing administrative records, population surveys, and commercial data and collects data when necessary. This report describes findings from the baseline (pre-tax) evaluation activities that were time-sensitive, requiring original data collection in both Seattle and comparison areas before the tax went into effect in January 2018. The findings establish pre-tax measurements (unaffected by the tax), which we will compare to assessments conducted after tax implementation so that we can contrast changes over time in Seattle to those in the comparison areas. The baseline study components include 1) audits of select beverage and food prices and promotions in stores and restaurants that sell sugar-sweetened beverages, 2) surveys of beverage consumption and other diet-related behaviors among a cohort of children and parents, 3) surveys of norms and attitudes about a sugar-sweetened beverage tax and the perceived healthfulness of sugary beverages among adults, and 4) interviews and focus groups about perceptions of the sugar-sweetened beverages and implementation of the tax. (Figure 1) Here, we highlight the objectives, methods, and key findings from each component. We close this Executive Summary with conclusions from the baseline study and next steps for the evaluation of the Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax. Figure 1. Evaluation of the Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 4 Store audits Objective. The primary objective of the store audits is to determine the extent to which the tax on sugary beverages incurred by distributors is passed through to customers. A secondary objective is to determine whether promotions and marketing of taxed and untaxed beverages changes in response to the tax and whether prices of a select sample of other foods change. Information on both of these outcomes (prices and promotions/marketing) is vital to the interpretation of any findings about tax impacts on consumption. Methods. This component will use a pre-post cohort study design (the same stores will be followed over time) with a comparison area. This report provides details of the pre-tax data results. Retail audits were conducted in October - November of 2017. In Seattle, we audited 226 supermarkets, grocery stores, corner stores, gas stations, coffee shops, and counter service restaurants; in the comparison area (Federal Way, Kent, and Auburn), we audited 232 establishments across similar store and restaurant types. We selected a geographically balanced sample within the City of Seattle and within the comparison area, based on a list of 2016 Public Health - Seattle & King County (PHSKC) permitted permanent food establishments. To ensure that we included businesses representing small stores and counter service restaurants owned by people of color, we added a community-based sample of stores, drawn from a “minority-owned business” list and as recommended by community liaisons and members of the City of Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board. Key findings. Beverage pricing was mostly similar in Seattle and the comparison area at this baseline, indicating that our comparison area is a reasonable comparison for the city of Seattle in terms of beverage prices. Where prices did differ, Seattle tended to be more expensive than the comparison area. We found that all beverages, including both taxed and non-taxed beverages, were cheaper in larger stores as compared to smaller stores. In larger stores, diet beverages were often priced lower than sugar-sweetened beverages, and in smaller stores, diet beverages were priced higher than sugar-sweetened beverages. This finding by store size was also reflected in the presence of within store marketing; there was more marketing for untaxed beverages (diet or sugar-free) in large stores, and more marketing for taxed (sweetened) beverages in small stores. Child cohort Objective. The objective of the child cohort study is to evaluate the impact of Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax on children’s and parent’s beverage consumption and other aspects of children’s diet among low-income families living in Seattle versus those living in South King County (the comparison area). We focus on a low-income population for health equity reasons and because these populations average higher sugary beverage consumption and are more sensitive to price changes. The child cohort study will address a key gap in knowledge as no sugary beverage tax studies have evaluated the impacts among children. Methods. This component uses a pre-post cohort study design (same children/families followed over time) with a comparison area. This report details the pre-tax data findings. Surveys were used to collect information about child and parent beverage consumption, child diet quality, and household information. Surveys were offered online, in person, and via telephone in four languages (English, Somali, Spanish, and Vietnamese) and conducted between October 2017 and January 2018. We used convenience sampling and recruited participants at various venues (e.g., clinics, food banks, community events, and Facebook). Families were enrolled if they had incomes <312% Federal Poverty Level and a child between 7-10 or 12-17 years of age who consumed sugary drinks. The final sample included 271 Seattle participants and 256 comparison area participants. Key findings. The racially/ethnically diverse Seattle and comparison samples obtained were similar on some (e.g., child age, gender), but not all (e.g., race, household income) demographic characteristics. Across all individual beverage types, tap and bottled water had the highest average consumption for children and parents. The second highest consumption by beverage category was among beverages with added sugars that would be subject to the Sweetened Beverage Tax. Within this category, children’s consumption was highest for soda/pop with sugar and fruit-flavored drinks with sugar. Parent’s consumption within this beverage category differed, with prepared tea or coffee with sugar and soda/pop with sugar having the highest average consumption. The overall average consumption of sugary beverages that would be subject to the tax was higher among children and parents in the comparison area relative to children and parents in the Seattle sample. Sugar-added drinks not subject to Seattle's BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 5 Sweetened Beverage Tax were consumed the least on average. Within this beverage category, flavored milk was the beverage consumed most by children and tea or coffee with self-added sugar was the beverage consumed most by parents. We found similar patterns of child diet quality and average frequency of consumption for most foods assessed between the children in Seattle and the comparison area. Adult survey: norms and attitudes Objective. The primary objective of this component is to examine whether the implementation of the Sweetened Beverage Tax changes adults’ perceptions and attitudes around sugary beverage consumption and sugary beverage taxes. The public will likely experience increased exposure to information about sugary beverages and their health effects through heightened media attention during the course of adopting and implementing a tax. An unanswered question is whether this heightened attention could change the public’s perception of the health consequences and social acceptability of consuming sugary beverages, and that, in turn, this change could create a non-price pathway to reducing sugary beverage consumption. If this is the case, a tax may be associated with behavior change, even among those who are not sensitive to price increases. Methods. This component uses a cross-sectional, pre-post study design with a comparison area. This report includes details of the pre-tax results. The survey was offered online and via telephone in three languages (English, Spanish, and Vietnamese). To minimize exposure to the Seattle media market, we selected a comparison area comprised of the Minneapolis, Minnesota and the District of Columbia metropolitan area based on similar population demographic characteristics. Surveys of Seattle participants (N=851) were conducted between October and December 2017, while those in the comparison area (N=860) were completed between December 2017 and January 2018. Key findings. Seattle and the comparison area samples are well-matched on a number of demographic characteristics including gender and age. Despite the fact that there were some demographic differences by race and income between Seattle and the comparison area, perceptions of the tax and of sugary beverages were similar along many dimensions for Seattle and the comparison area. A majority of Seattle participants supported the Sweetened Beverage Tax and correspondingly, believed that the tax will help improve the health and wellbeing of children and the public’s health more generally. Most participants in Seattle perceived that the tax will not negatively affect small businesses nor result in job loss. Moreover, a majority of Seattle reported that they do not intend to cross-border shop for sugary beverages (to avoid the tax). Seattle participants believed that sugary beverage consumption is related to adverse health conditions, including dental health problems, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Aligned with these beliefs about the healthfulness of sugary beverages, reported consumption of sugary beverages in Seattle was lower than the comparison area and the national average. We observed some differences in perceptions of the Sweetened Beverage Tax and its benefits and consequences by household income and race/ethnicity among Seattle participants. Support for the tax was higher among higher-income participants (defined as ≥ 260% FPL) than low-income participants and lowest among non-Hispanic Black participants. Stakeholder interviews and focus groups Objective. The objective of the stakeholder interviews and focus groups was to understand the pre-tax perceptions about the Sweetened Beverage Tax from the following perspectives: Seattle residents and specifically lower-income households, beverage retailers, tax administrators, and city officials. Methods. This component uses a qualitative study design. Interview guides included questions to understand perceptions about 1) sugary beverage consumption, 2) the Sweetened Beverage Tax and use of its revenues, 3) implementation of the Sweetened Beverage Tax, and 4) anticipated consumer and business impacts. This report details the data collected between October 2017 and February 2018 to understand pre-tax/early tax perceptions and implementation. The final sample of participants (consumers, businesses, and City of Seattle staff/ officials) included six focus groups (two adult consumer groups, three youth consumer groups, and one group of restaurateurs) and 16 one-on-one interviews (two community organizations, four distributors/manufacturers, five retailers, and five City of Seattle staff and elected officials). One adult focus group was conducted in Somali and English while all other data were collected in English. Key findings. Consumer and business participants shared the perspective that consumption of sugary beverages BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 6 was common and that most sugary beverages were unhealthy. After the tax, some consumers anticipated they would be less inclined to buy sugary beverages, while other consumers said they would consider cross-border shopping for sugary beverages to avoid the tax. Knowledge about the Sweetened Beverage Tax varied, with Councilmembers, distributors, and a health advocacy organization being the most knowledgeable. Communication about the tax was seen as both a facilitator and a barrier. While distributors and some restaurateurs were aware of the tax and received communication from the City of Seattle about the tax, they and other businesses wanted more information about how the implementation would impact their type of business. Business participants varied on whether they would absorb or pass the tax onto clients and consumers, with one distributor, small retailers, and some restaurateurs expressing they would pass the tax onto others. Councilmembers expressed concerns about the potential negative impact of the tax on small businesses and job loss, which was the impetus for providing exemptions for small manufacturers and assuring tax revenues would fund job training programs. While consumers and Councilmembers felt that the tax would negatively financially impact low-income people and communities of color more than other populations, they also felt the tax and use of its revenues had potential to reduce sugary beverage consumption and improve health for these communities. All groups supported the idea of using revenues to support health-promoting activities like expanding access to healthy foods for low-income populations. Conclusions The evaluation activities successfully assessed baseline conditions before or within a few weeks after the Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax took effect. Intensive, multi-modal, multi-lingual outreach and recruitment strategies produced a diverse (racial/ethnic/income) sample of participants in the child cohort, adult norms and attitudes work, and stakeholder work. The sampling strategy for the store audits produced a sample of stores and restaurants that represented the diversity of establishment types selling common beverages across Seattle. Feedback from the stakeholder evaluation is included below to provide additional qualitative context to the other evaluation components. Conclusions from this baseline assessment are as follows: 1. Beverage pricing was mostly similar in Seattle and the comparison area at this baseline, indicating that our comparison area is a reasonable comparison for the City of Seattle in terms of beverage prices. Where prices did differ, Seattle tended to be more expensive than the comparison area. All beverages, including both taxed and non-taxed beverages, were cheaper in larger stores as compared to smaller stores (as would be expected based on economies of scale). 2. The child cohort and adult norms and attitudes survey data both indicate that sugary beverage consumption in Seattle is lower than in comparison areas and lower than the national average. Soda/pop and sugary fruitflavored juice are the most commonly reported taxed beverage items children consumed. Among children, water is the most commonly consumed beverage followed by flavored milk (neither of which are subject to the tax). These findings are somewhat inconsistent with the information from local consumer and business representatives' focus groups, wherein sugary beverage consumption was perceived as common. 3. On the economic impact of the tax, while most adult norms and attitudes survey participants in Seattle perceive that the tax will not negatively affect small businesses nor result in job loss, the qualitative focus groups and interviews reveal that some businesses and elected officials expressed concerns that it would. In the focus groups of business sector representatives, participants varied on whether they will absorb or pass the tax onto clients and consumers. Consumers from the qualitative focus groups have mixed opinions about how the tax will impact their own purchasing and consumption behavior, but feel the tax would financially impact low-income people and communities of color. 4. On support for the tax, a majority of Seattle participants in the adult norms and attitudes survey support the Sweetened Beverage Tax and correspondingly, believe that the tax will help improve the health and well-being of children and the public’s health more generally. At the same time, separate analyses by race/ethnicity and income find that support for the tax is higher among higher-income participants (defined as ≥ 260% FPL) than low-income participants and is below 50% for non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic Asian participants. From the qualitative focus group, while mixed support for the tax was expressed, both consumers and business sector representatives gave support for having tax revenues fund programs to improve healthy food access for lower-income populations. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 7 Next steps In 2018, the Evaluation Team will add two components to the overall evaluation related to food security, led by Public Health – Seattle & King County, including to: 1) identify and assess food deserts in Seattle and 2) assess the food bank network in Seattle. The Evaluation Team will repeat store audits and the child cohort surveys in summer 2018 and again in fall 2018. Data from the two follow-up time points will allow us to assess and report early impacts of the tax to the City of Seattle as well as determine if the changes are sustained at 12 months after baseline data were collected. The adult survey of norms and attitudes will be repeated for a new cross-sectional sample of participants in fall 2018. We will seek input from the Community Advisory Board and the City Review Team about scaling back or eliminating originally proposed interviews and focus groups in 2018 because 1) we have learned that the City of Seattle Financial and Administrative Services are directly responding to tax implementation concerns through their existing channels of communication with businesses, 2) the adult survey will measure norms and attitudes about the tax and sugary beverage consumption from participants who are low-income and represent the race/ethnic composition of Seattle, and 3) the store audits will track the extent to which beverage retailers are passing the tax onto consumers by increasing the price of taxed beverages. We would re-allocate resources to support the expanded food security assessment activities in 2018. The Evaluation Team anticipates submitting the Year 1 mid-point evaluation report in September 2018. This report will include summer 2018 findings from store audits and child cohort surveys. The subsequent evaluation report is anticipated spring 2019 and will include findings from data activities (store audits, child cohort, adult survey, and food security) conducted through fall 2018. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 8 SECTION 1 TAXED AND NON-TAXED BEVERAGE PRICES USING STORE AUDITS Abstract Objective: The primary objective of the store audits is to determine the extent to which the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages incurred by distributors is passed through to customers (i.e. “price pass-through”). A secondary objective is to determine whether promotions and marketing of taxed and non-taxed beverages changes in response to the tax and whether prices of a select sample of other foods change. Information on both of these outcomes (prices and promotions/marketing) is vital to the interpretation of any findings related to how the tax impacts consumption. To assess the impact of the tax on prices and promotions, we are using a pre-post design with a comparison area. Here, we report results from our collection of baseline data with particular attention to the degree to which prices at baseline are similar between Seattle and the comparison area (to help establish whether the comparison area is well-matched to Seattle, which is important for the rigor of the eventual impact evaluation). Methods: We obtained a geographically balanced sample of food stores in Seattle and our comparison area based on a list of all 2016 Public Health - Seattle & King County (PHSKC) permitted permanent food establishments. In Seattle we surveyed 226 supermarkets, grocery stores, corner stores, gas stations, coffee shops, and counter service restaurants; in the comparison area we surveyed 232 of these store types. Results: At baseline (Fall 2017), beverage pricing between Seattle and our comparison area were similar. Where prices did differ, Seattle tended to be more expensive than the comparison area. We found that all beverages, including both taxed and non-taxed beverages, were cheaper in larger stores as compared to smaller stores. The price differential between diet and sugar-sweetened beverages differed across store size, whereby in larger stores diet beverages were often priced lower than sugar-sweetened beverages, and in smaller stores, diet beverages were priced higher than sugar-sweetened beverages. This finding was also reflected in the presence of marketing in stores; there was more marketing for non-taxed beverages (diet or sugar-free) in large stores, and more marketing for taxed (sugar-sweetened) beverages in small stores. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 9 SECTION 1 TAXED AND NON-TAXED BEVERAGE PRICES USING STORE AUDITS Objective The primary objective of the store audits is to determine the extent to which the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages incurred by distributors is passed through to customers (i.e. “price pass-through”). The secondary objectives are to 1) assess the degree to which the price of other products changes (because it is conceivable that distributors or retailers spread the price increase induced by the tax over other beverage and non-beverage products), and to 2) assess whether companies or stores respond to the tax with changes in product marketing. To assess the impact of the tax on these outcomes, we collected data on prices and promotions in stores to establish baseline, pre-tax values on each of these outcomes. We report on the baseline results herein. We give particular attention to the degree to which prices at baseline are similar between Seattle and the comparison area to help establish whether the comparison area is well-matched to Seattle, which is important for the rigor of the eventual impact evaluation. Methods Sample. To obtain our sample of stores, first we identified all food stores in Seattle and our comparison area based on a list of all 2016 Public Health - Seattle & King County (PHSKC) permitted, permanent food establishments. The Urban Form Lab at the University of Washington previously created algorithms to classify each of these businesses into meaningful food store or restaurant categories (i.e. supermarkets, grocery stores, corner stores, etc). We used this classification to initially categorize stores and then updated the category as necessary when we visited each store. We aimed for a geographically balanced sample of food stores (supermarkets, grocery stores, corner stores, gas stations), coffee shops, and counter-service restaurants in Seattle (n= 226 stores) and in the comparison area (n=232 stores). Store definitions are provided in Appendix C. We obtained geographic balance by dividing our study areas (Seattle, Figure 1, and comparison area, Figure 2) into 16 equal-sized areas, geocoding all the food establishments, then selecting a quota of stores from each store type within each of the 16 areas. Figure 2 Figure 1 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 10 In addition to the sample derived from the process described above, we also worked with community liaisons and used “minority-owned business” lists to sample small stores and counter service restaurants owned by people of color; we included this additional community-based sampling approach due both to the anticipation that these stores may be affected more by the tax and the expressed interest by the City in ensuring these stores were represented in the sample. Data collectors attended two six-hour trainings and practiced data collection in the field until 90% raw agreement on responses was achieved. We performed all in-store audits between October 23 and November 22, 2017. We plan to return to the same stores approximately six months and 12 months after the tax has been implemented to conduct the post-tax assessments. Table 1 shows our target and actual number of locations within each food source category for each sample area (i.e. Seattle and the comparison area). TABLE 1. SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX STORE AUDIT SAMPLE RETAIL TYPE TARGET NUMBER PER SURVEY AREA ACTUAL NUMBER SEATTLE COMPARISON SUPERSTORE 9 12 13 SUPERMARKET 16 17 11 GROCERY1 42 33 14 52 71 80 SMALL STORES 1 DRUG STORE/PHARMACY 16 17 13 COUNTER SERVICE RESTAURANT CHAIN 16 16 30 COUNTER SERVICE RESTAURANT NON-CHAIN 26 31 45 COFFEE/BUBBLE TEA 16 29 26 TOTAL 193 226 232 We surveyed fewer “grocery stores” than our target number in each sample area due to the actual presence of these store types in each geographic area (there were fewer grocery stores than anticipated). As a result, we surveyed more than the target number of “small stores”. In both Seattle and the comparison area, we surveyed all grocery stores possible within each sampling area (i.e. all stores that allowed us to survey), and supplemented by surveying more small stores from the sample areas where we did not meet our grocery store target. 1 Within each store we measured the availability and price of: soda, sports and energy drinks, teas and coffees, juices, powdered drink mixes, water, milk, fountain drinks, snack foods, and staple groceries. We collected prices from 25 unique taxed beverages, 30 unique non-taxed sugar-free or diet beverages, and 10 unique non-taxed added-sugar beverages (e.g., flavored milk). We also recorded the presence and type of interior and exterior beverage-related marketing in all retail locations. Table 2 shows all measured beverages by beverage type and beverage tax category. For each beverage listed, we recorded the pricing and availability of multiple packaging sizes (e.g., 12oz cans, 20oz bottles, 1 liter bottles, 12 packs of 12oz cans). Variables. Beverage types. We grouped similar beverages together to form 20 “beverage types” (Table 2). Table 2 displays the beverage type as well as which beverages are in each beverage type category. Beverage tax categories. Next, we grouped the beverage types into three aggregate categories, according to both their added sweetener content and eventual Seattle tax status: taxed, non-taxed sugar-free, and non-taxed sugar-added. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 11 TABLE 2. ALL SURVEYED BEVERAGES BY BEVERAGE TYPE AND BEVERAGE TAX STATUS1 NON-TAXED SUGAR-FREE BEVERAGES (N=30) TAXED BEVERAGES (N=25) SODA DIET SODA NON-TAXED SUGAR-ADDED BEVERAGES (N=10) CHOCOLATE MILK COCA COLA COCA COLA ZERO DR. PEPPER COCA COLA DIET POWDERED DRINKS FANTA DR. PEPPER DIET GATORADE G2 JARRITOS MOUNTAIN DEW DIET GATORADE MOUNTAIN DEW PEPSI DIET CHOCOLATE MILK PEPSI JARRITOS LIGHT COUNTRY TIME LEMONADE SODA, LOWEST COST AVAILABLE JUICE DRINK JUICE 100% CHOCOLATE MILK, ALL FAT CONTENTS KOOL-AID CAPRISUN 100% JUICE TEA AND COFFEE, BOTTLED CAPRISUN KIRKLAND APPLE 100% JUICE TROPICANA FRUIT TWIST DRINK KIRKLAND ORANGE 100% JUICE KIRKLAND CRANBERRY JUICE COCKTAIL MINUTE MAID ORANGE 100% JUICE BUBBLE TEA, MILK-BASED KOOL-AID TROPICANA ORANGE 100% JUICE COFFEE LATTE SWEETENED TREETOP APPLE 100% JUICE COFFEE MOCHA MINUTE MAID CRANBERRY JUICE COCKTAIL MINUTE MAID FRUIT PUNCH DIET SPORTS DRINK TROPICANA CRANBERRY JUICE COCKTAIL POWERADE ZERO JUICE DRINK, LOWEST COST AVAILABLE VITAMIN WATER ZERO SPORTS DRINK DIET ENERGY DRINK GATORADE MONSTER ENERGY DRINK ZERO POWERADE RED BULL ENERGY DRINK SUGAR-FREE VITAMIN WATER GATORADE G2 ENERGY DRINK MONSTER ENERGY DRINK RED BULL ENERGY DRINK FOUNTAIN DRINKS FOUNTAIN DRINKS, MULTIPLE SIZES TEA AND COFFEE, BOTTLED ARIZONA TEA SWEET TEA TEA AND COFFEE, PREPARED BUBBLE TEA, NON-MILK BASED STARBUCKS FRAPPUCCINO TEA AND COFFEE, PREPARED WATER LA CROIX WATER MILK WHITE MILK, ALL FAT CONTENTS POWDERED DRINKS, SUGAR-FREE CRYSTAL LITE LEMONADE KOOL-AID CHOCOLATE MILK TEA AND COFFEES, BOTTLED ARIZONA TEA, UNSWEETENED TEA, UNSWEETENED TEA AND COFFEES, PREPARED BUBBLE TEA, SUGAR-FREE BUBBLE TEA, UNSWEETENED TEA FRUIT SMOOTHIE COFFEE, DRIP COFFEE, LATTE PLAIN COFFEE, LATTE SUGAR-FREE FLAVORED 1 For each beverage listed, we measured the pricing and availability of multiple packaging sizes (e.g., 12oz cans, 20oz bottles, 1 liter bottles, 12 packs of 12oz cans) BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 12 Beverage prices. The primary outcome of interest is the price of beverages, which we express as cents per ounce (Table 3). Because we collected regular and discounted prices, we present means for both the lowest price per ounce and the regular price. Price per ounce of powdered drinks are calculated for their intended liquid volume. Lowest Price per Ounce. In the calculation of the mean, for each item, the lowest price per ounce uses the sale price if an item was on sale and the regular price if the item was not on sale. All available sizes at all stores where the beverage was available are included in the calculation. Regular Price per Ounce. In the calculation of the mean, for each item, the regular price uses only the regular price, regardless of whether the item was on sale or not. All available sizes at all stores where the beverage was available are included in the calculation. Interior marketing. The interior marketing variable is the sum of the number of 1) end-aisle displays, 2) center aisle displays, and 3) all individual posters or fliers advertising or promoting the purchase of a certain beverage in each store. If an interior marketing display or poster included multiple beverages, it was counted once for each beverage it promoted. In food stores we captured all three types of marketing, whereas in coffee and bubble tea shops we captured only the presence of fliers, posters, or promotions (i.e. no aisle or center displays were captured in coffee and bubble tea shops). We did not collect any interior marketing information from counter-service restaurants. Exterior marketing. The exterior marketing variable is the sum of the number of all posters, fliers, or signs on the outside of a retail location that promote the sale of each beverage type. We counted the number of promotions attached or adhered to the outside of the retail building, as well as the count of the number of promotions on the retail property, such as sandwich boards in the parking lot, or overhead signs. This was the same for food stores, beverage stores, and counter-service restaurants. Descriptive analysis. We calculated baseline mean price per ounce (lowest price and regular price) for Seattle and the comparison area by beverage tax category 1) for all stores combined, overall and by beverage type, and 2) separately by store type and beverage type (for lowest price only). We also calculate the mean prices per ounce for only the individual-sized, “grab-n-go” beverage by beverage type, since the relative price change will likely vary based on the size of the beverage (because the tax is structured as a cents per ounce). These “grab-n-go” findings are presented in Appendix D. We also present the mean count of interior and exterior marketing/promotions by beverage tax status and by store type. Finally, we present the mean price (cents per serving) for selected “junk food” items in Seattle and the comparison area. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 13 Results Baseline beverage pricing by Sweetened Beverage Tax status Table 3 displays the mean price per ounce of all beverages by Sweetened Beverage Tax status. The ‘taxed beverages’ below are beverages that will be subject to the tax in future data collection. Both ‘non-taxed’ beverage categories include beverages that will not be taxed. Comparing baseline prices in Seattle to baseline prices in the comparison area. At baseline, comparing Seattle to the comparison area, the lowest price and regular price of taxed beverages were similar (mean lowest price per ounce: 9.0 cents/oz in Seattle vs. 8.7 cents/oz in comparison; mean regular price per ounce: 9.5 cents/oz in Seattle vs. 9.4 cents/oz in comparison). This was also true for the lowest and regular price of non-taxed sugar free beverages (mean lowest price per ounce: 8.4 cents/oz in Seattle vs. 8.7 cents/oz in comparison; mean regular price per ounce: 8.9 cents/oz in Seattle vs. 9.5 cents/oz in comparison). For non-taxed, sugar-added beverages, which include many prepared beverages (i.e. lattes and bubble teas with milk as the first ingredient), for both the lowest price and the regular price of these beverages, prices in the comparison area were cheaper than prices in Seattle at baseline (mean lowest price per ounce: 13 cents/oz in Seattle vs. 12 cents/oz in comparison; mean regular price per ounce: 14 cents/oz in Seattle vs. 13 cents/oz in comparison). Comparing beverage prices by tax and added sugar status, within Seattle and the comparison area. In Seattle, at baseline, taxed beverages were more expensive than non-taxed sugar-free beverages (mean lowest price per ounce: 9.0 cents/oz vs. 8.7 cents/oz; mean regular price per ounce: 9.5 cents/oz vs. 9.4 cents/oz, respectively). In the comparison areas, prices of taxed and non-taxed sugar-free beverages were very similar (mean lowest price per ounce: both taxed and non-taxed sugar-free beverages at 8.7 cents/oz; mean regular price per ounce: 9.4 cents/oz vs. 9.5 cents/oz, respectively). The non-taxed sugar-added beverages in both Seattle and comparison area were the most expensive beverage. As above, within the non-taxed sugar-added beverage category there are many prepared beverages, such as sugar-sweetened coffee lattes or milk-based bubble tea beverages (these beverages are not subject to the tax when milk is the first ingredient). TABLE 3. CENTS PER OUNCE OF BEVERAGES IN SEATTLE AND COMPARISON AREAS BY BEVERAGE TAX CATEGORY: LOWEST AND REGULAR PRICE LOWEST PRICE PER OUNCE SEATTLE COMPARISON AREA Mean cents/oz SE (n) Mean cents/oz SE (n) 0.23 9.5 0.13 (3288) 9.4 0.12 (3630) 0.088 8.7 0.13 (3344) -0.29 8.9 0.13 (3564) 9.5 0.16 (3341) -0.54 12 0.42 (555) 1.1 14 0.48 (548) 13 0.43 (554) 0.90 SEATTLE COMPARISON AREA Mean cents/oz SE (n) Mean cents/oz SE (n) TAXED BEVERAGES 9.0 0.12 (3312) 8.7 0.12 (3633) NON-TAXED SUGAR-FREE BEVERAGES 8.4 0.13 (3582) NON-TAXED SUGAR-ADDED BEVERAGES 13 0.47 (549) 1 REGULAR PRICE PER OUNCE PRICE DIFFERENCE IN CENTS1 PRICE DIFFERENCE IN CENTS1 A negative price difference indicates the comparison area price is higher than the City of Seattle price Baseline beverage pricing by beverage tax status and beverage type Table 4 displays mean price per ounce (both lowest and regular price) broken down by smaller beverage categories (beverage types, i.e. soda, diet soda) within the aggregate beverage tax status categories within Seattle and comparison areas. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 14 Comparing baseline prices in Seattle to baseline prices in the comparison area. At baseline, the prices for most beverage types between Seattle and comparison areas were very similar, both in the regular and lowest available prices. In cases in which lowest available prices were more than 0.3 cents per ounce different between Seattle and the comparison area, Seattle tended to have the higher price (this was true for: diet energy drinks, prepared coffee and teas, bottled coffees and teas with added-sugar). An exception to this was 100% juice, which was more expensive in the At baseline, the prices for most beverage types comparison areas. between Seattle and comparison areas were very Comparing beverage prices by beverage type, within similar, both in the regular and lowest available Seattle and the comparison area. prices. In cases in which lowest available prices The cost differences between diet and sugar-sweetened versions of beverages were largely similar at baseline, when were more than 0.3 cents per ounce different looking at the regular prices. However, when examining the between Seattle and comparison, Seattle tended to have the higher price... lowest price per ounce, which takes a discounted price into account, a few small differences are noted. In Seattle, the mean lowest prices per ounce for diet soda (5.8 cents/oz) and diet sports beverages (5.3 cents/oz) were less expensive than sweetened soda (6.1 cents/oz) and sweetened sports beverages (6.0 cents/oz). In the comparison area, this was true for sports beverages; diet sports beverages were less expensive than sweetened sports beverages for both lowest price and regular price. This lower price, when accounting for sales/ discounts for diet and sugar-free beverages may suggest that beverage companies are promoting and offering more sales for these beverages compared to regular beverages at In both Seattle and the comparison area, baseline. energy beverages (both sweetened and diet) and prepared coffee/tea (sweetened and unsweetened) were substantially more expensive compared to other beverage types, while powdered drink mixes were substantially less expensive. Comparing prices of different beverage types. In both Seattle and the comparison area, energy beverages (both sweetened and diet) and prepared coffee/tea (sweetened and unsweetened) were substantially more expensive compared to other beverage types, while powdered drink mixes were substantially less expensive. TABLE 4. CENTS PER OUNCE OF ALL BEVERAGES IN SEATTLE AND COMPARISON AREAS BY BEVERAGE TYPE AND BEVERAGE PRICING LOWEST PRICE PER OUNCE1 SEATTLE COMPARISON AREAS MEAN CENTS/OZ MEAN CENTS/OZ SE (n) SE (n) 6.1 5.8 0.08 (1802) 0.076 (2060) PRICE DIFFERENCE IN CENTS2 REGULAR PRICE PER OUNCE SEATTLE COMPARISON AREAS MEAN CENTS/OZ MEAN CENTS/OZ SE (n) SE (n) 6.5 6.2 0.079 (1790) 0.085 (2058) PRICE DIFFERENCE IN CENTS2 TAXED BEVERAGES SODA SPORTS BEVERAGES ENERGY BEVERAGES 6.0 6.1 0.12 (443) 0.13 (413) 21 19 0.28 (592) 0.25 (692) 0.27 -0.015 1.1 6.7 6.7 0.11 (440) 0.12 (413) 22 22 0.27 (584) 0.25 (691) 0.23 0.017 0.73 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 15 JUICE BEVERAGES COFFEE/TEA, BOTTLED COFFEE/TEA, PREPARED 9.5 9.6 0.33 (204) 0.38 (206) 6.0 6.0 0.20 (265) 0.19 (261) 23 20 0.72 (8) 1.6 (2) -0.050 0.021 2.4 9.7 10 0.34 (203) 0.40 (206) 6.3 6.4 0.20 (265) 0.20 (261) 23 20 0.72 (8) 1.6 (2) -0.31 -0.11 2.4 NON-TAXED SUGAR-FREE BEVERAGES DIET SODA DIET SPORTS BEVERAGES3 DIET ENERGY BEVERAGES 100% JUICE MILK WATER POWDERED SUGAR-FREE BEVERAGES COFFEE/TEA, BOTTLED COFFEE/TEA, PREPARED 5.8 5.7 0.085 (1307) 0.086 (1199) 5.3 4.6 0.16 (213) 0.17 (163) 21 20 0.38 (500) 0.27 (573) 10 11 0.29 (219) 0.28 (226) 3.8 3.8 0.10 (715) 0.15 (574) 7.2 7.2 0.14 (298) 0.15 (322) 1.6 1.6 0.11 (79) 0.070 (71) 6.9 7.2 0.28 (170) 0.28 (144) 27 26 0.88 (81) 0.66 (72) 0.11 0.72 1.3 -0.54 0.012 -0.0010 0.033 -0.29 1.3 6.4 6.6 0.10 (1301) 0.24 (1198) 6.2 5.6 0.15 (213) 0.17 (162) 23 22 0.37 (492) 0.27 (572) 11 12 0.28 (218) 0.29 (226) 3.9 3.9 0.12 (715) 0.15 (574) 7.4 7.3 0.14 (295) 0.16 (322) 1.6 1.6 0.11 (79) 0.070 (71) 7.3 7.8 0.27 (170) 0.29 (144) 27 26 0.88 (81) 0.66 (72) 11 11 .63 (153) 0.46 (172) -0.18 0.65 0.85 -0.68 0.079 0.071 0.044 -0.49 1.3 NON-TAXED SUGAR-ADDED BEVERAGES CHOCOLATE MILK POWDERED SUGAR-ADDED BEVERAGES COFFEE/TEA, BOTTLED COFFEE/TEA, PREPARED 11 11 0.64 (153) 0.46 (173) 1.8 1.6 0.10 (173) 0.092 (178) 21 19 0.36 (170) 0.37 (150) 32 30 1.0 (51) 0.45 (53) 0.11 0.17 1.4 2.6 1.9 1.7 .096 (173) 0.092 (178) 22 21 .28 (169) 0.30 (150) 32 30 1.0 (51) 0.45 (53) 0.19 0.19 0.41 2.6 The lowest price takes the lowest available price from the day of the survey for each beverage; if the beverage was on sale, then the sale price is included in the lowest price; if the beverage was not on sale, then the regular price is included in the lowest price. 2 A negative price difference indicates the comparison area price is higher than the City of Seattle price 3 Gatorade G2, a diet sports beverage, is the one beverage in this category that does have added-sugar. Gatorade G2 is not taxed because it is below the tax’s calorie threshold. 4 Note that many of the sweetened coffees and teas are primary ingredient milk and therefore not taxed. 1 Baseline beverage pricing across store types Table 5 displays the mean lowest price per ounce for all beverages within each store type. Comparing prices in Seattle to the comparison area, within store type. Lowest price within each store type was similar for the vast majority of beverages, comparing Seattle to the comparison area. Notable exceptions were sweetened and diet sports and energy drinks, which ranged from a 0.27 cent difference in larger food stores to a 4.1 cent difference in counter-service restaurants. Sugar-free prepared BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 16 coffees and teas had a 1.3 cent difference in coffee and bubble tea shops comparing Seattle to the comparison area. The mean price for fruit-flavored juice beverages also varied across Seattle and the comparison area from a 0.19 cent difference in warehouses to a 2.8 cent difference in grocery and drug stores. Lowest price within each store type was similar for the vast majority of beverages, comparing Seattle to the comparison area. Comparing prices by store type. We found that as the retail store gets smaller, beverage prices are higher. Specifically, beverages were less expensive in supermarkets and superstores as compared to grocery and drug stores, and less expensive in grocery and drug stores as compared to small, mom-and-pop stores. Bottled and fountain beverages were most expensive in the counter ...in the warehouses, the diet service restaurants; prepared beverages were most expensive in the coffee and bubble tea shops. These trends were seen in both Seattle and the soda price was 0.50 cents/oz comparison areas. less than sweetened soda; in the We found that as the retail store gets smaller, beverage prices are higher. supermarkets and superstores the The price differences between sweetened and diet or sugar-free beverages mean diet soda price was 0.70 also shifted across store size. In Seattle, diet soda was cheaper than cents/oz less than the sweetened sweetened soda in the largest stores. As the store size decreases, this price soda; in the grocery and drug difference also decreased, until, in the smallest stores, diet soda is more expensive than the sweetened soda. Specifically, in the warehouses, the diet stores the mean diet soda price soda price was 0.50 cents/oz less than sweetened soda; in the supermarkets was 0.20 cents/oz less than the and superstores the mean diet soda price was 0.70 cents/oz less than the sweetened soda. On the contrary, sweetened soda; in the grocery and drug stores the mean diet soda price in the small stores, the mean diet was 0.20 cents/oz less than the sweetened soda. On the contrary, in the soda price was 0.50 cents/oz more small stores, the mean diet soda price was 0.50 cents/oz more than the sweetened soda, and in the counter service restaurants the diet soda price than the sweetened soda, and in was 1.10 cents/oz more expensive than the sweetened soda. This pattern the counter service restaurants is also observed for sports drinks, energy drinks, powdered drinks, and juice the diet soda price was 1.10 (though 100% juice is more expensive than fruit-flavored juice beverages in cents/oz more expensive than the all store types), as well as in both Seattle and the comparison areas. These sweetened soda. price differences may be the result of larger stores having more corporatelevel sales and promotions from beverage companies (i.e. Coca-Cola, Pepsi) promoting the sale of diet and sugar-free or low-sugar beverages. TABLE 5. LOWEST CENTS PER OUNCE OF ALL BEVERAGES IN SEATTLE AND COMPARISON AREAS BY STORE TYPE SEATTLE COMPARISON AREAS Mean cents/oz SE (n) Mean cents/oz SE (n) PRICE DIFFERENCE IN CENTS1 SUPERMARKETS AND SUPERSTORES SODA SPORTS DRINKS ENERGY DRINKS JUICE DRINKS 4.7 4.5 0.15 (509) 0.16 (388) 4.1 3.8 0.12 (136) 0.14 (112) 19 18 0.52 (163) 0.56 (125) 6.5 5.9 0.46 (71) 0.48 (54) 0.27 0.27 0.96 0.59 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 17 COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-ADDED BOTTLED TAXED DIET SODA DIET SPORTS DRINKS DIET ENERGY DRINKS 100% JUICE MILK WATER POWDERED SUGAR-FREE DRINKS COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-FREE BOTTLED NO TAX CHOCOLATE MILK 4.6 4.5 0.27 (90) 0.30 (68) 4.0 3.7 0.10 (116) 0.11 (94) 4 3.7 0.10 (116) 0.11 (94) 19 18 0.53 (154) 0.57 (117) 8.4 8.0 0.44 (85) 0.50 (61) 2.9 2.7 0.079 (215) 0.070 (164) 7.6 7.5 0.28 (66) 0.29 (55) 1.4 1.3 0.064 (53) 0.070 (45) 4.9 4.4 0.31 (75) 0.31 (49) 7 5.6 1.1 (65) 0.45 (53) 5.9 5.4 0.14 (531) 0.19 (378) 0.076 0.31 0.31 0.80 0.49 0.19 0.10 0.086 0.47 1.4 GROCERY AND DRUG STORES SODA SPORTS DRINKS ENERGY DRINKS JUICE DRINKS COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-ADDED BOTTLED TAXED DIET SODA DIET SPORTS DRINKS DIET ENERGY DRINKS 100% JUICE MILK WATER POWDERED SUGAR-FREE DRINKS 6 5.3 0.20 (117) 0.26 (70) 21 19 0.54 (173) 0.51 (143) 9.7 6.9 0.56 (58) 0.47 (52) 6.1 5.2 0.36 (80) 0.37 (64) 5.7 5.1 0.14 (444) 0.18 (285) 6.4 4.7 0.30 (51) 0.38 (30) 22 19 1.0 (144) 0.55 (125) 11 9.9 0.44 (66) 0.51 (48) 3.5 3.1 0.071 (278) 0.070 (169) 7.3 7.6 0.23 (100) 0.49 (62) 1.7 1.9 0.13 (24) 0.13 (20) 0.51 0.69 2.1 2.8 0.87 0.59 1.7 2.9 0.69 0.42 -0.28 -0.20 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 18 COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-FREE BOTTLED NO TAX CHOCOLATE MILK POWDERED SUGAR-ADDED DRINKS COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-ADDED BOTTLED NO TAX 7.1 6.4 0.48 (52) 0.52 (37) 11 9.6 0.68 (34) 0.81 (31) 1.9 1.7 0.082 (57) 0.060 (59) 20 17.8 0.57 (58) 0.63 (36) 6.6 5.7 0.11 (652) 0.090 (1111) 7.3 7.0 0.17 (176) 0.16 (203) 22 21 0.42 (248) 0.32 (405) 13 13 0.47 (73) 0.54 (91) 7 6.9 0.37 (91) 0.28 (122) 7.1 6.4 0.13 (392) 0.10 (528) 7.5 6.7 0.38 (46) 0.41 (35) 22 21 0.45 (199) 0.36 (328) 13 13 0.40 (59) 0.30 (98) 4.4 3.7 0.094 (209) 0.080 (218) 6.6 6.5 0.17 (112) 0.12 (160) 3 2.36 -- (1) 0.0 (6) 10 10 0.47 (41) 0.26 (3) 14 13 0.66 (43) 0.51 (72) 2.3 2.0 0.26 (12) 0.16 (18) 24 21 0.39 (56) 0.45 (74) 2.9 3.1 0.56 (5) 0.69 (4) 0.71 1.4 0.23 2.0 SMALL STORES SODA SPORTS DRINKS ENERGY DRINKS JUICE DRINKS COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-ADDED BOTTLED TAXED DIET SODA DIET SPORTS DRINKS DIET ENERGY DRINKS 100% JUICE MILK WATER POWDERED SUGAR-FREE DRINKS COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-FREE BOTTLED NO TAX CHOCOLATE MILK POWDERED SUGAR-ADDED DRINKS COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-ADDED BOTTLED NO TAX 0.88 0.30 1.5 -0.29 0.098 0.70 0.89 1.4 0.10 0.67 0.17 0.59 0.14 1.3 0.34 2.8 WAREHOUSES2 SODA SPORTS DRINKS 3.9 3.3 0.066 (2) 0.63 (2) -0.16 0.62 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 19 ENERGY DRINKS JUICE DRINKS DIET SODA DIET SPORTS DRINKS3 DIET ENERGY DRINKS 100% JUICE MILK WATER POWDERED SUGAR-FREE DRINKS3 CHOCOLATE MILK POWDERED SUGAR-ADDED DRINKS COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-ADDED BOTTLED NO TAX 13 13 4.6 (2) 4.4 (2) 3.5 3.3 0.16 (2) 0.34 (2) 2.4 2.5 0.075 (5) 0.070 (5) --- 2.7 -- (1) 8.6 8.3 -- (1) -- (1) 4.4 4.4 0.70 (5) 0.79 (5) 1.9 1.8 0.12 (2) 0.10 (3) 1.7 1.5 0.63 (3) 0.50 (4) 8.5 -- (1) --- 8.1 8.1 -- (1) -- (1) 17 17 -- (1) -- (1) 13 13 -- (1) -- (1) 0.50 0.19 -0.046 N/A 0.26 -0.023 0.20 0.24 N/A 0 0 0 COFFEE AND BUBBLE TEA SHOPS COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-ADDED PREPARED TAXED 23 20 0.72 (8) 1.6 (2) COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-FREE PREPARED NO TAX 27 26 0.88 (81) 0.66 (72) 32 30 1.0 (51) 0.45 (53) COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-ADDED PREPARED NO TAX 2.4 1.3 2.6 COUNTER SERVICE RESTAURANTS SODA SPORTS DRINKS ENERGY DRINKS JUICE DRINKS3 COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-ADDED BOTTLED TAXED DIET SODA DIET SPORTS DRINKS3 9.9 9.9 0.35 (105) 0.25 (179) 9.5 10 0.58 (12) 0.31 (26) 27 23 3.6 (6) 2.3 (17) --- 17 1.1 (7) 11 9.8 1.1 (4) 1.4 (7) 11 11 0.49 (32) 0.27 (63) --- 9.8 0.15 (3) 0.049 -0.60 4.1 N/A 1.3 -0.14 N/A BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 20 DIET ENERGY DRINKS 100% JUICE MILK WATER COFFEE & TEA, SUGAR-FREE BOTTLED NO TAX CHOCOLATE MILK 32 33 9.9 (2) 2.9 (2) 15 15 2.5 (4) 0.86 (14) 23 22 1.8 (11) 1.1 (20) 10 9.7 0.88 (17) 0.44 (41) 9.9 11 1.9 (2) 1.4 (5) 22 21 1.9 (10) 1.2 (16) -1.0 0.16 0.90 0.23 -0.68 1.1 Negative price differences indicates the comparison area price is higher than the City of Seattle price The warehouse category only includes one store (Costco) in each study area 3 Blank cells indicate no beverage items observed in that category 1 2 Baseline marketing Table 6 displays the count of interior and exterior beverage marketing and promotions by store type. The presence of beverage marketing varied between Seattle and the comparison areas, as well as by store type. Comparing interior and exterior marketing in Seattle to the comparison area. The comparison area had a somewhat larger presence of interior marketing as compared to Seattle, and a much larger presence of exterior marketing as compared to Seattle. The comparison area additionally had a larger presence of interior and exterior marketing of taxed beverages as compared to Seattle. Comparing types of marketing within Seattle and comparison area. There was more interior marketing than exterior marketing in both Seattle and the comparison areas. In Seattle, supermarket and superstores had the highest counts of interior marketing (mean taxed beverage marketing: 2.2, mean non-taxed beverage marketing 2.5), followed by grocery and drug stores (mean taxed beverage marketing 1.2, mean non-taxed beverage marketing 1.3), then small stores with the smallest count (mean taxed beverage marketing 1.3, mean non-taxed beverage marketing 1.1). In the comparison areas, grocery and drug stores had the highest count of marketing (mean taxed 2.7, mean nontaxed 3.3), followed by supermarket and superstores (mean taxed 2.5, mean non-taxed 2.9), and lastly small stores (mean taxed 2.0, mean non-taxed 1.7). In both Seattle and the comparison areas, supermarkets, superstores, grocery, and drug stores had more marketing for non-taxed beverages as compared to taxed beverages. Small stores, in contrast, had more promotions for taxed beverages compared to non-taxed. This higher presence of marketing In both Seattle and the for non-taxed beverages in the larger stores, and higher presence for comparison areas, supermarkets, taxed beverage marketing in the smaller stores, mirrors the patterns in superstores, grocery, and drug price differentials between sugar-sweetened and diet beverages in Table stores had more marketing for 5; wherein larger stores diet sodas were cheaper than sweetened sodas, and in small stores sweetened sodas were cheaper than diet sodas. The non-taxed beverages as compared presence and count of marketing varied widely across individual stores, to taxed beverages. Small stores, as seen in the large ranges and standard deviations. in contrast, had more promotions for taxed beverages compared to non-taxed. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 21 TABLE 6. AVERAGE COUNT OF INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR MARKETING/PROMOTIONS OF TAXED AND NON-TAXED BEVERAGES PER STORE IN SEATTLE AND COMPARISON AREAS SEATTLE MEAN (SE) SUPERSTORES AND SUPERMARKETS MIN COMPARISON AREA MAX n=31 MEAN (SE) MIN MAX n =24 INTERIOR MARKETING, TAXED 2.2 (0.26) 0.0 5.0 2.5 (0.29) 0.0 5.0 INTERIOR MARKETING, NON-TAXED 2.5 (0.29) 0.0 7.0 2.9 (0.42) 0.0 7.0 EXTERIOR MARKETING, TAXED 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 EXTERIOR MARKETING, NON-TAXED 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 0.08 (0.058) 0.0 1.0 2.7 (0.26) 0.0 5.0 GROCERY AND DRUG STORES INTERIOR MARKETING, TAXED INTERIOR MARKETING, NON-TAXED n=50 n=27 1.2 (0.17) 0.0 4.0 1.3 (0.18) 0.0 5.0 3.3 (0.38) 0.0 8.0 EXTERIOR MARKETING, TAXED 0.02 (0.020) 0.0 1.0 0.15 (0.10) 0.0 2.0 EXTERIOR MARKETING, NON-TAXED 0.02 (0.020) 0.0 1.0 0.15 (0.088) 0.0 2.0 SMALL STORES n=71 n=80 INTERIOR MARKETING, TAXED 1.3 (0.16) 0.0 4.0 2.0 (0.15) 0.0 6.0 INTERIOR MARKETING, NON-TAXED 1.1 (0.14) 0.0 4.0 1.7 (0.16) 0.0 6.0 EXTERIOR MARKETING, TAXED 0.87 (0.20) 0.0 9.0 2.5 (0.36) 0.0 16.0 EXTERIOR MARKETING, NON-TAXED 0.21 (0.080) 0.0 4.0 0.78 (0.18) 0.0 9.0 COFFEE AND BUBBLE TEA SHOPS n=29 n=27 INTERIOR MARKETING, TAXED 0.52 (0.12) 0.0 2.0 0.26 (0.13) 0.0 3.0 INTERIOR MARKETING, NON-TAXED 0.10 (0.058) 0.0 1.0 0.11 (0.062) 0.0 1.0 EXTERIOR MARKETING, TAXED 0.59 (0.19) 0.0 4.0 0.52 (0.27) 0.0 7.0 EXTERIOR MARKETING, NON-TAXED 0.24 (0.17) 0.0 4.0 0.07 (0.07) 0.0 2.0 COUNTER SERVICES RESTAURANTS n=47 n=74 INTERIOR MARKETING, TAXED NOT MEASURED INTERIOR MARKETING, NON-TAXED NOT MEASURED EXTERIOR MARKETING, TAXED EXTERIOR MARKETING, NON-TAXED 0.17 (0.076) 0.0 3.0 0.32 (0.088) 0.0 3.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 0.01 (0.014) 0.0 1.0 Baseline snacks Table 7 displays the price in cents per serving (not ounce) for a selection of junk and snack foods, including: Little Debbie Honey Buns, Frosted Flakes Cereal, Lays Potato Chips, Oreos Cookies, Pringles Chips, and Reese’s Chocolate Candy. The mean snack price is higher in all Seattle store types compared to the comparison areas, with the exception of small stores, where the mean price is higher in the comparison areas. Similar to beverage prices, in both Seattle and the comparison areas the mean price for snacks in the larger stores is lower than the mean price for snacks in small stores (where the price is higher). BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 22 TABLE 7. PRICE IN CENTS PER SERVING OF ALL JUNK FOODS IN SEATTLE AND COMPARISON AREAS BY STORE TYPE1 SEATTLE COMPARISON AREAS MEAN CENTS/SERVING MEAN CENTS/SERVING SE (n) SE (n) SUPERSTORE SUPERMARKET GROCERY DRUG STORE SMALL STORE 41 1.0 (6) 45 1.9 (19) 54 4.3 (20) 55 2.5 (16) 69 3.0 (54) 37 3.0 (10) 39 2.4 (11) 50 6.2 (12) 48 4.5 (13) 70 2.0 (71) Warehouse is excluded from this table because the warehouses did not have the same snacks and junk foods present as the other store types 1 Discussion We found that the vast majority of beverages are priced similarly in Seattle and the comparison area. These baseline similarities in prices provide good evidence that our comparison area is a reasonable comparison for the City of Seattle in terms of beverage prices. In addition to establishing that Seattle and the comparison area are comparable at baseline, we document several aspects about the pricing of taxed and non-taxed beverages at baseline that will be important for us to consider in the evaluation and interpretation of results moving forward. Specifically, we found that all beverages, including both taxed and non-taxed beverages, are cheaper in larger stores as compared to smaller stores, in both Seattle and the comparison area. We also found that there were price differences between diet and sugar-sweetened beverages, and that these differed across store size. Specifically, in larger stores diet beverages were often priced lower than sugar-sweetened beverages, and in smaller stores, diet beverages were priced higher than sugar-sweetened beverages. This trend was also reflected in the presence of marketing in stores—larger stores tended to have more marketing of the non-taxed, diet beverages compared to marketing of taxed beverages whereas smaller stores tended to have more marketing of the taxed beverages compared to non-taxed beverages. We speculate that many of these differences are likely related to a store’s purchasing power (whereby larger stores are able to purchase and stock more items at one time which allows them to offer lower prices), as well as larger stores' contractual relationships with distributors and beverage companies (whereby larger stores distributor and beverage companies manage the stores interior marketing displays, and may offer more distributor-level sales and promotions). While the vast majority of beverage prices in Seattle and the comparison area were similar, when there were small differences, it was the Seattle prices that tended to be slightly higher as compared to the comparison area beverage prices. We speculate that this difference is related to a higher cost of living in Seattle as compared to the comparison area, where retail rent and ownership costs are higher, as well as higher wage and labor costs within the City of Seattle. We also found differences between Seattle and the comparison area in baseline store-level interior and exterior marketing. The comparison areas had a somewhat larger presence of interior marketing as compared to Seattle, and a substantially larger presence of exterior marketing as compared to Seattle, particularly so for grocery stores and small stores. This may be due to small stores and grocery stores in the comparison area more often being “stand alone” stores with parking lots and larger surface area for exterior marketing as compared to the small stores in the City of Seattle. In both Seattle and the comparison areas, supermarkets and superstores and grocery and drug stores had more marketing for non-taxed beverages as compared to taxed beverages. Small stores, in contrast, had more promotions for taxed beverages compared to non-taxed. Limitations. Limitations of this study should be noted. First, we excluded from our sample specialty supermarkets that do not sell the large name brand beverages, including Whole Foods, Trader Joes and PCC. We did so because these BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 23 stores tend to devote less shelf space to sugar-sweetened beverages (as compared to chain supermarkets), and likely have a much lower volume of sales of the sugar-sweetened beverages. Second, in the comparison area, there were fewer supermarkets and grocery stores than we had anticipated, so we collected data from all the stores that were available and then supplemented the sample with additional small stores. Based on our statistical power calculations, we anticipate still having adequate statistical power to detect reasonable changes for both of these types of stores. Third, it was not possible to collect all beverage prices. Instead, we collected a large number of name brand beverages and we collected the “cheapest” version of many beverage types (this allowed us to collect information in some ethnic grocers). Fourth, it was not possible to collect the prices that retailers pay for their beverages; instead, we only collect the prices that they are selling the beverages for. Therefore, we will not have information about whether or not each retailer faces a higher price from their distributor for the taxed beverages (or non-taxed beverages). This is a limitation in all studies thus far of beverage taxes. Fifth, anecdotal information shortly after the tax was implemented suggested that there was wide variation in how stores were dealing with the tax. Our investigator team heard stories and took pictures of variations of implementations. Some stores did not change the shelf price, but indicated in small print that there would be a beverage tax applied at the register. Some stores increased the price of non-taxed beverages. Costco posted a large sign encouraging shoppers to go to one of their stores outside of Seattle for sugar-sweetened beverages in order to avoid the tax (see picture). While we cannot know every variation of how stores dealt with the tax, our data collection will ultimately reveal the extent to which the average price changed for taxed and non-taxed beverages in Seattle. Future work We will repeat store surveys with the same set of retail locations in both Seattle and the comparison areas six and 12 months post-tax implementation. Collecting data at six months will allow our team to assess early changes in prices. Evaluations from Berkeley and Philadelphia have found changes in prices in large stores at or before 6 months post-tax. This will allow us to report on early findings to the City. At both of these time points we will repeat the same survey tools to record the availability and cost of taxed and non-taxed beverages, as well as select grocery and snack foods. We will also use the same survey tools to gather advertising and marketing counts for taxed and non-taxed beverages. These follow-up surveys will allow us to understand if and how retailers pass the SBT price increases through to shoppers. These surveys will also allow us to understand if the SBT is passed through only to taxed beverages, or if prices are also raised for non-taxed beverages or sugary junk and snack foods. In addition to the retail availability and pricing analyses we will conduct, we will use these retail audit data as part of the 2018 assessment of food security in King County, including an analysis of the price and availability of snack and grocery items by store type and neighborhood. For the six and potentially the 12 month data collection periods, we will add eight additional grocery items to our survey tools for which we will gather availability and pricing data from all retail locations. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 24 Considerations for ongoing evaluation Because we recruited more stores than our target sample, even with store closures and management turnover in the coming year, we will maintain a sufficient sample to detect reasonable levels of pricing changes as the SBT is implemented. When we return to the stores at six and 12 months, we will add to the survey protocol for data collectors to identify and record whether the stores post any information about the SBT in the store. While our survey tools already gather information on the types of sales present in each stores, continuing to record this information will be important for our understanding of the tax implementation, and how sale prices may differ as a result of the SBT. In addition, if stores are indicating that a tax will be added at the register, we will scan the beverages in order to record the total price paid. These two additional data collection time points will allow us to understand what happens to retail prices over time. These data will provide important context to understanding any potential changes in beverage consumption or attitudes towards beverages found in either the Child Cohort or Norms and Attitudes components of this evaluation. We also anticipate that beverage pricing, as well as marketing, and the way that beverage prices are listed may change over time as retailers and consumers become accustomed to the tax; by gathering data at both six and 12 months we will be able to understand if and how price pass-through or pricing structures shift with time. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 25 SECTION 2 CHILD COHORT SURVEY: HEALTH BEHAVIORS Abstract Objective: The Child Cohort component aims to evaluate the impact of the City of Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) on children’s and parent’s beverage consumption and other aspects of children’s diet among families living in the City of Seattle versus those living in south King County (the comparison area). The baseline data collection establishes a pre-tax estimate of children’s beverage consumption and diet quality, parent beverage consumption, as well as child and household characteristics. Methods: Recruitment and data collection occurred October 2017-January 2018. We enrolled low-income families with a 7-10 or 12-17 year-old child who ever consumed sugary beverages. Data were collected via surveys available in multiple languages and platforms (e.g., online, in-person, phone). We enrolled and collected data from an ethnically and racially diverse sample (n=527). The City of Seattle and comparison samples were similar on some (e.g., child age), but not all (e.g., race, household income) demographic characteristics. Results: At baseline, children and parents reported the highest consumption of beverages without added sugars (non-taxed sugar-free) from beverage categories. Across all individual beverage types, tap and bottled water had the highest average consumption for children and parents. The second highest consumed were beverages with added sugars that would be subject to the Seattle SBT (taxed beverages). Within this category, children’s consumption was highest for soda/pop with sugar and fruit-flavored beverages with sugar. Parent’s highest consumption for taxed beverages was somewhat different, with prepared tea or coffee with sugar and soda/pop with sugar as the highest. The overall average consumption of taxed beverages was higher within both children and parents in the comparison area relative to those in the City of Seattle. On average, sugar-added beverages not subject to the Seattle SBT (non-taxed sugar-added beverages) were consumed the least. Within this beverage category, flavored milk was the beverage consumed most by children and tea or coffee with self-added sugar was the beverage consumed most by parents. At this baseline, children had the highest average frequency of consuming more healthful foods of fruits, green leafy and other vegetables, and whole grain bread. Among the most frequent less healthful foods that children consumed were cheese, beef/pork/sausage, and chocolate and other candy. We found similar patterns of child diet quality and similar average frequency of consumption for most foods between the children in the City of Seattle and children in the comparison area. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 26 SECTION 2 CHILD COHORT SURVEY: HEALTH BEHAVIORS Objective The Child Cohort component aims to evaluate the impact of the City of Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) on children’s beverage consumption and other aspects of children’s diet relative to change in beverage consumption and diet among children in a comparison area. In order to represent these components of the evaluation while not biasing participation or participant responses, we created the Seattle Shopping and Wellness (SeaSAW) study. The objective of the baseline data collection was to establish a pre-tax estimate of children’s beverage consumption (across to-be-taxed and non-taxed beverages), other aspects for the quality of children’s diet (including frequency of consuming food that most commonly contributes to added sugar in children’s diets), parent’s beverage consumption, as well as child and family household and demographic characteristics. To our knowledge, this is the only US-based evaluation being done to date that directly examines changes in children’s beverage consumption in response to a SBT. Methods Data collection focused on recruiting children/families residing in the City of Seattle, and for comparison purposes, also included children/families living in nearby cities in south King County. In order to examine the impact of the tax on the most likely impacted children/families, we enrolled only low-income (<312% of the Federal Poverty Level) families with a 7-10 or 12-17 year-old child who ever consumed sugary beverages (11 year-olds were excluded because evidence is inconsistent on whether child or parent is best able to report on child food and beverage consumption). Recruitment and data collection happened through various means (e.g., phone, in-person, on-line) and at various venues (e.g., clinics, community events) from October 2017-January 2018. Data were collected via surveys available in English, Spanish, Somali, and Vietnamese. Full details about the recruitment and data collection methods and child/family participation for the baseline component of the Child Cohort (SeaSAW) are available in the baseline methods report submitted to the City of Seattle in February 2018. Results Demographics. We were successful in enrolling and collecting data from low-income as well as ethnically and racially diverse participants of families and children for SeaSAW in both the City of Seattle and the comparison area. The majority, within both the City of Seattle and the comparison area, reported incomes <130% of the Federal Poverty Level. Approximately one-quarter of both the City of Seattle and comparison area participants were Hispanic/Latinx and the most common race identified was Black/African-American/African in both samples. The City of Seattle and comparison area participants were similar in child and parent age and the distribution of gender (close to even split for boys and girls; mostly female caregivers), as was highest level of adult education in the household. There were some differences in demographics between the City of Seattle and comparison area participants. These differences included the proportion of Black/African-American/African children (Seattle participants at 37.3% versus comparison area participants at 27.0%) and white children (16.6% versus 23.8%), City of Seattle families more likely to be in the lowest household income level (66.8% versus 47.3% <130% Federal Poverty Level), and a higher BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 27 percentage of families reporting food insecurity (all items >10 percentage point difference) among City of Seattle participating families compared to the comparison area participating families. Demographic characteristics are detailed in Table 1. TABLE 1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SEASAW SAMPLE CITY OF SEATTLE COMPARISON AREA RESIDENCE RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTIC SAMPLE SIZE* CHILD AGE (YEARS) CHILD SEX (%FEMALE) CHILD ETHNICITY l N=271 N=256 10.1 (0.2) 10.5 (0.2) 49.1% 51.0% 24.7% 27.7% ** HISPANIC/LATINX CHILD RACE l NON-HISPANIC BLACK/AFRICAN-AMERICAN/AFRICAN ONLY 37.3% 27.0% l NON-HISPANIC WHITE ONLY 16.6% 23.8% l NON-HISPANIC ASIAN ONLY 6.3% 5.1% l NON-HISPANIC AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE ONLY 0.4% 0.4% 0% 2.7% NON-HISPANIC NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER ONLY l l NON-HISPANIC TWO OR MORE RACES 11.4% 9.8% l RACE/ETHNICITY NOT REPORTED 3.3% 3.5% 39.5 (0.5) 38.7 (0.4) 88.6% 93.2% PARENT AGE (YEARS) PARENT SEX (%FEMALE) HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION OF ANY ADULT IN HOUSEHOLD l DID NOT COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL 10.0% 5.1% l COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL OR GED 21.8% 25.8% l SOME COLLEGE OR VOCATIONAL TRAINING 29.9% 32.0% l COMPLETED COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 19.6% 26.2% l HAS GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 9.6% 8.2% l LEVEL OF EDUCATION NOT REPORTED 9.2% 2.7% ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME l <130% FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL 66.8% 47.3% l 130% - <200% FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL 12.9% 14.5% l 200% - <312% FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL 14.0% 26.6% l ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME NOT REPORTED (SEE NOTE***) 6.3% 11.7% FOOD SECURITY (% RESPONDING ‘OFTEN TRUE’ OR ‘SOMETIMES TRUE’ IN THE PAST MONTH) l WORRIED ABOUT FOOD RUNNING OUT 58.2% 42.0% l FOOD RAN OUT AND NOT HAVE MONEY FOR MORE 50.4% 40.2% l HARD TO BUY HEALTHY FOODS 58.3% 46.6% Note. Values are percentages when indicated or mean values (standard error). *There is variability in sample size based on refusal to answer or other missing; **The categories within race/ethnicity are mutually exclusive so each child is represented only once; Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity was considered first and if affirmative the child’s race was not included in the race tabulation; ***All families needed to report being <312% Federal Poverty level for household size (level at which families qualify for Apple Health child health insurance) on the screening questionnaire to be included in the sample. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 28 Child beverage consumption Among beverage categories, the non-taxed sugar-free beverages had the highest consumption by children in both the City of Seattle (47.8 oz/day) and the comparison area (49.8 oz/day). Within this category of non-taxed sugarfree beverages, tap water was the most consumed beverage by children in the baseline SeaSAW sample in Seattle (18.7 oz/day) and the comparison area (15.0 oz/day), with bottled water being the next highest consumed beverage (11.6 oz/day and 13.7 oz/day, respectively). These were followed by non-flavored milk (9.3 oz/day in City of Seattle; 8.4 oz/day in comparison area) and then 100% fruit juice (5.6 oz/day in City of Seattle; 6.2 oz/day in comparison area). Most of the remaining individual non-taxed sugar-free beverages had average consumption of 1.0 oz/day or lower in both City of Seattle and the comparison area. Taxed beverages were the next highest consumed category of beverages, with child consumption in City of Seattle averaging 8.6 oz/day and in the comparison area averaging 14.1 oz/day. Within this category, soda/pop with sugar had the highest child consumption (2.6 oz/day in City of Seattle; 4.3 oz/day in comparison area), followed by fruitflavored beverages with sugar (2.5 oz/day in City of Seattle; 4.3 oz/day in comparison area) and then sports drinks with sugar (2.1 oz/day in City of Seattle; 2.9 oz/day in comparison area). The beverage category with the lowest child consumption was non-taxed sugar-added beverages in both the City of Seattle (4.8 oz/day) and the comparison area (6.1 oz/day). Within this category, flavored milk (2.1 oz/day in City of Seattle; 3.1 oz/day in comparison area) had the highest child consumption. Among beverage categories, the non-taxed sugar-free beverages had the highest consumption by children in both the City of Seattle (47.8 oz/day) and the comparison area (49.8 oz/day). Taxed beverages were the next highest consumed category of beverages, with child consumption in City of Seattle averaging 8.6 oz/day and in the comparison area averaging 14.1 oz/day. The beverage category with the lowest child consumption was non-taxed sugar-added beverages in both the City of Seattle sample (4.8 oz/ day) and the comparison area (6.1 oz/day) sample. The comparable ranking or order of consumption of different beverage categories and individual beverage types between the City of Seattle and the comparison area was noteworthy. There are some differences between City of Seattle and the comparison areas in absolute consumption though, including the taxed beverages. This highlights the need for baseline data collection (i.e., not assuming that there are no differences at baseline) with differences that will need to be accounted for in the longitudinal analysis. The difference between the City of Seattle and the comparison area in the total consumption of these types of sugary beverages is perhaps not unexpected given existing Healthy Youth Survey data from 2014/2016 that finds that a lower percentage of children in the City of Seattle report consumption of 1+ sugary beverages per day than children in south King County cities. However, we anticipated that limiting the samples in this child cohort component to low-income and ‘ever’ sugary beverage consumers would have resulted in no or lesser differences between children in the City of Seattle versus the comparison area samples. It is notable that differences in consumption of taxed beverages between the City of Seattle and comparison area are also seen among the parents (see Table 4). Details about SeaSAW children's beverage consumption are provided in Table 2. In the tables, higher mean than median values reflect the fact that some children don't consume that specific beverage type at all (0) and some children have high consumption thus increasing the mean or average. The lowest category of beverage consumption frequency is 1 time per week. Therefore, consumption of less than 1 time per week was coded as zero ounces consumed per day. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 29 TABLE 2. CHILD BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION WITHIN THE SEASAW SAMPLE CITY OF SEATTLE RESIDENCE BEVERAGES COMPARISON AREA RESIDENCE OUNCES PER DAY MEAN (SE) MEDIAN MEAN (SE) MEDIAN TAXED BEVERAGES (TOTAL) - PREPARED/BOTTLED 8.6 (1.1) 3.7 14.1 (1.3) 7.0 l FRUIT-FLAVORED DRINKS WITH SUGAR 2.5 (0.4) 0.0 4.3 (0.5) 1.1 l SODA/POP WITH SUGAR 2.6 (0.3) 1.1 4.3 (0.5) 1.7 l TEA OR COFFEE WITH SUGAR 1.6 (0.4) 0.0 1.9 (0.3) 0.0 l ENERGY DRINKS WITH SUGAR 0.3 (0.1) 0.0 1.0 (0.3) 0.0 l SPORTS DRINKS WITH SUGAR 2.1 (0.4) 0.0 2.9 (0.4) 0.0 4.8 (0.8) 1.1 6.1 (0.7) 2.9 NON-TAXED SUGAR-ADDED BEVERAGES (TOTAL) l FLAVORED MILK 2.1 (0.4) 0.0 3.1 (0.3) 1.1 l TEA OR COFFEE WITH SELF-ADDED SUGAR 1.6 (0.4) 0.0 1.6 (0.3) 0.0 FRUIT-FLAVORED OR SPORTS DRINKS FROM POWDER OR WITH SELF-ADDED SUGAR 1.3 (0.3) 0.0 1.4 (0.3) 0.0 NON-TAXED SUGAR-FREE BEVERAGES (TOTAL) 47.8 (2.2) 42.9 49.8 (2.2) 41.1 18.7 (1.1) 16.0 15.0 (1.1) 8.0 11.6 (1.0) 4.3 13.7 (1.0) 6.0 O   FLAVORED WATER WITH NO OR LOW CALORIE (NLC) SWEETENER 2.3 (0.4) 0.0 2.4 (0.5) 0.0 l 100% FRUIT JUICE 5.6 (0.5) 2.9 6.2 (0.6) 2.9 l NON-FLAVORED MILK* 9.3 (0.7) 6.0 8.4 (0.5) 6.0 l UNSWEETENED TEA OR COFFEE 0.9 (0.3) 0.0 0.8 (0.3) 0.0 l OTHER FLAVORED DRINKS WITH NO OR LOW CALORIE (NLC) SWEETENER l l WATER O   TAP WATER O   BOTTLED WATER O   NLC FRUIT-FLAVORED DRINKS O   NLC SODA/POP O   NLC ENERGY DRINKS O   NLC SPORTS DRINKS O   TEA OR COFFEE WITH NLC SWEETENER 1.0 (0.2) 0.0 2.0 (0.4) 0.0 0.3 (0.1) 0.0 0.5 (0.1) 0.0 0.5 (0.2) 0.0 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 0.5 (0.2) 0.0 1.0 (0.3) 0.0 0.6 (0.2) 0.0 1.0 (0.3) 0.0 Note. Values are means (standard errors of the mean) or medians in ounces per day based on the multiplicative of derived daily frequency and habitual volume reported on the modified beverage consumption questionnaire used; for beverage domains with multiple beverage types being combined, total values are the sums of daily ounces per day for each type within that domain; *Non-flavored milk includes cow’s milk, soy milk, nut milks that have no added sugar and regardless of fat content. Child diet quality The Dietary Screener Questionnaire is a commonly used screener to obtain a general overview of diet quality as well as evaluate components of children’s diets that most often contribute added sugars. Among the more healthful foods asked about, we found the highest average consumption among the City of Seattle and comparison area children was for fruit (5.2 times per week in City of Seattle; 5.3 times per week in the comparison area), non-leafy vegetables (4.3 and 3.8 times per week respectively), green leafy or lettuce salad (3.4 and 2.9 times per week respectively), and whole grain bread (3.3 and 2.9 times per week respectively). Among the less healthful options, cheese (3.6 and 4.0 times per week respectively), pork/beef/sausage (3.3 and 3.0 times per week respectively), chocolate and other candy (2.3 and 2.4 time respectively), processed meats (2.1 and 2.2 times per week respectively), and fried potatoes (1.8 and 2.0 time respectively) were most frequently consumed by City of Seattle and comparison area children. Hot or cold cereal was also consumed often in both samples (3.9 and 3.7 times per week respectively). The remaining foods were consumed on average less often than 2 times per week. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 30 The ranking or order of consumption by food type within the larger categories (more healthful, less healthful, other/intermediate) among City of Seattle versus comparison area children was very similar. The absolute average consumption across food types was also similar between the City of Seattle and comparison area children, with the exception of higher consumption of brown rice and whole grains among City of Seattle children. Details about SeaSAW children’s diet quality are provided in Table 3. TABLE 3. CHILD DIET QUALITY IN THE SEASAW SAMPLE CITY OF SEATTLE RESIDENCE DIET QUALITY COMPONENT COMPARISON AREA RESIDENCE TIMES PER WEEK EATEN MEAN (SE) MEDIAN MEAN (SE) MEDIAN FRUIT – FRESH, FROZEN, CANNED 5.2 (0.3) 3.5 5.3 (0.3) 3.5 OTHER NON-LEAFY VEGETABLES 4.3 (0.2) 3.5 3.8 (0.2) 3.5 GREEN LEAFY OR LETTUCE SALAD 3.4 (0.2) 3.5 2.9 (0.2) 2.0 WHOLE GRAIN BREAD 3.3 (0.2) 2.0 2.9 (0.2) 2.0 POTATOES – MASHED, BOILED, OR BAKED 1.4 (0.1) 0.6 1.3 (0.1) 0.6 BEANS 1.5 (0.1) 0.6 1.3 (0.1) 0.6 BROWN RICE OR WHOLE GRAINS 1.8 (0.2) 0.6 1.1 (0.1) 0.3 SALSA 0.8 (0.1) 0.3 0.9 (0.1) 0.3 CHEESE 3.6 (0.2) 3.5 4.0 (0.2) 3.5 BEEF, PORK, OR SAUSAGE 3.3 (0.2) 2.0 3.0 (0.2) 2.0 CHOCOLATE OR OTHER CANDY 2.3 (0.2) 1.0 2.4 (0.2) 2.0 PROCESSED MEATS 2.1 (0.1) 1.0 2.2 (0.1) 2.0 POTATOES – FRIED 1.8 (0.1) 1.0 2.0 (0.2) 1.0 BAKED GOOD – CAKE, COOKIES 1.4 (0.1) 0.6 1.3 (0.1) 0.6 ICE CREAM OR FROZEN DESSERTS 1.3 (0.1) 0.6 1.4 (0.1) 0.6 BAKED GOOD – PASTRIES, DONUTS, MUFFINS 1.2 (0.1) 0.6 1.4 (0.1) 0.6 PIZZA 1.2 (0.1) 0.6 1.2 (0.1) 0.6 HOT OR COLD CEREAL 3.9 (0.2) 3.5 3.7 (0.2) 3.5 TOMATO SAUCE 1.4 (0.1) 0.6 1.2 (0.1) 0.6 POPCORN 1.0 (0.1) 0.6 1.2 (0.1) 0.6 MORE HEALTHFUL LESS HEALTHFUL OTHER/INTERMEDIATE Note. Values are mean values (standard error of the mean) or medians of times per week, converted from the original Dietary Screener Questionnaire response options (0=Never, 1=1 time last month, 2=2-3 times last month, 3=1 time per week, 4=2 times per week, 5=3-4 times per week, 6=5-6 times per week, 7=1 time per day, 8=2 or more times per day) Parent beverage consumption Similar to their children, parents overall consumption of beverages within the non-taxed sugar-free category (59.3 oz/day for City of Seattle parents; 64.3 oz/day for comparison area parents) was higher than the two sugary beverages categories (taxed and non-taxed sugar added) for both City of Seattle and comparison area parents. Like their children, tap and bottled water had the highest average parent consumption within the non-sugar-added beverage category (23.1 oz/day for tap and 15.9 oz/day for bottled water in City of Seattle; 18.3 oz/day for tap and 18.5 oz/day for bottled water). This was followed by non-flavored milk (7.4 oz/day and 7.4 oz/day respectively), 100% fruit juice (5.0 oz/day and 5.7 oz/day respectively), and unsweetened tea or coffee (3.3 oz/day and 2.7 oz/ day) among City of Seattle and comparison area parents. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 31 The category of taxed beverages had the next highest consumption among the beverage categories for both City of Seattle (14.3 oz/day) and comparison area parents (21.4 oz/day). Among City of Seattle parents, prepared tea or coffee with sugar constituted the highest consumption within this taxed beverage category (5.5 oz/day), followed by soda/pop with sugar (4.2 oz/day), and then fruit-flavored beverage with sugar (2.9 oz/day). The comparison area parents had a slightly different order of highest consumption among taxed beverages, with soda/pop with sugar (7.4 oz/day) being the highest consumed in this beverage category, followed by prepared tea or coffee with sugar (5.4 oz/day), and then fruit-flavored beverage with sugar (3.8 oz/day). The non-taxed sugar-added The non-taxed sugar-added category had the lowest consumption relative category had the lowest parent to the other two categories (7.0 oz/day in City of Seattle parents and 9.8 oz/ consumption relative to the other day in comparison area parents). Most of the consumption in this category two categories (7.0 oz/day in City was driven by parent consumption of tea or coffee that was self-prepared of Seattle parents and 9.8 oz/ with sugar (5.6 oz/day in City of Seattle; 6.3 oz/day in comparison area). Alcoholic drink consumption was lowest among beverage categories for day in comparison area parents). both Seattle and comparison area parents (1.6 oz/day and 2.5 oz/day Most of the consumption in this respectively. category was driven by parent Similar to their children, the largest absolute difference among overall consumption of tea or coffee that beverage categories between the City of Seattle and the comparison area was self-prepared with sugar (5.6 in average consumption was for taxed beverages. These differences were oz/day in City of Seattle; 6.3 oz/ driven mainly by differences in soda/pop consumption, with less difference day in comparison area). in fruit-flavored beverage, energy drinks, and sport drinks with sugar. Details about parent beverage consumption are provided in Table 4. TABLE 4. PARENT BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION WITHIN THE SEASAW SAMPLE CITY OF SEATTLE RESIDENCE BEVERAGES COMPARISON AREA RESIDENCE OUNCES PER DAY TAXED BEVERAGES (TOTAL) – PREPARED/BOTTLED MEAN (SE) MEDIAN MEAN (SE) MEDIAN 14.3 (1.3) 7.1 21.4 (1.9) 9.1 l FRUIT-FLAVORED DRINKS WITH SUGAR 2.9 (0.4) 0.0 3.8 (0.5) 1.1 l SODA/POP WITH SUGAR 4.2 (0.5) 1.1 7.4 (0.8) 1.7 l TEA OR COFFEE WITH SUGAR 5.5 (0.7) 1.0 5.4 (0.6) 1.1 l ENERGY DRINKS WITH SUGAR 1.0 (0.2) 0.0 2.4 (0.5) 0.0 l SPORTS DRINKS WITH SUGAR 1.3 (0.3) 0.0 2.9 (0.5) 0.0 7.0 (0.7) 2.9 9.8 (0.9) 4.3 NON-TAXED SUGAR-ADDED BEVERAGES (TOTAL) l FLAVORED MILK 0.9 (0.2) 0.0 2.1 (0.4) 0.0 l TEA OR COFFEE WITH SELF-ADDED SUGAR 5.6 (0.6) 1.1 6.3 (0.6) 1.1 FRUIT-FLAVORED OR SPORTS DRINKS FROM POWDER OR WITH SELF-ADDED SUGAR 1.0 (0.3) 0.0 1.6 (0.4) 0.0 NON-TAXED SUGAR-FREE BEVERAGES (TOTAL) 59.3 (2.5) 52.6 64.3 (2.5) 58.0 23.1 (1.3) 18.0 18.3 (1.2) 14.3 O   BOTTLED WATER 15.9 (1.3) 5.7 18.5 (1.2) 11.4 O   FLAVORED WATER WITH NO OR LOW CALORIE (NLC) SWEETENER 3.9 (0.6) 0.0 4.5 (0.6) 0.0 l l WATER O   TAP WATER BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 32 l 100% FRUIT JUICE 5.0 (0.5) 2.9 5.7 (0.6) 2.9 l NON-FLAVORED MILK* 7.4 (0.7) 2.9 7.4 (0.6) 4.3 l UNSWEETENED TEA OR COFFEE 3.3 (0.5) 0.0 2.7 (0.5) 0.0 1.3 (0.4) 0.0 3.0 (0.5) 0.0 0.6 (0.2) 0.0 1.8 (0.5) 0.0 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 0.5 (0.2) 0.0 0.5 (0.2) 0.0 1.1 (0.3) 0.0 2.1 (0.4) 0.0 2.5 (0.5) 0.0 1.6 (0.4) 0.0 2.5 (0.4) 0.0 OTHER FLAVORED DRINKS WITH NO OR LOW CALORIE (NLC) SWEETENER l O   NLC FRUIT-FLAVORED DRINKS O   NLC SODA/POP O   NLC ENERGY DRINKS O   NLC SPORTS DRINKS O   TEA OR COFFEE WITH NCL SWEETENER ALCOHOLIC DRINKS Note. Values are means (standard errors of the mean) or medians of ounces per day based on the multiplicative of derived daily frequency and habitual volume reported on the modified beverage consumption questionnaire used; for beverage domains with multiple beverage types being combined, total values are the sums of daily ounces per day for each type within that domain; *Nonflavored milk includes cow’s milk, soy milk, nut milks that have no added sugar and regardless of fat content. Discussion The Child Cohort component of the Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax evaluation has been successfully launched in a short period of time. The baseline beverage consumption data for children and parents as well as the data on the quality of children’s diets came from a new study in which we recruited and enrolled low-income as well as a racially and ethnically diverse sample of families and children living in the City of Seattle or in south King County (comparison area). We focus on a low-income population for health equity reasons and because these populations generally tend to have higher sugary beverage consumption and are more sensitive to price changes. The Child Cohort data form the basis on which to evaluate consumption impacts of the Seattle SBT. Establishing baseline allows for evaluation of short- and long-term changes in child and parent beverage consumption (by beverage category or within specific beverage types) and substitution among beverage types. The additional collection of some aspects of children’s diet quality will allow for exploring substitution between children’s beverage consumption and other common sources of added sugar in children’s diet (e.g., if children reduce sugary beverage consumption, do they increase consumption of high-sugar foods?). We found that both children and parents within the City of Seattle and the comparison area report the highest consumption for beverages without added sugar, particularly tap and bottled water. Unflavored milk and 100% juice consumption were also among the higher individual beverages that children and parents consumed that were not water. This non-taxed sugar-free beverage consumption was followed by moderate consumption of taxed beverages. Soda/pop and fruit-flavored beverages with sugar had the highest average consumption for children in this beverage category. Prepared tea or coffee with sugar and soda/pop with sugar had the highest average consumption for parents in this beverage category. The beverage category with the lowest average consumption was non-taxed sugar-added beverages, although this category had fewer individual beverage types in it than the other beverage categories. Most flavored beverages with no or low calorie sweeteners had among the lowest average consumption, particularly for children (most < 1 oz/day on average). There were differences between the City of Seattle and comparison area samples in both child and parent consumption of taxed beverages. Among the foods queried on the Dietary Screener Questionnaire, children most frequently consumed the more healthful foods of fruits, green leafy and other vegetables, and whole grain bread. Among the most frequently consumed less healthful foods by children were cheese, beef/pork/sausage, and chocolate and other candy. We found similar patterns of child diet quality between the children in the City of Seattle and children in the comparison area. There are limitations to the methods and the findings of the baseline Child Cohort component. The methods were limited to child and/or parent report of child beverage consumption and diet quality and parent report of their own beverage consumption. There are likely biases to such reports, including possible intentional (e.g., wanting to not BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 33 report consumption of foods or beverages thought to be less healthful) and unintentional biases (e.g., challenges with recalling frequency of consumption). The participants, although from low-income households (by design) and being racially and ethnically diverse, were not randomly selected and are not geographically or demographically representative of the City of Seattle or the comparison areas. More details about the limitations of the Child Cohort methods can be found in the baseline methods report provided to the City of Seattle in February 2018. Attempts were made to have demographically similar participants in the City of Seattle and the comparison areas within the Child Cohort. This was successful for some demographic characteristics (e.g., child age, child sex), but on other demographic characteristics the City of Seattle and comparison areas differ (e.g., child race, household income, food insecurity). The relative order or ranking of the average child and parent consumption of beverage categories (non-added-sugar beverages, beverages that would be subject to Seattle’s Sweetened Beverage Tax, sugar-added beverages not subject to Seattle’s Sweetened Beverage Tax) was similar between the City of Seattle and comparison area. However, children and parents in the comparison areas had higher absolute average consumption of the sugary beverages that are subject to the Seattle SBT compared to children and parents in the City of Seattle. This highlights the importance of collecting baseline data and not assuming similar starting points, while also highlighting the need to use strategies in the longitudinal analysis (baseline to 6-month to 1-year to 2-year follow-up) that can account for the sample demographic and baseline beverage consumption differences. However, the lower level of City of Seattle children and parent's sugary beverage consumption may make it difficult to observe a reduction in consumption of these types of beverage over time. It is notable that the child dietary quality findings were very similar between the City of Seattle and comparison area. Future work & considerations for ongoing evaluation We will continue to prepare the baseline data to be ready for analysis when the post-tax data become available. This will include scoring the Dietary Screener Questionnaire to derive child-specific estimates of added sugar from common foods (using age-based volume of consumption estimates from national data), exploring strategies for addressing sporadic missing data (e.g., volume not reported for a beverage reported as consumed), and establishing a longitudinal analysis plan that can adjust for any existing baseline and demographic differences. We are also in the process of preparing for the first post-tax evaluation time point at 6-months post-tax (starting in May/June 2018). For the 6-month and subsequent time points, we will re-contact and re-connect with the same families enrolled and engaged in the baseline data collection. They will complete the same child beverage consumption, parent beverage consumption, and child dietary quality surveys in order to enable evaluation of change over time using the same methods. We will also collect household demographic information for characteristics that may change over time (e.g., household income, food security). Having multiple short-term (6-month) and long-term (12-month and 24-month) data collection for the Child Cohort will allow us to more reliably estimate the impact of the tax on consumption, examine the impact on trajectory of consumption, and explore differences throughout critical seasonal fluctuations in consumption of sugary beverages in particular among both children and parents. The Child Cohort component of the overall evaluation, in combination with other components of the Seattle SBT evaluation (e.g., store audits, store scanner data), will provide critical information about the public health impact of this tax, particularly on low-income populations with children, better our understanding of how the tax is impacting consumption and for whom, and has the potential to inform other policy needs and approaches to promote better child health. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 34 SECTION 3 ADULT SURVEY: NORMS AND ATTITUDES Abstract Objective: As part of the tax implementation, the public will likely experience increased exposure to information about sugary beverages and their adverse health effects through heightened media attention during the course of adopting and implementing a tax. Subsequently, this increased awareness of the negative health effects of sugary beverages may drive changes in norms about sugary beverages and related issues, and could lead to reduced sugary beverage consumption1. This section will investigate whether people’s perception of the healthfulness of sugary beverages and perceptions of the economic effects of sweetened beverage taxes change as a result of the tax and whether any observed change is larger (or smaller) among low-income populations in comparison to higher-income populations. Methods: Participants were recruited between October and December 2017 from Seattle (N=851) and between December 2017 and January 2018 in a comparison area (N=863), whose demographics are similar to that of Seattle. The comparison area included residents of Minneapolis, MN and the combined region of Rockville City and Bethesda, MD and Arlington, VA (henceforth referred to as D.C. metro). The survey was offered online and via telephone in three languages (English, Spanish, and Vietnamese). We also recruited a large sample of low-income adults, defined as < 260 % of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Post-stratification weights were applied to all prevalence estimates based on the known population totals for race/ ethnicity, gender, age, and household income as determined by the 5-year American Community Survey estimates (2012-2016). We present descriptive analyses of the responses for Seattle and the comparison area separately. We qualitatively examine similarities and differences in responses according to race/ethnicity and income. Seattle and the comparison area are well-matched on a number of demographic characteristics including gender, age, and household income level. However, there is a lower proportion of people who are non-Hispanic Black (7% Seattle, 13% comparison) and people who are Hispanic (7% Seattle, 12% comparison) in Seattle, as compared to the comparison area. A greater proportion of participants in the control area are below 260 % FPL (46%), compared to survey participants in Seattle (37%). Results: A majority of participants supported the Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) in Seattle (58%) and correspondingly, believed that the tax will help improve the health and well-being of children (58%) and the public’s health more generally (55%). Most participants in Seattle perceived that the tax will not negatively affect small businesses (53%) nor result in job loss (66%). Slightly less than half (47%) believed the tax will positively impact low-income people and people of color, whereas 42% perceived that the SBT would negatively impact lowincome people and people of color, and 11% reported they “don't know”. Moreover, 77% of participants in Seattle reported that they do not intend to cross-border shop for sugary beverages. Corresponding with generally positive perceptions of the tax, more than 80% of participants in Seattle believed that sugary beverage consumption is related to adverse health conditions, including dental health problems (87%), obesity (86%), diabetes (87%), and heart disease (71%). Aligned with these beliefs about the healthfulness of sugary beverages, consumption of sugary beverages in Seattle was lower than the national average-- only 16% of those surveyed in Seattle reported consuming one or more sugary beverages per-day, which compares with 50% nationally. We observed some differences in perceptions by income and race/ethnicity among Seattle participants. Perceptions of the tax and of sugary beverages were similar along many dimensions for Seattle and the comparison area. The SBT evaluation project budget memo submitted 9/27/2017 to Council placed this component under “assessment of process of implementing the tax.” Because we collect data from adults both about consumption and perception about sugary beverage we consider this component a part of studying the SBT Ordinance objective on the SBT impact on health behaviors. 1 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 35 SECTION 3 ADULT SURVEY: NORMS AND ATTITUDES Objective As part of the tax implementation, the public will likely experience increased exposure to information about sugary beverages and their health effects through heightened media attention during the course of adopting and implementing a tax. An unanswered question is whether this heightened attention could change the public’s perception of the health consequences and social acceptability of consuming sugary beverages, and that in turn, this change could create a non-price pathway to reducing consumption. If this is the case, a tax may be associated with behavior change, even among those who are not sensitive to price increases. The objective of this survey is to examine whether the implementation of the sweetened beverage tax changes adults’ norms and attitudes around sugary beverage consumption. Methods Survey design. This survey was designed to investigate whether Seattle’s SBT changes residents’ perceptions about sugary beverages and the tax itself. In designing this survey, we gathered questions from various sources in order to align with previous data collection efforts, to the extent feasible.2 After collating questions from all sources, we assessed question overlap and relevance to our survey objective. This survey queried individuals on questions in the following six domains: 1) current consumption of sugary beverages (1 item); 2) norms and attitudes towards the tax itself (4 items); 3) norms and attitudes on unintended economic impacts (6 items); 4) norms and attitudes towards the healthfulness of sugary beverages (24 items); 5) perceptions on government regulation of individual behaviors (1 item); and 6) demographic characteristics (12 items). In Seattle, participants were queried specifically about the SBT that was to be implemented on January 1, 2018. In the comparison area (described below), participants were queried about sugary beverage taxes more generally. The survey was administered online and via the telephone and was offered in three languages: English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Participants’ beliefs around the tax, its economic impacts and the healthfulness of sugary beverages were queried as 4-category likert scales where response options included strongly approve (strongly agree/very likely/very healthy), somewhat approve (somewhat agree/somewhat likely/somewhat healthy) , somewhat disapprove (somewhat disagree/somewhat unlikely/somewhat unhealthy), and strongly disapprove (strongly disagree/ very unlikely/very unhealthy). In addition, for some questions, participants were read two statements and asked to indicate if the first or second statement was "much closer" or "somewhat closer" to their own attitude or perception. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: the first statement was closer, or the second statement was closer. Participants were also given the option to indicate that they “don’t know” in responses to our queries. Data collection and approach. Measuring population-level attitudes over time both in Seattle and a comparison area will allow us to control for secular changes in attitudes toward sugary beverages that are unrelated to the tax. We identified a comparison group, comprised of two areas of the US, that we determined to be similar to Seattle in their economic, political, and demographic characteristics, based on a comparison of demographic characteristics from the American Community Survey (ACS). The comparison area is comprised of individuals from Minneapolis, MN and the combined region of Rockville and Bethesda, MD and Arlington, VA (henceforth referred to as D.C. metro). Participants were recruited between October and December 2017 from Seattle (N=851) and between December 2017 and January 2018 in the comparison area (N=863). Data were collected with the assistance of a professional survey research firm, Ironwood Insights, LLC. Ironwood identified and recruited participants in Seattle and the comparison area based on participants’ zip code of residence and their demographic characteristics (e.g. race/ethnicity). We aimed to recruit a sample that is racially/ethnically We reviewed questions from the following sources: Communities Putting Prevention to Work in Seattle-King County; intercept survey in Berkeley, CA (Falbe et al); survey in Philadelphia, PA (Bleich et al); UC Berkeley Youth Beverage Survey; Niederdeppe et al 2014; Gollust et al. 2014; Gollust et al. 2017 and prior polls, including: Seattle 2017 and 2014, Vermont 2011, Berkeley 2013, El Monte 2012, DC 2010, Philadelphia 2010, Minnesota 2009, California 2010. 2 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 36 similar to the general population of Seattle and the comparison area, based on the 5-year American Community (ACS) sample (2012-2016). In addition, because low-income populations, as compared to their higher-income counterparts, are more likely to consume sugary beverages3 and be more sensitive to price increases, our sampling strategy aimed to collect a large sample of low-income adults. Low-income was defined as < 260% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)4 and was based on tiers in Apple Health (Medicaid) and the median household income in Seattle ($70,594 [ACS 5-year]). At baseline, we successfully recruited 395 low-income participants in Seattle (46% of total sample) and 410 low-income participants in the comparison area (48% of total sample)5. Descriptive analysis. We created survey weights using the raking method, a post-stratification procedure whereby the adjusted weights add up to the known population totals (as determined by the 5-year ACS) for race/ethnicity, gender, age, and income. For our comparison area, the derived weight is a weighted average based on the prevalence of the characteristic in the ACS and the number of individuals from each area in our data.6 For these analyses, race and ethnicity are mutually exclusive categories and individuals are categorized as follows: people who are non-Hispanic white, people who are non-Hispanic Black, people who are non-Hispanic Asian, people who are non-Hispanic of “other” races, and people who are Hispanic. People who are Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, people who are American Indian and Alaska Natives, and those individuals who reported two or more races are categorized as nonHispanic of an "other" race. In these analyses, participants’ beliefs were collapsed and are presented as 3-category variables (e.g. sugary beverages cause serious health effects, likely, unlikely, or don't know). Individuals who refused to provide a response were excluded from the analysis. We first present the demographic characteristics of our sample. Then, our descriptive analyses present participants’ perceptions of the economic impacts of the tax, as well as their perceptions on the healthfulness of sugary beverages, in Seattle. Additionally, we present Seattle participants’ perceptions of the economic impacts of the tax and the healthfulness of sugary beverages stratified by level of income and race/ethnicity. Finally, we briefly compare perceptions in Seattle versus the comparison area. All results presented are based on weighted analyses (i.e. analyses using survey weights described above). Demographics. As detailed in Table 1, Seattle and the comparison area are well-matched on a number of demographic characteristics including gender, age, household income level, and Medicaid participation rates. We observe some differences by race/ethnicity, level of educational attainment, and the percent of the population below 260% FPL when comparing participants in Seattle versus the comparison area samples. There is a lower proportion of people who are non-Hispanic Black (7% in Seattle, 14% in comparison) and people who are Hispanic (7% in Seattle, 12% in comparison) in Seattle compared to the comparison area. Conversely, there is a higher proportion of people who are non-Hispanic white (66% in Seattle, 60% in comparison) and people who are non-Hispanic Asian (15% in Seattle, 9% in comparison area) in Seattle as compared to the comparison area. The level of educational attainment is higher in Seattle versus the comparison area; 38% of Seattle participants have completed college or university, as compared to 30% of participants in the comparison area. A greater proportion of participants in the comparison area are below 260% FPL (46%), compared to survey participants in Seattle (37%). These differences reflect actual population differences between Seattle and the comparison areas. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). Get the Facts: Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Consumption. https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/datastatistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html (accessed March 29, 2018). 4 The Federal Poverty Level is based on household-level income and number of people residing in the household and is the minimum level of income deemed adequate to cover essential resources. 5 46% (Seattle) and 48% (comparison area) are unweighted percentages, unlike the remainder of percentages presented in this chapter. 6 The percent of participants in our comparison areas was as follows: 53% resided in Minneapolis Minnesota, 21% resided in Rockville, Maryland, 7% resided in Bethesda, Maryland, and 19% resided in Arlington, Virginia. Therefore, the prevalence of non-Hispanic Blacks (for example) was multiplied as follows: 0.53 for Minneapolis, 0.21 for Rockville, 0.07 for Bethesda, and 0.19 for Arlington so that the derived weight sums to 100% and is a weighted average based on the prevalence of the characteristic in the ACS and the number of individuals from each area in our data. 3 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 37 TABLE 1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS IN SEATTLE AND THE COMPARISON AREA N (%)1 SEATTLE2 COMPARISON AREA3 (N=851) (N=863) GENDER MALE FEMALE 349(50%) 471(50%) 499(50%) 389(50%) 588(66%) 543(60%) RACE/ETHNICITY NON-HISPANIC WHITE NON-HISPANIC BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN 60(7%) 68(14%) 4 69(15%) 76(9%) NON-HISPANIC OTHER 78(6%) 40(5%) 56(7%) 127(12%) 18-30 YEARS OLD 133(19%) 172(22%) 31-40 YEARS OLD 152(22%) 192(25%) 41-50 YEARS OLD 136(21%) 138(18%) NON-HISPANIC ASIAN 4 HISPANIC AGE 51-64 YEARS OLD 167(24%) 166(21%) ≥ 65+ YEARS OLD 250(14%) 194(14%) SOME HIGH SCHOOL 24(2%) 52(5%) COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL 79(8%) 112(13%) SOME COLLEGE OR VOCATIONAL TRAINING 199(20%) 215(24%) COMPLETED COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 294(38%) 243(30%) COMPLETED GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 241(32%) 220(27%) EDUCATION INCOME LEVEL RELATIVE TO FPL LOW-INCOME: < 260% FPL 395(37%) 410(46%) HIGH-INCOME: ≥ 260% FPL 456(63%) 453(54%) HOUSEHOLD LEVEL INCOME <$30,000 242(21%) 177(21%) $30,000-59,999 213(21%) 246(20%) $60,000-89,999 137(21%) 153(24%) $90,000-120,000 92(15%) 105(16%) 126(22%) 132(19%) MEDICAID, NO 627(78%) 665(81%) MEDICAID, YES 203(22%) 163(19%) DEMOCRAT 462(57%) 360(48%) INDEPENDENT 236(32%) 249(33%) 71(10%) 131(17%) 13(2%) 17(3%) >$120,000 FPL = Federal Poverty Level N is unweighted to show actual sample size whereas percentages are based on weighted analyses. Therefore, the percentages displayed will be different (weighted results) from the number you get by dividing the total N by the cell-specific N (unweighted percent). 1 2 Missing data: gender (n=3); ethnicity (n=3); age (n=13), education (n=14), household income (n=41); Medicaid participation (n=21); political affiliation (n=69). MEDICAID PARTICIPATION POLITICAL AFFILIATION REPUBLICAN OTHER 3 Comparison area includes Minneapolis and D.C. Metro. Missing data: gender (n=3); race/ethnicity (n=9); age (n=1), education (n=21), household income (n=50); Medicaid participation (n=35); political affiliation (n=106). Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, American Indian and Alaska Natives, and those reporting two or more races are categorized as non-Hispanic “Other”. 4 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 38 Results Perceptions of health and economic impacts of the tax and healthfulness of sugary beverages in Seattle: overall and according to income and race/ethnicity Overall perceptions of the health and economic impacts of the tax in Seattle. A majority of participants supported the Sweetened Beverage Tax in Seattle (58%), with 37% of participants reporting that they did not support the tax and 5% reporting that they “don’t know”. Correspondingly, most residents believed that the tax will help improve the public’s health (Table 2). In particular, 58% of participants in Seattle perceived that the SBT will improve the health and well-being of children and 55% believed the tax will improve the public’s health more generally. Overall, participants did not perceive that the tax will have adverse economic consequences. Most participants in Seattle believed that the tax will not negatively affect small businesses (53%) nor result in job loss (66%). While some participants did not, a majority of participants support Seattle participants largely did not perceive that the tax would negatively the tax and correspondingly impact their own finances (79%). Participants were also queried as to whether the tax would positively or negatively impact low-income people believe that the tax will help and people of color; 47% of participants in Seattle perceived that the SBT improve the public’s health, would positively impact low-income people and people of color, whereas without having adverse economic 42% perceived that the SBT would negatively impact low-income people effects. and people of color, and 11% reported they “don't know”. Contrary to a common hypothesis that a sweetened beverage tax will increase cross-border shopping, 77% of participants in Seattle reported that they do not intend to cross-border shop for sugary beverages. Contrary to a common hypothesis that a beverage tax will increase crossborder shopping (i.e. shopping for sugary beverages in nearby areas that are not subject to the tax), 77% of participants in Seattle reported that they will not cross-border shop for sugary beverages. Notably, responses were very similar among those participants who live close to the border (defined as within one mile of the North or South Seattle border) as compared to those who did not live close to the border (data not shown). Most participants (71%) believed that they will continue to have autonomy over their beverage selection, despite the tax. Overall perceptions of healthfulness of sugary beverages in Seattle. For context, consumption of sugary beverages in our Seattle sample was lower than national-level estimates, which suggest that 50% of adults consume one or more sugary beverage per-day.8,9 In Seattle, 16% of those surveyed consumed one or more sugary beverage per-day (Table 3). Corresponding with lower-than-average trends in sugary beverage consumption, more than 80% of participants in Seattle believed that sugary beverages increase one’s chance of developing serious health conditions (82%), dental health problems (87%), obesity (86%), and diabetes (87%) and 71% agreed that sugary beverages cause heart disease. Similarly, approximately 90% of participants in Seattle perceived that drinking soda/pop could lead to health problems. Approximately 85% of participants perceived that fruit-flavored beverages, sweetened coffee and tea, and energy drinks could lead to health problems. Moreover, nearly 84% of participants perceived that added sugar is related to serious health problems. More than 80% of participants perceived water and unflavored milk to be healthy. On the contrary, only 17% of participants perceived diet beverages to be healthy. Notably, a higher proportion of participants report that filtered (92%) or bottled water (88%) was healthy, compared to tap water (83%). Consumers of sugary beverages reported that they are most likely to substitute filtered, tap water for sugary beverages (77%). Below, we further examine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). Get the Facts: Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Consumption. https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/datastatistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html (accessed March 29, 2018). 8 These national-level data are collected through an in-person 24-hour dietary recall interview, which covers dietary intake during the day (24 hours, midnight to midnight), using the USDA Multiple-Pass Method (MPM). On the contrary, our survey queries respondents on their sugary beverage consumption during the last 30-days, similar to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Thus, these are not the same methods of dietary data collection and we would expect some differences due to reporting method. However, differences in the data collection method would not likely account for a 30-percentage point different in sugary beverage consumption between our participants and the national-level data. 9 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 39 the extent to which these perceptions vary by income and race/ethnicity in Seattle. Prior evidence documents differences in consumption by race/ethnicity and income.7 Thus, examining overall perceptions may not identify important differences for subsets of the population. Perceived health and economic impacts of tax in Seattle and by income level. We observed some variation by household income level in Seattle participants’ perceptions around the economic impacts of the tax (Table 2). Although a majority of participants in both higher- and low-income populations supported the tax, support for the tax was higher among higher-income participants (defined as ≥ 260% FPL) (62%), as compared to low-income participants (51%). Fewer low-income participants (47%), as compared to high-income (60%), perceived that the tax would improve the public’s health. Although the majority of participants did not believe that the tax would negatively impact their family’s finances, a higher proportion of higher-income (85%) versus low-income (69%) participants believed that the tax would not negatively affect their family’s finances. Similarly, a greater proportion of higher-income participants (75%), versus low-income (64%), perceived that the tax will not limit their individual choice to consume certain beverages. Half (50%) of the higher-income participants surveyed reported that the tax will positively impact low-income people and people of color, whereas 41% reported that the SBT will negatively impact low-income people and people of color, and 10% reported that they “don’t know”. Support for the tax was lower among lower-income participants. TABLE 2. PERCEIVED HEALTH AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF TAX IN SEATTLE OVERALL AND BY INCOME LEVEL SEATTLE < 260% FPL ≥ 260% FPL (N=851)1,2 (N=395)1,2 (N=456) 1,2 OPINION ON TAX3 APPROVE 58% 51% 62% DISAPPROVE 37% 43% 34% 5% 6% 4% TAX WILL IMPROVE CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING 58% 53% 62% TAX WILL NOT IMPROVE CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING 38% 42% 35% DON'T KNOW 4% 6% 3% TAX WILL IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH 55% 47% 60% TAX WILL NOT IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH 41% 46% 37% DON'T KNOW 4% 7% 3% DON'T KNOW CHILD WELL-BEING PUBLIC HEALTH 4 4 CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING 4 1 % are weighted values Missing data: opinion on tax (n=1); cross-border shopping (n=4), small business (n=1); job loss (n=1); family finances (n=0); impact on low-income people/people of color (n=4); individual choice (n=1) 2 Responses included: strongly disapprove, somewhat disapprove, somewhat approve, strongly approve. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: approve, disapprove. 3 PARTICIPANT WILL NOT CROSS-BORDER SHOP BECAUSE OF THE TAX 77% 74% 79% PARTICIPANT WILL CROSS-BORDER SHOP BECAUSE OF THE TAX 20% 20% 20% DON'T KNOW 9% 11% 1% TAX WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT SMALL BUSINESSES 53% 48% 55% TAX WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT SMALL BUSINESSES 39% 41% 37% DON'T KNOW 9% 11% 7% TAX WILL NOT RESULT IN JOB LOSS 66% 59% 71% TAX WILL RESULT IN JOB LOSS 23% 25% 22% DON'T KNOW 11% 16% 8% SMALL BUSINESSES FPL = Federal Poverty Level 4 JOB LOSS4 4 Participants were read two statements and asked to indicate if the first statement was much closer, the first statement was somewhat closer, the second statement was much closer, or the second statement was somewhat closer. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: the first statement was closer, or the second statement was closer. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 40 FAMILY FINANCES4 TAX WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT FAMILY FINANCES 79% 69% 85% TAX WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT FAMILY FINANCES 17% 24% 14% 4% 7% 2% TAX WILL POSITIVELY IMPACT LOW-INCOME PEOPLE/PEOPLE OF COLOR 47% 43% 50% TAX WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT LOW-INCOME PEOPLE/PEOPLE OF COLOR 42% 44% 41% DON'T KNOW 11% 13% 10% PEOPLE WILL HAVE THE CHOICE TO DRINK THE BEVERAGES THEY WANT 71% 64% 75% PEOPLE WILL NOT HAVE THE CHOICE TO DRINK THE BEVERAGES THEY WANT 26% 31% 22% DON'T KNOW 4% 6% 3% DON'T KNOW IMPACT ON LOW-INCOME PEOPLE/PEOPLE OF COLOR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE 4 4 Among lower-income participants, 43% reported that the tax will positively impact low-income people and people of color, 44% reported the SBT will negatively impact low-income people and people of color and 13% reported that they “don’t know”. Perceived healthfulness of sugary beverages in Seattle and by income level. Low-income participants in Seattle reported consuming more sugary beverages per week, compared to their highincome participants (Table 3); 22% of low-income participants reporting consuming one or more beverages perday, as compared to 12% of higher-income participants. This difference in consumption was aligned with some differences in perceptions around healthfulness of sugary beverages, whereby higher-income participants less often reported that sugary beverages are healthy. Specifically, a larger proportion of higher-income, versus lowincome, individuals believed that sugary beverages (85% higher-income, 77% low-income) or added sugar (89% higher-income, 77% low-income) cause serious health effects. Aligned with this trend, higher-income participants, compared to low-income, were more likely to perceive that non-taxed beverages (e.g. water, unflavored milk) are healthy. Low-income sugary beverage consumers reported that they are less likely to substitute tap water (65% versus 75% among higher-income) or unsweetened coffee or tea (59% versus 71% among higher-income). TABLE 3. CONSUMPTION AND PERCEIVED HEALTHFULNESS OF SUGARY BEVERAGES IN SEATTLE OVERALL AND BY INCOME LEVEL SEATTLE < 260% FPL ≥ 260% FPL (N=851)1,2 (N=395)1,2 (N=456) 1,2 NONE OR < 1 WEEK 1 WEEK 2-6 WEEK ≥ 1 DAY DON'T KNOW 45% 16% 22% 16% 1% 36% 16% 24% 22% 2% 50% 16% 21% 12% 1% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 82% 17% 2% 77% 21% 2% 85% 14% 1% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 87% 12% 1% 85% 13% 1% 88% 11% 0% AGREE 86% 84% 88% CONSUMPTION SUGARY BEVERAGES CAUSE THE FOLLOWING:3 SERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS DENTAL HEALTH OBESITY BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 41 DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 13% 1% 15% 2% 12% 1% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 87% 12% 2% 85% 12% 3% 87% 12% 1% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 71% 20% 9% 69% 21% 10% 73% 20% 7% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 84% 12% 4% 77% 17% 6% 89% 10% 2% NONE OR < 1 WEEK 1 WEEK 2-6 WEEK ≥ 1 DAY DON'T KNOW 30% 32% 23% 9% 6% 28% 31% 25% 9% 7% 31% 33% 22% 9% 6% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 90% 6% 3% 88% 8% 4% 91% 6% 3% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 85% 10% 5% 79% 14% 6% 88% 8% 4% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 73% 18% 9% 68% 21% 11% 76% 17% 7% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 83% 12% 6% 78% 14% 8% 85% 11% 4% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 85% 7% 9% 80% 8% 12% 88% 6% 7% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 83% 14% 2% 75% 22% 4% 88% 10% 2% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 92% 6% 2% 85% 10% 5% 96% 3% 1% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 88% 9% 3% 81% 14% 5% 92% 6% 2% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 82% 14% 4% 77% 18% 5% 84% 12% 3% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 77% 19% 4% 72% 22% 6% 80% 17% 3% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 17% 80% 3% 19% 77% 4% 16% 81% 3% DIABETES HEART DISEASE ADDED SUGAR RAISES CHANCE OF HEALTH PROBLEMS:3 MOST PEOPLE SHOULD DRINK SUGARY DRINKS: DRINKING THE FOLLOWING BEVERAGE INCREASES CHANCE OF HEALTH PROBLEMS:3 SODA/POP FRUIT-FLAVORED DRINKS SPORTS DRINKS SWEETENED COFFEE AND TEA ENERGY DRINKS THE FOLLOWING BEVERAGES ARE HEALTHY:4 TAP WATER FILTERED TAP WATER BOTTLED WATER UNFLAVORED MILK UNSWEETENED TEA/COFFEE DIET DRINKS BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 42 LIKELY TO SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING BEVERAGES (AMONG CONSUMERS):5 TAP WATER LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 71% 28% 1% 65% 34% 1% 75% 24% 1% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 77% 21% 2% 72% 26% 2% 81% 18% 1% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 73% 26% 1% 71% 28% 2% 74% 25% 1% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 50% 49% 2% 48% 50% 2% 51% 47% 2% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 66% 33% 2% 59% 38% 3% 71% 28% 1% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 35% 63% 2% 33% 65% 2% 36% 62% 2% FILTERED TAP WATER BOTTLED WATER UNFLAVORED MILK UNSWEETENED COFFEE/TEA DIET DRINKS FPL = Federal Poverty Level 1 % are weighted values 2 Missing data: fruit-flavored drinks (n=2); sports drinks (n=1); coffee/tea (n=1); energy drinks (n=1); healthy filtered water (n=1); healthy coffee/tea (n=1); substitute diet drinks (n=1). 3 Responses included: strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: agree, disagree. 4 Responses included: very healthy, somewhat healthy, somewhat unhealthy, very unhealthy. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: healthy, unhealthily 5 Responses included: very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, very unlikely These four categories are collapsed into two categories: likely, unlikely Perceived health and economic impacts of tax in Seattle, by race/ethnicity. Although trends by race/ethnicity were largely similar to those observed in the aforementioned general results in Seattle (Table 2), some differences by race/ethnicity warrant mention (Table 4). In Seattle, support for the tax was highest among people who are non-Hispanic white (63%). There was lower support for the tax among people who are non-Hispanic of “other” races (55%), people who are Hispanic (52%), and people who are non-Hispanic Asian (48%). Support for the tax was lowest among people who are non-Hispanic Black (45%). People who are non-Hispanic white (58%) were more likely to perceive that the tax would improve the public’s health, followed by people who are non-Hispanic Asian (54%), people who are Hispanic (54%), people of “other” races (42%), and people who are non-Hispanic Black (41%). Additionally, a larger proportion of people who are non-Hispanic white (83%), people who are non-Hispanic of “other” races (82%), and people who are non-Hispanic Asian (74%), compared to people who are Hispanic (67%) and people who are non-Hispanic Black (64%), perceived that the tax would not negatively impact their family’s finances. Despite lower levels of support for the tax, 53% of people who are non-Hispanic Black perceived that the tax will positively impact low-income people and people of color, 32% reported that the tax will negatively impact low-income people and people of color, and 15% reported that they “don't know”. Comparatively, 49% of people who are non-Hispanic white, 48% of people who are non-Hispanic of “other” races, 48% of people who are Hispanic, and 37% of people who are non-Hispanic Asian agreed that tax will positively impact low-income people and people of color. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 43 TABLE 4. PERCEIVED HEALTH AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF TAX IN SEATTLE, BY RACE/ETHNICITY NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC HISPANIC1,2 WHITE1,2 BLACK1,2 ASIAN1,2,3 OTHER RACE1,2,3 (N=588) (N=60) (N=66) (N=78) (N=56) 63% 34% 4% 45% 51% 4% 48% 45% 7% 55% 41% 4% 52% 42% 7% 61% 36% 3% 46% 45% 9% 59% 37% 4% 45% 51% 5% 60% 39% 1% 58% 38% 3% 41% 50% 10% 54% 40% 6% 42% 51% 7% 54% 46% 0% 78% 77% 76% 82% 71% 21% 14% 17% 17% 26% 2% 9% 7% 1% 3% 53% 46% 52% 44% 63% 40% 38% 32% 47% 35% 7% 16% 16% 10% 2% DON'T KNOW 67% 25% 8% 61% 22% 17% 65% 16% 20% 64% 20% 15% 76% 19% 5% DON'T KNOW 83% 16% 1% 64% 30% 6% 74% 15% 11% 82% 14% 4% 67% 26% 7% 49% 53% 37% 48% 48% 41% 32% 49% 41% 45% 10% 15% 14% 11% 7% 74% 64% 60% 72% 66% 23% 32% 32% 23% 34% 4% 4% 8% 5% 0% OPINION ON TAX4 APPROVE DISAPPROVE DON'T KNOW CHILD WELL-BEING5 TAX WILL IMPROVE CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING TAX WILL NOT IMPROVE CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING DON'T KNOW PUBLIC HEALTH5 TAX WILL IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH TAX WILL NOT IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH DON'T KNOW CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING5 PARTICIPANT WILL NOT CROSS-BORDER SHOP BECAUSE OF THE TAX PARTICIPANT WILL CROSS-BORDER SHOP BECAUSE OF THE TAX DON'T KNOW SMALL BUSINESSES5 TAX WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT SMALL BUSINESSES TAX WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT SMALL BUSINESSES DON'T KNOW JOB LOSS5 TAX WILL NOT RESULT IN JOB LOSS TAX WILL RESULT IN JOB LOSS FAMILY FINANCES5 TAX WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT FAMILY FINANCES TAX WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT FAMILY FINANCES IMPACT ON LOW-INCOME PEOPLE/PEOPLE OF COLOR5 TAX WILL POSITIVELY IMPACT LOW-INCOME PEOPLE AND PEOPLE OF COLOR TAX WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT LOW-INCOME PEOPLE AND PEOPLE OF COLOR DON'T KNOW INDIVIDUAL CHOICE 5 PEOPLE WILL HAVE THE CHOICE TO DRINK THE BEVERAGES THEY WANT PEOPLE WILL NOT HAVE THE CHOICE TO DRINK THE BEVERAGES THEY WANT DON'T KNOW % are weighted values 2 Missing data: ethnicity (n=3); opinion on tax (n=1); cross-border shopping (n=4), small business (n=1); job loss (n=1); family finances (n=0); impact on low-income people/people of color (n=4); individual choice (n=1) 3 Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, American Indian and Alaska Natives, and those reporting two or more races are categorized as non-Hispanic “Other”. 4 Responses included: strongly disapprove, somewhat disapprove, somewhat approve, strongly approve. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: approve, disapprove 5 Participants were read two statements and asked to indicate if the first statement was much closer, the first statement was somewhat closer, the second statement was much closer, or the second statement was somewhat closer. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: the first statement was closer, or the second statement was closer. 1 Perceived healthfulness of sugary beverages by race/ethnicity in Seattle. When looking at results regarding healthfulness of sugary beverages by race/ethnicity, we observed two key differences (Table 5). First, consumption of sugary beverages is higher among people who are non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic; 26% of people who are non-Hispanic Blacks and 20% of people who are Hispanic reported consuming BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 44 one or more sugary beverages per-day, whereas only 17% of people of “other” races, 16% of people who are nonHispanic white, and 10% of people who are non-Hispanic Asian, reported doing so. Second, perceptions around the effect of sugary beverage consumption on health conditions differed somewhat by race/ethnicity. Generally consistent with the aforementioned trends in consumption, fewer people who are non-Hispanic Black (65%), as compared to people who are non-Hispanic white (84%), non-Hispanic Asian (84%), non-Hispanics of an “other” race (78%), and Hispanic (77%), agreed that sugary beverages could cause serious health problems. Approximately, 80% of people who are non-Hispanic Black agreed that sugary beverages could cause obesity, which was lower than people who are non-Hispanic Asian (90%), non-Hispanic white (87%), Hispanic (84%) and people of “other” races (84%). In addition, fewer people who are Hispanic (76%), compared to non-Hispanic “other” races (90%), nonHispanic white (89%), non-Hispanic Asian (86%), and non-Hispanic Black (84%) perceived that sugary beverages cause dental caries. Finally, fewer people who are non-Hispanic Black (76%) and Hispanic (78%), compared to people who are non-Hispanic white (87%), non-Hispanic Asian (82%), and non-Hispanic of “other” races (81%), perceived that added sugar raises the chance of health problems. Relatedly, when queried about specific beverages, fewer people who are non-Hispanic Black (68%), compared to people who are Hispanic (89%), people who are non-Hispanic white (88%), people who are non-Hispanic of an “other” race (83%) and people who are non-Hispanic Asian (80%) believed that fruit-flavored beverages increase the chance of health problems. Similar trends were observed for soda/pop, sports drinks, sweetened coffee and tea, and energy drinks. There were also some differences by race/ethnicity around non-taxed, substitution beverages. People who are Hispanic (68%) were less likely to perceive that tap water was healthy, compared to people who are non-Hispanic white (87%), non-Hispanic Asian (81%), and non-Hispanic Black (75%). Among sugary beverage consumers, people who are Hispanic (75%) and non-Hispanic white (73%) were more likely to report that they would substitute tap water for sugary beverages, compared to 68% of people who are non-Hispanic “other” races, 68% of people who are non-Hispanic Black, and 60% of people who are non-Hispanic Asian. TABLE 5. CONSUMPTION AND PERCEIVED HEALTHFULNESS OF SUGARY BEVERAGES IN SEATTLE, BY RACE/ETHNICITY NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC HISPANIC1,2 WHITE1,2 BLACK1,2 ASIAN1,2,3 OTHER RACE1,2,3 (N=588) (N=60) (N=66) (N=78) (N=56) NONE OR < 1 WEEK 1 WEEK 2-6 WEEK ≥ 1 DAY DON'T KNOW 49% 14% 21% 16% 1% 31% 15% 25% 26% 3% 42% 22% 26% 10% 0% 39% 13% 28% 17% 3% 36% 25% 19% 20% 0% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 84% 15% 1% 65% 31% 4% 84% 13% 3% 78% 19% 2% 77% 23% 0% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 89% 11% 1% 84% 16% 0% 86% 12% 2% 90% 8% 2% 76% 24% 0% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 87% 12% 1% 78% 21% 1% 90% 9% 2% 84% 14% 2% 84% 15% 2% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 87% 11% 2% 83% 13% 4% 87% 12% 2% 82% 15% 3% 86% 13% 2% AGREE 73% 60% 73% 58% 75% CONSUMPTION SUGARY BEVERAGES CAUSE THE FOLLOWING:4 SERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS DENTAL HEALTH OBESITY DIABETES HEART DISEASE BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 45 DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 20% 7% 23% 17% 14% 12% 33% 9% 19% 6% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 87% 11% 2% 76% 18% 6% 82% 11% 7% 81% 15% 4% 78% 20% 3% NONE OR < 1 WEEK 1 WEEK 2-6 WEEK ≥ 1 DAY DON'T KNOW 30% 31% 25% 9% 6% 21% 26% 32% 14% 7% 34% 34% 20% 4% 9% 27% 41% 15% 8% 9% 29% 39% 16% 9% 7% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 91% 6% 3% 82% 10% 8% 89% 9% 3% 90% 7% 3% 93% 4% 3% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 88% 8% 4% 68% 21% 11% 80% 16% 5% 83% 14% 3% 89% 2% 9% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 75% 17% 9% 49% 30% 20% 71% 23% 6% 72% 21% 7% 85% 8% 7% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 84% 11% 5% 68% 19% 13% 81% 13% 6% 81% 15% 5% 87% 10% 3% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 85% 6% 9% 63% 14% 24% 86% 9% 5% 90% 5% 5% 95% 4% 2% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 87% 11% 2% 75% 21% 3% 81% 16% 3% 71% 27% 2% 68% 28% 4% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 95% 4% 2% 93% 4% 3% 86% 10% 5% 90% 6% 4% 80% 17% 4% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 90% 8% 2% 89% 6% 5% 85% 11% 5% 89% 8% 3% 77% 15% 8% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 83% 14% 4% 71% 23% 6% 92% 4% 4% 76% 20% 4% 69% 26% 5% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 80% 17% 3% 66% 24% 10% 77% 18% 5% 66% 27% 7% 71% 28% 1% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 16% 82% 3% 28% 65% 7% 20% 77% 3% 14% 83% 4% 21% 78% 1% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 73% 25% 2% 68% 32% 0% 60% 38% 2% 68% 30% 2% 75% 25% 0% ADDED SUGAR RAISES CHANCE OF HEALTH PROBLEMS:4 MOST PEOPLE SHOULD DRINK SUGARY DRINKS: DRINKING THE FOLLOWING BEVERAGE INCREASES CHANCE OF HEALTH PROBLEMS:4 SODA/POP FRUIT-FLAVORED DRINKS SPORTS DRINKS SWEETENED COFFEE AND TEA ENERGY DRINKS THE FOLLOWING BEVERAGES ARE HEALTHY:5 TAP WATER FILTERED TAP WATER BOTTLED WATER UNFLAVORED MILK UNSWEETENED TEA/COFFEE DIET DRINKS LIKELY TO SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING BEVERAGES (AMONG CONSUMERS):6 TAP WATER BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 46 FILTERED TAP WATER 79% 19% 2% 62% 36% 2% 77% 21% 2% 78% 21% 2% 79% 21% 0% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 72% 27% 1% 77% 21% 2% 72% 26% 2% 67% 32% 2% 82% 18% 0% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 49% 49% 2% 50% 48% 3% 54% 44% 2% 46% 51% 3% 46% 54% 0% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 73% 27% 1% 50% 44% 6% 55% 43% 2% 62% 35% 4% 61% 39% 0% 40% 58% 2% 26% 72% 2% 27% 70% 2% 31% 67% 2% 22% 78% 0% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW BOTTLED WATER UNFLAVORED MILK UNSWEETENED COFFEE/TEA DIET DRINKS LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW % are weighted values Missing data: ethnicity(n=3); fruit-flavored drinks (n=2); sports drinks (n=1); coffee/tea (n=1); energy drinks (n=1); healthy filtered water (n=1); healthy coffee/ tea (n=1); substitute diet drinks (n=1). 3 Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, American Indian and Alaska Natives, and those reporting two or more races are categorized as non-Hispanic “Other”. 4 Responses included: strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: agree, disagree 5 Responses included: very healthy, somewhat healthy, somewhat unhealthy, very unhealthy. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: healthy, unhealthy. 6 Responses included: very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, very unlikely. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: likely, unlikely. 1 2 Perceptions of health and economic impacts of the tax and healthfulness of sugary beverages in Seattle versus the comparison area In this section, we compare the overall attitudes and beliefs of the Seattle population to those of the comparison area population. Our hope was that our comparison area would be similar to Seattle on many attitudes and beliefs at baseline. Perceived health and economic impacts of tax in Seattle and the comparison area. Similar to results reported in Seattle (58% approved of the tax), a majority of participants in the comparison area supported the tax (53%) (Table 6). A majority of participants in both Seattle and the comparison area perceived that a SBT will improve the health and well-being of children (58% Support for a sweetened beverage tax was similar in Seattle and the comparison area. comparison area, compared to Seattle, perceived that a SBT would negatively affect small businesses (53% Seattle, 46% comparison area). Participants in the comparison area were equally split on their perception of tax impacts on low-income people and people of color; 43% of participants in the comparison area believed the tax will positively impact low-income people and people of color, 43% of participants in the comparison area believed the tax will negatively impact low-income people and people of color, and 14% reported they “don't know”. This is somewhat different than participants in Seattle where 47% believed the tax will positively impact low-income people and people of color, 42% believed the tax will negatively impact low-income people and people of color, and 11% reported they “don’t know”. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 47 TABLE 6. PERCEIVED ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF TAX IN SEATTLE AND COMPARISON AREA OPINION ON TAX4 APPROVE DISAPPROVE DON'T KNOW CHILD WELL-BEING5 TAX WILL IMPROVE CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING TAX WILL NOT IMPROVE CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING DON'T KNOW PUBLIC HEALTH5 TAX WILL IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH TAX WILL NOT IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH DON'T KNOW CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING5 PARTICIPANT WILL NOT CROSS-BORDER SHOP BECAUSE OF THE TAX PARTICIPANT WILL CROSS-BORDER SHOP BECAUSE OF THE TAX DON'T KNOW SMALL BUSINESSES5 TAX WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT SMALL BUSINESSES TAX WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT SMALL BUSINESSES DON'T KNOW JOB LOSS5 TAX WILL NOT RESULT IN JOB LOSS TAX WILL RESULT IN JOB LOSS DON'T KNOW FAMILY FINANCES5 TAX WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT FAMILY FINANCES TAX WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT FAMILY FINANCES DON'T KNOW IMPACT ON LOW-INCOME PEOPLE/PEOPLE OF COLOR5 TAX WILL POSITIVELY IMPACT LOW-INCOME PEOPLE AND PEOPLE OF COLOR TAX WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT LOW-INCOME PEOPLE AND PEOPLE OF COLOR DON'T KNOW INDIVIDUAL CHOICE5 PEOPLE WILL HAVE THE CHOICE TO DRINK THE BEVERAGES THEY WANT PEOPLE WILL NOT HAVE THE CHOICE TO DRINK THE BEVERAGES THEY WANT DON'T KNOW SEATTLE 1,2 COMPARISON AREA1,3 (N=851) (N=863) 58% 37% 5% 53% 41% 7% 58% 38% 4% 59% 36% 6% 55% 41% 4% 56% 38% 6% 77% 73% 20% 3% 21% 6% 53% 39% 9% 46% 42% 12% 66% 23% 11% 55% 30% 16% 79% 17% 4% 67% 26% 6% 47% 43% 42% 43% 11% 14% 71% 66% 26% 28% 3% 6% 1 % are weighted values Missing data: opinion on tax (n=1); crossborder shopping (n=4), small business (n=1); job loss (n=1); family finances (n=0); impact on low-income people/people of color (n=4); individual choice (n=1) 2 3 Comparison area includes Minneapolis and DC Metro. Missing data: opinion on tax (n=2); child wellbeing (n=2); public health (n=1) 4 Responses included: strongly disapprove, somewhat disapprove, somewhat approve, strongly approve. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: approve, disapprove. Participants were read two statements and asked to indicate if the first statement was much closer, the first statement was somewhat closer, the second statement was much closer, or the second statement was somewhat closer. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: the first statement was closer, or the second statement was closer. 5 Perceived healthfulness of sugary beverages in Seattle and the comparison area. At this baseline time point, consumption of sugary beverages tended to be higher in the comparison area versus Seattle; 23% of participants in the comparison area reported consuming one or more sugary beverages per-day, compared to 16% in Seattle (Table 7). But consumption among participants in the comparison area was still far lower than the national average among adults.10 Overall, perceived healthfulness of sugary beverages was very similar in Seattle and the comparison area. In both Seattle and the comparison area, participants perceived that sugary beverages have adverse effects on health, 10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). Get the Facts: Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Consumption. https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/datastatistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html (accessed March 29, 2018). As described above the national-level data are collected through an in-person 24-hour dietary recall interview and our survey queries respondents on their sugary beverage consumption during the last 30-days. However, differences in the data collection method would not likely account for a 30-percentage point different in sugary beverage consumption between our participants and the national-level data. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 48 including serious health conditions (82% Seattle, 81% comparison), dental health (87% Seattle, 86% comparison), obesity (86% Seattle, 83% comparison), diabetes (87% Seattle, 85% comparison), and heart disease (71% Seattle, 74% comparison). A similar proportion of participants in both groups perceived that drinking soda/pop, fruitflavored beverages, sweetened teas and coffees, and energy drinks could lead to health problems and that added sugar is related to serious health problems. Likewise, about 80% of participants in Seattle and the comparison area perceived water and unflavored milk to be healthy, whereas only about 20% of participants indicated that diet drinks were healthy. TABLE 7. CONSUMPTION AND PERCEIVED HEALTHFULNESS OF SUGARY BEVERAGES IN SEATTLE AND COMPARISON AREA SEATTLE1,2 COMPARISON AREA1,3 (N=851) (N=863) NONE OR < 1 WEEK 1 WEEK 2-6 WEEK ≥ 1 DAY DON'T KNOW 45% 16% 22% 16% 1% 29% 20% 27% 23% 1% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 82% 17% 2% 81% 15% 4% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 87% 12% 1% 86% 10% 4% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 86% 13% 1% 83% 13% 4% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 87% 12% 2% 85% 11% 4% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 71% 20% 9% 74% 18% 8% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 84% 12% 4% 84% 10% 6% NONE OR < 1 WEEK 1 WEEK 2-6 WEEK ≥ 1 DAY DON'T KNOW 30% 32% 23% 9% 6% 25% 32% 21% 14% 9% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 90% 6% 3% 90% 5% 6% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 85% 10% 5% 81% 10% 9% AGREE 73% 69% CONSUMPTION SUGARY BEVERAGES CAUSE THE FOLLOWING:4 SERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS DENTAL HEALTH OBESITY DIABETES HEART DISEASE ADDED SUGAR RAISES CHANCE OF HEALTH PROBLEMS:4 MOST PEOPLE SHOULD DRINK SUGARY DRINKS: DRINKING THE FOLLOWING BEVERAGE INCREASES CHANCE OF HEALTH PROBLEMS:4 SODA/POP FRUIT-FLAVORED DRINKS SPORTS DRINKS BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 49 DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 18% 9% 18% 13% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 83% 12% 6% 81% 11% 9% AGREE DISAGREE DON'T KNOW 85% 7% 9% 82% 6% 13% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 83% 14% 2% 78% 18% 5% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 92% 6% 2% 88% 8% 4% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 88% 9% 3% 89% 6% 4% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 82% 14% 4% 80% 13% 7% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 77% 19% 4% 72% 22% 6% HEALTHY UNHEALTHY DON'T KNOW 17% 80% 3% 18% 78% 5% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 71% 28% 1% 69% 28% 3% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 77% 21% 2% 77% 20% 3% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 73% 26% 1% 75% 23% 3% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 50% 49% 2% 54% 43% 3% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 66% 33% 2% 62% 35% 3% LIKELY UNLIKELY DON'T KNOW 35% 63% 2% 40% 57% 3% SWEETENED COFFEE AND TEA ENERGY DRINKS THE FOLLOWING BEVERAGES ARE HEALTHY:5 TAP WATER FILTERED TAP WATER BOTTLED WATER UNFLAVORED MILK UNSWEETENED TEA/COFFEE DIET DRINKS LIKELY TO SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING BEVERAGES (AMONG CONSUMERS):6 TAP WATER FILTERED TAP WATER BOTTLED WATER UNFLAVORED MILK UNSWEETENED COFFEE/TEA DIET DRINKS 1 % are weighted values Missing data: fruit-flavored drinks (n=2); sports drinks (n=1); coffee/tea (n=1); energy drinks (n=1); healthy filtered water (n=1); healthy coffee/tea (n=1); substitute diet drinks (n=1). 2 3 4 Comparison area includes Minneapolis and DC Metro. Missing data: energy drinks (n=1) Responses included: strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: agree, disagree Responses included: very healthy, somewhat healthy, somewhat unhealthy, very unhealthy. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: healthy, unhealthy. 5 Responses included: very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, very unlikely. These four categories are collapsed into two categories: likely, unlikely. 6 BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 50 Discussion A majority of participants in Seattle supported the tax. Support for the tax, and the overall belief that the tax will not have unintended economic consequences corresponded to participants’ perceptions that sugary beverages are generally unhealthy and can lead to adverse health problems. The baseline results suggest that support for the tax may be somewhat lower among people who are non-Hispanic Black (45% support the tax) and low-income participants (51% support the tax) within Seattle. We speculate that these differences in support may be related to these participants’ perceptions about how the tax could affect their own income and their general perceptions around healthfulness. For example, fewer people who are non-Hispanic Black, as compared to people who are non-Hispanic white, perceived that sugary beverages raise risk of serious health problems and fewer Hispanics believed that added sugar raises the chance of health problems. Overall, consumption of sugary beverages is relatively low in both Seattle and the comparison area, compared to the national average. This was expected based on the fact that the median household income in Seattle and the comparison area is relatively high, which we would expect to correlate to lower levels of sugary beverage consumption. However, somewhat unexpectedly, consumption was somewhat higher in the comparison area versus Seattle. This may be driven by differences in the demographic characteristics of the two groups. However, in unstratified results, perceptions around the economic impacts of the tax and the healthfulness of sugary beverages were quite similar in Seattle versus the comparison area. As described, Seattle and the comparison area are well-matched on a number of demographic characteristics; however, we observed some differences by race/ethnicity, level of educational attainment, and the percent of the population below 260% FPL. Although the comparison area was selected because the demographic characteristics were very similar, the observed differences in Seattle versus comparison area participants in our sample are similar to those observed in the 5-year ACS data itself. For example, about 30% of the population of Seattle has incomes <200% of the FPL as compared to approximately 40% of the population in Minnesota. Thus, we believe the small differences in the demographic characteristics in Seattle versus the comparison area are reflective of small differences in the actual demographic makeup of these two communities. We will control for any differences in demographic characteristics in the regression-based analyses that will be conducted for the longitudinal analysis of change in norms and attitudes. Furthermore, our goal for matching on demographics was to produce a sample with similar norms and attitudes, and we were successful in this, with very similar responses about norms and attitudes between Seattle and the comparison area. Limitations. This study will employ a rigorous quasi-experimental design to evaluate the impact of Seattle’s tax on norms and attitudes about the healthfulness of sugary beverage consumption as well as acceptability of the tax. The present findings form the baseline assessment of norms and attitudes about sugary beverage taxes. This component of the evaluation is unique to Seattle, as other cities have not employed a quasi-experimental design with a large sample to evaluate changes in norms and attitudes over time. Nevertheless, two key limitations are worth noting. One limitation of this adult survey is that our list of phone numbers was purchased from multiple companies that sell this information. Respondents to this telephone/web survey may be different on unobserved factors compared to the general population (a limitation of most survey research). In addition, our analyses will rely on repeat crosssectional samples, as we will recruit a new sample of participants in Seattle and the comparison area for the endline sample, rather than following the same people over time. Future work In addition to the sample collected in 2017-2018, our plan is to collect endline data in January 2019 among a new cross-sectional sample of participants, both in Seattle and the comparison area. However, it is possible that the “Yes to Affordable Groceries” campaign will have a presence in Seattle and may further influence the attitudes about the sweetened beverage tax. Our tentative plan is to consider delaying our follow-up of norms and attitudes until a few months after the November vote so that we are surveying individuals some time after any such campaign has ended. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 51 Our endline analyses will measure whether attitudes towards the healthfulness of sugary beverages and the tax itself have changed over time, while controlling for any changes in norms toward sugary beverages that are unrelated to the tax. Additionally, we will investigate whether any change in norms related to the tax is different among low- versus higher-income participants. Considerations for ongoing evaluation As noted in the results, non-Hispanic Blacks had the lowest level of support for the tax (although still fairly high support: 45%); however, a majority of non-Hispanic Blacks (53%) perceived that the tax will positively impact low-income people and people of color. Although interviewers did not report that participants had any difficulty in answering this question, it is plausible that “positive” may have had the connotation of “definitely” when administering this survey (i.e. the tax will definitely impact low-income people and people of color). To better assess the validity of this question, and the word choice used, during our endline data collection we will add a second question that asks if the tax will or will not affect low-income people and people of color and compare the results. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 52 SECTION 4 PROCESS EVALUATION OF STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS Abstract Objective: The objective of the stakeholder interviews and focus groups was to understand the pre-tax perceptions about the Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) from the following perspectives: Seattle residents and specifically lowerincome households, beverage retailers, tax administrators, and city officials. Methods: This component uses a qualitative study design. Interview guides included questions to understand perceptions about 1) sweetened beverage consumption, 2) the Sweetened Beverage Tax and use of its revenues, 3) implementation of the Sweetened Beverage Tax, and 4) anticipated consumer and business impacts. Using purposive sampling, snowball sampling, and convenience sampling, we recruited participants through our contacts with City of Seattle staff, the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board, and community partners. Each focus group was assigned a facilitator and note-taker, while each interview was conducted by one interviewer. A hybrid of deductive and inductive content analysis was used to analyze the data. This report details the data collected between October 2017 and February 2018 to understand pre-tax/early tax perceptions and implementation. The final sample of participants (consumers, businesses, and City of Seattle staff/officials) included six focus groups (comprised of 54 participants from two adult consumer groups, three youth consumer groups, and one group of restaurateurs) and 16 one-on-one interviews (two community organizations, four distributors/ manufacturers, five retailers, and five City of Seattle staff and elected officials). One adult focus group was conducted in Somali and English while all other data were collected in English. Results: Consumer and business participants shared the perspective that consumption of sweetened beverages was common and that most sweetened beverages were unhealthy. After the tax, some consumers anticipated they would be less inclined to buy sweetened beverages, while other consumers said they would consider cross-border shopping for sweetened beverages. Knowledge about the Sweetened Beverage Tax varied, with Councilmembers, distributors, and a health advocacy organization being the most knowledgeable. Communication about the tax was seen as both a facilitator and a barrier. While distributors and some restaurateurs were aware of the tax and received communication from the City of Seattle about the tax, they and other businesses wanted more information about how the implementation would impact their type of business. Business participants varied on whether they would absorb or pass the tax onto clients and consumers, with one distributor, small retailers, and some restaurateurs expressing they would pass the tax onto others. Councilmembers expressed concerns about the potential negative impact of the tax on small businesses and job loss, which was the impetus for providing exemptions to small manufacturers and assuring tax revenues would fund job training programs. While consumers and Councilmembers felt that the tax would negatively financially impact low-income people and communities of color more than other populations, they also felt the tax and its revenue usage had potential to reduce sweetened beverage consumption and improve health for these communities. All groups supported the idea of using revenues to support health-promoting activities like expanding access to healthy foods for low-income populations. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 53 SECTION 4 PROCESS EVALUATION OF STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS Objective The objective of the stakeholder interviews and focus groups was to understand the pre-tax perceptions about the Sweetened Beverage Tax from the following perspectives: Seattle residents and specifically lower-income households, food retailers, tax administrators, and city officials. Topics included 1) attitudes about, purchasing and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages; 2) perceptions about the Sweetened Beverage Tax and proposed use of its revenues, 3) concerns related to implementation of the tax, and 4) perceived anticipated consumer and business impacts. Methods Study participants. Stakeholder types (Table 1) identified for inclusion were those who would be potentially impacted by or engaged in the process of implementing the Sweetened Beverage Tax: • City of Seattle staff and elected officials; • Consumers and community-based organizations representing low-income populations likeliest to experience impact of the SBT or benefit from the tax revenues (i.e., teenage youth and communities of color) and • Business sector (distributors, manufacturers, grocers, restaurateurs). We used a purposive sampling approach to identify and recruit participants and snowball sampling to recruit additional stakeholders. To identify City staff and tax administrators we received names of potential participants from the Office of the City Auditor. We identified elected officials who represented differing perspectives on the Sweetened Beverage Tax to recruit for interviews. To recruit businesses, we used attendance logs from public comment meetings for the Sweetened Beverage Tax and sought input from City of Seattle staff, Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board, and Evaluation Team. To recruit small retailers, we identified small grocery stores, ethnic grocery stores, and independent coffee or bubble tea shops using the same food license list used for the store audit component of this evaluation, narrowed the list to stores designated as “small store only” or “coffee” within neighborhoods with higher density of households with lower-income populations and communities of color: Seattle’s Central District, International District, Beacon Hill, and Rainier Valley. We then approached a convenience sample of stores or shops within a quarter-mile radius for each neighborhood. To recruit adults and youth representing lower-income people and people of color, we used a convenience sample drawn from existing relationships the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board or Public Health – Seattle & King County (PHSKC) had with Seattle schools and community organizations. We offered tokens of appreciation to youth participants ($20 movie or Amazon gift cards), adult focus group participants ($25 Safeway gift cards), and grocery store participants ($25 Amazon gift cards). TABLE 1. STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDED IN INTERVIEWS OR FOCUS GROUPS (FGs) AT BASELINE ASSESSMENT STAKEHOLDER TYPE PARTICIPANTS CITY OF SEATTLE STAFF AND ELECTED OFFICIALS • CITY OF SEATTLE STAFF ENGAGED IN PLANNING OR ADMINISTERING THE TAX (2 INTERVIEWS) • COUNCILMEMBERS OR THEIR DESIGNATED STAFF (3 OF 4 ATTEMPTED) CONSUMERS 3 FGs WITH YOUTH OF COLOR • 23 PARTICIPANTS TOTAL ACROSS THREE LOCAL HIGH SCHOOLS SERVING CENTRAL DISTRICT, BEACON HILL, GEORGETOWN, AND RAINIER VALLEY 2 FGs WITH ADULTS OF COLOR (OF 3 ATTEMPTED) • 15 PARTICIPANTS AT A SUBSIDIZED HOUSING SITE (IN SOMALI AND ENGLISH) • 4 PARTICIPANTS AT A COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION (IN ENGLISH) BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 54 COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS • HEALTH ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION (1 INTERVIEW) • COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION SERVING LOW-INCOME AND YOUTH OF COLOR (1 INTERVIEW OF 2 ATTEMPTED) BUSINESS SECTOR • DISTRIBUTOR (2 INTERVIEWS, INCLUDES ONE MANUFACTURER WHO DISTRIBUTES) • MANUFACTURER WHO USES DISTRIBUTORS, HAS LIMITED SELF-DISTRIBUTION • MANUFACTURER EXEMPT FROM SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX • SMALL, INDEPENDENT GROCERY STORE OWNERS OF COLOR IN CENTRAL DISTRICT, BEACON HILL, AND RAINIER VALLEY (3 INTERVIEWS OF 12 ATTEMPTED) • RETAIL OR RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (2 INTERVIEWS) 1 FG WITH 12 RESTAURATEURS (OF 2 ATTEMPTED) Note: Identities of participants are withheld to protect confidentiality. Participant characteristics. We completed a total of six focus groups (two adult consumer focus groups, three youth consumer focus groups, one restaurant owner/manager focus group) and 16 stakeholder interviews. To protect confidentiality, identities of participants are withheld. City of Seattle staff and elected officials. We conducted in-person interviews with two City of Seattle staff engaged in the planning or administration of the tax, two Councilmembers, and one Councilmember's Chief of Staff. Comments from the Chief of Staff are included as Councilmember feedback, as this person was designated to speak on behalf of that Councilmember. A fourth Councilmember declined due to competing demands. Consumers. The youth focus groups included twenty-three youth of color from high schools serving students in the Central District, Beacon Hill, Georgetown, and Rainier Valley. The adult consumer focus groups included one group comprised of four African American participants at a community-based organization and one group comprised of 15 participants of African or Middle Eastern descent (conducted in English and Somali) at a subsidized housing site. Community-Based Organizations. We completed interviews with a representative from a community-based organization representing low-income, youth of color, and two representatives from an organization involved in advocating for passage of the SBT. A third community-based organization declined due to lack of time. Distributors and manufacturers. The sample of distributors/manufacturers included one distributor and three manufacturers with varying levels of revenue and distribution (i.e., one manufacturer with limited levels of selfdistribution, one manufacturer who mainly self-distributed, one large manufacturer whose company partnership included bottlers who distribute). Restaurateurs. We conducted one interview with a representative from the local restaurant business alliance, which helped inform our strategy for recruiting representatives from the restaurant industry. The focus group of restaurant owners and managers was assembled by a representative from the local restaurant business alliance. Participating restaurateurs included those who owned or managed quick-service or franchise fast food restaurants and full-service restaurants. Small/Ethnic/Immigrant-owned store retailers. We conducted one interview with a representative from a local retail alliance, which helped inform our strategy for recruiting small store retailers. Our three interviewees among store retailers were people of color who owned stores in the Central District, Beacon Hill, and Rainier Valley, respectively. We attempted several others. Nine of the 12 stores we visited and one immigrant-owned retail business alliance were not available for interviews: three stores were closed; three gas station mini-marts and the business alliance in Seattle declined due to lack of time; one coffee shop did not complete the interview due to lack of time; two bubble tea shops declined because their managers were not present. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 55 Interview and focus group guides. Semi-structured interview and focus group guides included concepts and questions (Table 2) that were informed by priorities highlighted in the Sweetened Beverage Tax ordinance, literature review, the Sweetened Beverage Tax Evaluation Team, the Berkeley beverage tax evaluation, and the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board. Information gathered from the interviews with two City of Seattle staff who were engaged in planning or administration of the tax were used to provide the researcher with background context about the SBT development and implementation process, and are not reported as results. The interview and focus group guides are included in Appendix B. TABLE 2. STAKEHOLDERS AND KEY CONCEPTS CONCEPTS CITY STAFF AND CONSUMERS AND ELECTED COMMUNITY-BASED BUSINESS SECTOR OFFICIALS ORGANIZATIONS 1 KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX AND REVENUE USE X 2 PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTATION (BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS) X X X X 3 IMPACT ON • JOB AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS (BUSINESS PRACTICES, REVENUES, VOLUME) X • BEVERAGE PRICES & SALES X X X • CONSUMER CHOICES/PURCHASES X X X • SWEETENED BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION 4 PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SWEETENED BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION X X X X Data collection. Semi-structured interviews and focus group data were collected between October 2017 and February 2018. Each focus group was assigned a facilitator and note-taker, while each interview was conducted by one interviewer. PHSKC staff experienced with facilitation and note-taking conducted five of the six focus groups and all interviews. One focus group was conducted in Somali and English by community-based organization staff, who PHSKC trained so that a standard approach was used in all focus groups. Although interviews and focus groups were not recorded (to maximize participation), notes were taken on a laptop. Facilitators and note-takers were asked to regularly pause and repeat back participant statements to confirm accuracy and to allow the note-taker time to capture what was said. Following each interview and focus group, data were reviewed for completeness and accuracy. Data analysis. All data were coded and analyzed by one researcher. To identify themes, a hybrid of deductive and inductive methods was used. The coding scheme started with pre-determined key concepts or constructs (Table 2). Additional themes or sub-themes within each construct were then inductively identified. Results Key themes from focus groups and interviews Councilmembers. Perceived impact and use of revenues from Sweetened Beverage Tax All three Councilmembers were knowledgeable about the tax and its intended goal of using policy to impact health-related behaviors. The three also expressed that while this tax could contribute to better health outcomes, the tax alone would not be sufficient. To do so, they felt broader strategies would be needed and using SBT revenues to invest in programs to promote health and well-being were part of those strategies. The three Councilmembers anticipated that the tax would result in higher prices for taxed items which would be passed onto consumers, and shared a universal concern about the tax disproportionately impacting consumers in BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 56 low-income communities and communities of color. Two Councilmembers were concerned about the exemption of diet sodas from an equity perspective, pointing to research that indicated higher income populations were more likely to consume these beverages. Two Councilmembers expressed concerns the tax may have a disproportionate negative impact on small, independently-owned businesses by leading to lower sales and revenues, and potentially contributing to job losses. One Councilmember indicated the inclusion of funding from SBT revenues for job re-training programs and an exemption for Some consumers said that they small manufactures from the tax to mitigate concerns about negative impact on jobs and some businesses. One Councilmember highlighted might spend a little more on the importance of community-driven resource allocation. All three a sugar-sweetened beverage expressed the need to allocate SBT revenues for programs designed to occasionally, while others said promote health, nutrition, and well-being for low-income communities that they might make a different, and communities of color and supported the composition and role of cheaper choice or just not buy the SBT Community Advisory Board in making these recommendations. sugar-sweetened beverages at all. Consumers. Low awareness of impending tax Consumers expressed having limited awareness and knowledge about the Sweetened Beverage Tax. Few consumer focus group participants stated that they had heard or seen signs about the Sweetened Beverage Tax. Most participants stated that they did not know how the City planned to Some consumers stated that use Sweetened Beverage Tax revenue. Some youth stated that they had the tax might be good for the heard Sweetened Beverage Tax revenue would go towards helping people get food. communities if the revenues went towards helping them, but that the City needed to be held accountable for using those funds for healthy food access, particularly for low-income groups. Perceived impact on purchases, beverage consumption, and cross border shopping The focus group facilitator provided a brief explanation of the SBT to gather consumer perceptions about how they felt about the tax and how they might respond to the change in price. Consumers were not sure how the SBT would change their overall spending. Some consumers said that they might spend a little more on a sugar-sweetened beverage occasionally, while others said that they might make a different, cheaper choice or just not buy sugar-sweetened beverages at all. Both youth and adults indicated that their response to the tax would depend on the size of the tax for the volume they intended to purchase. Youth indicated the tax might not change their purchase of a single soda, but could change their purchase of larger volumes, like a six-pack. They would consider buying less or not buying soda, or consider buying something else. Some youth said that since candy wasn’t being taxed, they might just buy more candy instead of a soda. Other youth said they would drink water instead. Youth noted that healthier, alternative options like bottled water or 100% juices (e.g., Odwalla, Naked) are often expensive. A few youth and adults said that they would not switch from regular soda to diet soda just because the latter was exempt. At one focus group, all youth agreed that if healthier beverages were cheaper, people would be more likely to buy and drink them. Among consumers who said they regularly or occasionally drank sugar-sweetened beverages, many said that they drank sugarsweetened beverages that they or family members made at home and not subject to the tax. For this group, it was unclear if they intended to reduce consumption of non-taxed sugar-sweetened beverages after the tax began. Consumer participants, particularly youth, said that they would consider crossing the Seattle border to buy taxable sugar-sweetened beverages at a lower price, although this opinion was not universal and some said they wouldn’t go out of their way to buy a soda. Impact of Sweetened Beverage Tax on low-income people & communities of color Almost all of the consumer participants felt that the tax would financially hit their communities (i.e., low-income people and communities of color) the hardest. However, several consumers stated that it might be a good thing for sugar-sweetened beverages to cost more if it meant people drank less of it, since health conditions like obesity, diabetes, and cavities were big problems in their communities. Some consumers stated that the tax might be good for the communities if the revenues went towards helping them, but that the City needed to be held accountable for using those funds for healthy food access, particularly for low-income populations. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 57 Community-Based Organizations (CBOs). High awareness and mixed opinions of Sweetened Beverage Tax The CBOs interviewed expressed high awareness and knowledge about the SBT. This was not surprising since both organizations interviewed have been involved with either advocating for the tax or are represented on the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board. The health advocacy organization stated that it supported the tax, and felt that if the City used revenues to support populations expected to be most affected by the SBT, then concerns about the SBT’s regressivity would be allayed. The other community organization interviewed had mixed feelings about the tax due to concerns about low-income populations and communities of color being disproportionately burdened by the tax, but was supportive of the public health intent to reduce obesity. They were also supportive of the Community Advisory Board’s role in determining how to prioritize revenue to support the health of low-income populations, particularly communities of color. The CBOs also had mixed opinions about the impact of the tax on overall sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. One organization anticipated a reduction, whereas the other community-based organization thought that it depended on how price sensitive certain individuals were, particularly youth. Business Sector. Perceived facilitators and challenges to Sweetened Beverage Tax implementation. Mixed levels of understanding about the tax All manufacturer/distributors were aware of the SBT and stated that they understood the SBT. Restaurateurs were aware of the SBT, but most said that they did not feel they had a clear understanding about the tax, its nuances, and implications for their businesses. One restaurateur thought the tax would be repealed, leading to others in the group who said they had heard the same; however, participants could not verify the source of this information. The three small store owners had different levels of awareness and understanding about the SBT. Two small store owners said that they understood the key points about the SBT while one store owner was unaware of the SBT. Communications about the Sweetened Beverage Tax Information about the SBT came from different sources for distributors, manufacturers, and retailers. The distributor and large manufacturers said they created information for their clients (e.g., retailers, restaurateurs, or manufacturers who use their distribution services) about the SBT after they had received information from the City about the tax. The two manufacturers said they had received limited information about the SBT from the City but had received information from other sources such as local business alliances or chamber of commerce. Several restaurateurs said they received information from the local restaurant alliance and only a few said they received communications from the City about the SBT. All participants indicated that they wanted more information from the City about how the SBT would affect them. Several expressed concern that The greatest challenge stated by the one major distributor interviewed (distribution only; no manufacturing) was the time required to work with clients (i.e., retailers) to reconfigure their invoicing systems to track taxable sugar-sweetened beverages and determine how to itemize these on receipts. All restaurateurs expressed a “mandate overload” and stated that it was challenging to juggle the Sweetened Beverage Tax with other competing mandates like the liquor tax, increased minimum wage, and sick leave. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 58 consumers would not know about the tax and that it was an unfair burden on restaurant staff to have to explain the SBT to patrons. Of the two small storeowners who had heard about the tax, both had received information from their distributors. One had also learned about it from someone who came into the store to post a flyer from “Keep Seattle Livable for All,” a group funded by the American Beverage Association. Implementation challenges The greatest challenge stated by the one major distributor interviewed (distribution only; no manufacturing) was the time required to work with clients (i.e., retailers) to reconfigure their invoicing systems to track taxable sugar-sweetened beverages and determine how to itemize these on receipts. This challenge was compounded by clients’ variability in responsiveness and readiness for how they wanted the tax tracked in their systems. Several restaurateurs stated that they did not know what was expected of them to prepare for the tax. All restaurateurs expressed a “mandate overload” and stated that it was challenging to juggle the Sweetened Beverage Tax with other competing mandates like the liquor tax, increased minimum wage, and sick leave. Interviewees stated that the challenge with these laws was that they were all implemented in close succession. Exemptions Several restaurateurs and two manufacturers expressed frustrations about certain exemptions that were included or not included in the SBT. Several restaurateurs said that they felt that the City disregarded their concerns and exemption recommendations (for example, taxing syrups used for cocktails) made at stakeholder meetings before SBT rules were finalized. One manufacturer expressed gratitude for the exemption for small manufacturers but thought that the low ceiling set for the exemption had negative implications for business growth in that small manufacturers would need to cap growth in order to remain exempt. Another manufacturer who did not qualify for the small business exemption expressed anger that their “low-sugar” soda would not qualify as exempt [Note: The Sweetened Beverage Tax does include exemptions for low-sugar alternatives, but levels for exemption were too low to include this manufacturer’s product.] Lastly, some consumers and retailers expressed cynicism that the exemption for products with milk as the primary ingredient was not due to the healthfulness of milk but successful lobbying by business interests. One grocer also wondered why diet sodas were exempted; this respondent believed that diet sodas are also unhealthy. Perceived potential impact of Sweetened Beverage Tax on beverage prices and sales. Passing costs to consumers versus absorbing costs One of the distributors and two small store owners stated that they would pass the tax directly onto retailers and consumers, respectively. While the majority of restaurateurs indicated that they would pass the tax onto consumers, two manufacturers and Most stakeholders who were some restaurateurs said that they might have to absorb some part unaware about the revenue of the costs due to concerns over decreased sales if the tax was fully allocations stated higher approval passed onto consumers. These restaurateurs also stated concerns over of the Sweetened Beverage Tax losing business to non-Seattle businesses if they were to raise prices. after PHSKC shared with them Participants in the restaurant group who ran businesses with refillable that a proportion of Sweetened soda fountain drinks, particularly self-refill stations that often include both taxed and non-taxed beverages, were unclear about how they Beverage Tax revenue would would appropriately apply the tax. go towards expanding healthy food access for low-income Varied perceptions of small store owners of the potential impacts on populations, and that Sweetened sales Beverage Tax revenue priorities Among the grocery store owners interviewed, one was deeply concerned about reduced sales. This owner said that they had heard would be shaped by the from customers if the store raised prices, they would stop buying sodas Community Advisory Board. from the store. For the small store owner who was unaware of the tax, since their store also sold food and other products, with taxable sugar-sweetened beverages comprising only a small portion of their products, that owner felt that the tax would only have a minor impact on the store’s sales. The third grocer didn’t anticipate the SBT having much of an impact on sales. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 59 On the other hand, restaurateurs were in agreement that the SBT would cut into already narrow profit margins as a result of potential impact on sales if they were to increase prices. Mixed support for the Sweetened Beverage Tax. Most retailers and two manufacturer/distributors stated that they felt negatively towards the SBT due to fears of decreased sales. However, the majority of retailers and manufacturer/distributors also stated that they valued the public health intent of obesity reduction behind the tax. All participants said that they understood the need to address obesity and over-consumption of sugar. ...despite anticipating a disproportionate negative impact of the tax, consumers of color from Seattle’s Central and South areas were the most positive about the potential health benefits of the Sweetened Beverage Tax. The projected revenue usage for expanding healthy food access appeared to be an acceptable benefit from the negative impact of increased cost. Many also expressed the opinion that the SBT was primarily being used for revenue purposes rather than for public health benefit. Most stakeholders who were unaware about the revenue allocations stated higher approval of the Sweetened Beverage Tax after PHSKC shared with them that a proportion of Sweetened Beverage Tax revenue would go towards expanding healthy food access for low-income populations, and that Sweetened Beverage Tax revenue priorities would be shaped by the Community Advisory Board. Consumer and business sector perceptions about sweetened beverage consumption Consumers and business participants shared a similar perception that people consume too much sugar and that many sugar-sweetened beverages are unhealthy. While most business participants indicated that they never or rarely drank sodas, over half of adult and youth consumer participants said that they drank sugar-sweetened beverages. Sugarsweetened beverage consumers stated that the most common types of sugar-sweetened beverages consumed at home were self-prepared, like Kool-Aid or sweetened tea or coffee. Discussion Overall, knowledge and perception of the tax and its impacts varied greatly for consumers and business stakeholders. There was limited awareness among consumers about the tax and SBT revenue usage. This lack of clarity highlighted an emerging need to improve communication overall and about where to find more detailed information about the tax and how revenues would be used. In this instance, the real-time findings from the process evaluation led to rapid action by the City and Community Advisory Board to make SBT information more easily accessible by March 2018: the City created fact sheets providing an overview of the tax and how revenues will be used in the next budget year and improved the searchability of the City of Seattle Financial and Administrative Services’ Sweetened Beverage Tax and the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board web pages. In addition, the Community Advisory Board and an advocacy organization have committed to improving opportunities to increase consumer awareness and understanding about sweetened beverages, the SBT, and how SBT revenues can help benefit the community. Notably, despite anticipating a disproportionate negative impact of the tax, consumers of color from Seattle’s Central and South areas were the most positive about the potential health benefits of the SBT. The projected revenue usage for expanding healthy food access appeared to be an acceptable benefit from the negative impact of increased cost . In addition, many consumers thought that the tax might help decrease sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. For businesses, the primary facilitator for information about the tax was communication that came from distributors and the local restaurant alliance, who separately interpreted information that the City of Seattle provided to the public. Distributors provided their interpretation to retail clients; while the restaurant alliance provided it to their members. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 60 Perceptions of the tax were generally more negative amongst business stakeholders such as distributors, manufacturers, and retailers who were largely skeptical or opposed to the tax, although most supported the need for strategies to address obesity. These business stakeholders expressed concerns over how revenues lost due to the SBT would impact tight profit margins, which participants felt were already being undercut by other taxes and ordinances on businesses. Some of the negative feelings may also have been exacerbated by uncertainty or lack of clarity around tax details, as well as misinformation about the tax being repealed or how SBT revenues would be used. Limitations. There were several limitations to this component of the evaluation. The three-month overlap with the holiday season limited participant availability. To maximize participation, we extended the data collection period through February 2018. While we didn’t have a list of distributors from which to recruit participants, the public comment attendance list and subsequent referrals allowed us to hear from several types of businesses who manufacture or sell beverages. In some localities, restaurant alliances have been vocal opponents of these taxes. It is important to note that the restaurant owner focus group was assembled by a local restaurant alliance. However, it should also be noted that the alliance did not take a formal stand on the SBT. Although we first recruited community or business sector participants who had been actively engaged in the development of the ordinance, we also succeeded in including community and business sector participants who had not been previously engaged around the tax. We did not record interviews and focus groups, so were unable to listen to recordings to confirm quotations. However, we repeated statements to participants during the interview and focus group sessions to ensure accuracy of notes taken. To help mitigate limitations, findings from the interviews and focus groups will be triangulated with baseline data from the adult survey of norms and attitudes. Together, the data will provide a more complete picture of baseline attitudes and perceptions around sugar-sweetened beverages and the impact of the Sweetened Beverage Tax. Future work & considerations for ongoing evaluation The stakeholder interviews and focus groups established pre-tax perceptions for local consumers and businesses who manufacture or sell sugar-sweetened beverages. After communicating with City of Seattle Financial and Administrative Services, we have learned that the City will use their existing channels of communication with businesses to directly respond to tax implementation questions. Since our norms and attitudes adult survey component of the evaluation was also able to capture perceptions of the tax and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption from a sizeable number of respondents with low income and representative of the race/ethnic composition of Seattle, we will rely on that data source going forward to monitor changes in perceptions and approval of the tax by consumers. Finally, the store audits will provide an alternative means of assessing the degree to which store owners pass on the cost of the tax to consumers by increasing the price of taxed beverages, so we will rely on the store audits to assess that aspect of implementation. For all of these reasons, we plan to seek input from the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board and the City Review Team about limiting or eliminating originally proposed stakeholder interviews and focus groups at 12-months. Resources would be reallocated to support the expanded food security assessment activities in 2018. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 61 APPENDIX A EVALUATION TEAM STRUCTURE AND TEAM BIOGRAPHIES BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 62 APPENDIX A EVALUATION TEAM STRUCTURE AND TEAM BIOGRAPHIES Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax Evaluation Team structure The Seattle Office of the City Auditor established a contract with Public Health – Seattle & King County to complete the evaluation outlined in Section 5B of the Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance. The Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) Evaluation Team is comprised of academic researchers and public health practitioners which includes national experts on policy evaluation, food policy, obesity, sugary beverages and beverage taxes, dietary assessment, and assessment of beverage purchasing. As described below, each organization contributed to the overall study design and led different components of the baseline evaluation: Public Health – Seattle & King County coordinated the research efforts, served as the point of contact with the City of Seattle, and led the process evaluation; the University of Washington co-led and coordinated the SBT Evaluation Team’s overall research efforts, served as the point of contact for national academic research advisors, and led the store audits as well as the norms and attitudes survey; Seattle Children’s Research Institute led the child cohort study; and Healthy Food America contributed to the overall study design and co-led the design of the norms and attitudes survey. The Office of the City Auditor contributed to the study design, monitored progress, and served as the point of contact with the City Review Team (comprised of staff representing City Council, City Budget Office, Finance and Administrative Services, Executive Office, and City Departments, such as the Human Services Department and the Office of Sustainability and Environment) to review the methods and reports from the SBT Evaluation Team. Biographies Nadine Chan, Ph.D., M.P.H., is the Assistant Chief of the Assessment, Policy Development, and Evaluation unit at Public Health – Seattle & King County and Clinical Assistant Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine. She has published, led, and co-led studies evaluating cross-sector strategies to improve health equity. Her work includes mixed-method studies of complex policy and program interventions, including conducting natural experiments, to study changes in policies, systems, and environments and their impacts on health outcomes (e.g., evaluations of the King County menu labeling policy, the Partnerships to Improve Community Health initiative, Communities Putting Prevention to Work Initiative, and launch of the evaluation for the Best Starts for Kids Initiative.) As the Assistant Chief of Assessment, Policy Development, and Evaluation at Public Health - Seattle & King County, Dr. Chan provides oversight of a nationally recognized team of researchers responsible for community assessment and evaluation, and who routinely analyze population-level datasets and administrative program data. Dr. Chan’s work has been funded by the Centers for Disease Control, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, King County, and City of Seattle. Dr. Chan received her undergraduate degree in cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley, masters and doctoral degrees from the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, and completed a postdoctorate fellowship on cancer prevention disparities at the University of California in San Francisco. For this study, Dr. Chan is the point of contact between the City of Seattle Office of the Auditor and the Evaluation Team and co-leads the Evaluation Team with Dr. Jesse Jones-Smith. Dr. Chan coordinates and monitors the contracted research efforts; convenes and documents weekly Evaluation Team meetings; writes, reviews, and presents reports (monthly progress reports, annual evaluation plan, document of completion of data collection, and the baseline evaluation report) to the Office of the City Auditor as requested; serves as the point of contact with the SBT Community Advisory Board and the City Review Team; and contributes to the study design, writing and review of reports, publications, and presentations for this study. Roxana Chen, Ph.D., M.P.H., is an Affiliate Assistant Professor in the Department of Health Services at the University of Washington and social research scientist at Public Health – Seattle & King County. Dr. Chen received her Master of Public Health in Behavioral Sciences and Health Promotion at the University of Illinois at Chicago and her Ph.D. in Health Services from the University of Washington. Her areas of research include chronic disease disparities and BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 63 cross-sectoral strategies between health and housing to improve health. She has expertise in community-based participatory research and using mixed methods to evaluate community and population-level interventions. Dr. Chen leads the process evaluation of stakeholder perceptions about the SBT and is responsible for leading the analysis and reporting about the SBT process evaluation. She also provides input on the food security and food bank analysis evaluation. She attends weekly STB Evaluation Team meetings and will contribute to reports and publications about the SBT. Jessica Jones-Smith, Ph.D., M.P.H., R.D., is an obesity epidemiologist and Associate Professor in the Department of Health Services (primary) and Epidemiology (joint) and a core faculty member of the Nutrition Sciences Program at the University of Washington School of Public Health. She holds an MPH in Public Health Nutrition from the University of California, Berkeley and a Ph.D. in Nutrition Epidemiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, San Francisco and spent 4 years as an Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health before arriving at the University of Washington. Dr. Jones-Smith studies social, environmental, and economic causes and correlates of obesity risk. Specifically, her research focuses on investigating distal drivers of nutrition-related health inequities and follows three main lines: 1) investigating community and individual economic resources as causal factors in obesityrelated health status; 2) evaluating the obesity-related impacts of health and social policies; and 3) documenting disparities in nutrition-related diseases based on socioeconomic factors and race/ethnicity, across the lifespan and in numerous populations. Dr. Jones-Smith has previously used a natural experiment approach to evaluate how increased economic resources stemming from the opening of Native American-owned casinos has impacted the weight related-health outcomes of Native American mothers and children. She has also recently evaluated the impacts of the economic recession on children’s BMI, the impact of a nationwide advocacy campaign on obesityrelated legislation, and the impacts of the WIC package change on healthy food availability in Baltimore City. Her current approach combines public health nutrition and epidemiologic methods with econometric techniques to study these topics. Dr. Jones-Smith co-leads the overall evaluation with Dr. Nadine Chan and directly leads the store audit component and co-leads the norms and attitudes component, including leading study design, overseeing data collection and manuscript/report writing. She facilitates the weekly calls. She contributes to drafting, reviewing and editing study reports and documents. She is the main point of contact for external scientific advisors. Melissa Knox is a Lecturer in the Department of Economics at the University of Washington and a Research Affiliate at the University's Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology.  She received her Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley.  Her areas of research include the determinants of demand for health insurance and other health care products.  Additionally, she has investigated the impact of access to health insurance on health, education, and labor market outcomes.  She has a particular interest in the impact of access to health care on health disparities by race, gender, and ethnicity.    Dr. Knox will assist with research design and planning for the adult survey and retail audit portions of the study.  She will also analyze data and assist in writing reports and publications on these topics.  She attends weekly team meetings. Jim Krieger, M.D., M.P.H., is founding Executive Director of Healthy Food America (HFA) and Clinical Professor at University of Washington Schools of Medicine and Public Health. He previously worked for 25 years at Public Health – Seattle & King County as Chief of Chronic Disease Prevention. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 64 He is a nationally recognized expert in obesity and chronic disease prevention using scientific evidence and advocacy to change food policy and industry practices and promote health equity. His work has led to improvements in school nutrition and physical activity, implementation of the nation’s second menu labeling regulation, reduction in exposure to sugary beverages, and increased access to healthy foods for low income people. His current work is focused on promoting healthy food consumption by reducing added sugars in the American diet. He has led and evaluated numerous healthy community initiatives and public health policies, including Steps to Health, Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW), Transforming the Health of South King County (CTG), King County Partnerships in Community Health (PICH), and the King County menu labeling ordinance.  His work has been funded by NIH, CDC, and many private foundations. He was a member of the Institute of Medicine Committee on Local Government Action to Prevent Childhood Obesity and its Committee on Evaluating Progress in Obesity Prevention. He has received numerous awards for his work, including the US Secretary of Health and Human Services Innovation in Prevention Award. He has authored more than 70 peer-reviewed publications. He received his undergraduate degree at Harvard, MD at the University of California, San Francisco and MPH at University of Washington. Dr. Krieger co-led the development of the baseline methods and interpretation for the norms and attitudes component, provided input regarding baseline methods for all other aspects of evaluation, supported efforts for participant outreach in the stakeholder and child cohort components, and provided input regarding conceptual framework for all evaluation components. Dr. Krieger served on the SBT Evaluation Team from November 2017 until February 2018 and was not involved in the analyses or interpretation of data or the writing of this report. Dr. Krieger is a formal member of the SBT Advisory Committee. Vanessa M. Oddo, Ph.D., M.P.H., is a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Health Services at the University of Washington School of Public Health. Dr. Oddo received her Master of Public Health in Public Health Nutrition from Tufts University and her Ph.D. in Nutrition from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. She uses epidemiologic and econometric research methods to investigate understudied factors that are modifiable through policy-level changes, primarily employment status and working conditions as determinates of obesity and chronic disease risk and the role of economic resources on obesity risk. Dr. Oddo attends weekly Evaluation Team meetings. In coordination with Dr. Jones-Smith and Dr. Jim Krieger, Dr. Oddo co-leads the adult survey of norms and attitudes. She coordinates the data collection and analyses for the adult survey. She is also responsible for leading report and manuscript writing for the adult survey component of the evaluation, in collaboration with Dr. Jones-Smith and the SBT Evaluation Team. In addition, she provides input on the retail audit component of the SBT evaluation. Mary Podrabsky, M.P.H., R.D., is a Research Coordinator at the University of Washington Center for Public Health Nutrition (UW-CPHN), and Clinical Instructor in the Nutritional Sciences Program.  She has a Bachelor of Science degree in Food, Nutrition and Institution Management from Washington State University, and completed her dietetic internship at Rush Medical Center in Chicago, IL. Ms. Podrabsky received her Master of Public Health – Nutritional Sciences degree from the University of Washington.  She is skilled in a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods and in her position at UW-CPHN, she has served as Research Coordinator and Project Manager for more than 20 nutrition and physical activity policy and environment-related research and evaluation projects.  Ms. Podrabsky attends weekly Evaluation Team meetings and provides input on various aspects of evaluation implementation, as well as oversight of UW project budget and contract administration. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 65 Maya Rowland, M.P.H., is a research coordinator at Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development. She has a bachelor’s degree in Child and Family Studies from Portland State University and a background in health education and social work for at-risk youth. Ms. Rowland earned her Master of Public Health from the Oregon MPH program and has since worked on public health research projects for the US Preventive Services Task Force at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research and at Oregon Health and Science University, she also conducted program evaluations for the Oregon Health Authority. Her research areas include child and adolescent health, health equity, and disease prevention. Ms. Rowland currently works with Dr. Saelens on the Sweetened Beverage Tax evaluation project as well as other projects related to family-based interventions for child weight management. Ms. Rowland will coordinate and co-supervise the child cohort team in child/family recruitment, retention, data collection, and data processing. She attends weekly Evaluation Team meetings and will contribute to reports and publications for the project. Brian E. Saelens, Ph.D., is a Professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington and Principal Investigator at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. Dr. Saelens is trained as a clinical/health psychologist, with a bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Cornell University and a master’s and Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Dr. Saelens’ research interests include pediatric obesity treatment and prevention. His work examines strategies to improve the efficacy and reach of family-based weight management interventions for youth with already elevated weight status. He also explores how environmental factors and policies influence physical activity and eating behaviors in children and adults. He collaborates with community partners and local public health practitioners to help implement policy, systems, and environment change around healthy eating and active living in South King County. Dr. Saelens is a member of the King County Children and Youth Advisory Board for the Best Starts for Kids initiative. His research and evaluation work has been funded by the National Institutes of Health, CDC, USDA, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. He has authored over 200 peer-reviewed scientific publications. Dr. Saelens will lead the child cohort component of Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) evaluation. In coordination with Ms. Rowland, he will supervise the child cohort team in child/family recruitment, retention, and data collection for the child cohort. He will conduct and coordinate with biostatistical support at Seattle Children’s (and the rest of the SBT team) on analyses for the child cohort data. Dr. Saelens will also be responsible for leading report writing and other dissemination products for the child cohort component and will collaborate with the SBT team on report writing and dissemination products for other SBT components. Dr. Saelens attends weekly Evaluation Team meetings. Lina Pinero Walkinshaw, M.P.H., is a Research Coordinator at the University of Washington Center for Public Health Nutrition (UW-CPHN). She received her bachelor’s degree in Sociology, Anthropology, and Spanish from Carleton College, and her Master of Public Health from the Community Oriented Public Health Practice program at the University of Washington. Ms. Pinero Walkinshaw has expertise in managing and conducting primary data collection efforts, and is skilled in qualitative and quantitative study implementation and data analysis. Her work focuses primarily on policies and programs to support food access, food security, and health equity as it relates to nutrition. Ms. Pinero Walkinshaw attends weekly SBT Evaluation Team meetings. In coordination with Dr. Jones-Smith, Ms. Pinero Walkinshaw manages the retail audits. She coordinates the retail audit data collection and analyses, and assists with report and manuscript writing for the retail audit component of the evaluation. In addition, she BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 66 provides input on the other evaluation components. Acknowledgments A baseline study with this level of complexity would have had many more limitations had it not been for the tremendous help we received from community and subject matter experts. We are so very grateful to the many participants who made time to share their perspectives with us. Spanish, Vietnamese, and Somali translations were conducted by ‘TranslateMe!’, Ms. Vananh Vuong, Mr. Abdullahi Jama, and Mr. Mohamed Ali. Mr. Abdullahi Jama additionally served as a community liaison with Somali grocers for the retail audits. Several groups and individuals quickly mobilized for outreach, recruitment, hosting, or facilitating data collection events: Atlantic Street Family Center, Kaylin Bolt, Ninona Boujrada, Kalayaan Domingo, Seattle Restaurant Alliance, Somali Health Boarde, Val Thomas-Matson, Healthy King County Coalition, and Kalayaan Domingo. The Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board provided input on the survey content and outreach to ensure the data represented diverse perspectives. We gathered scientific input from researchers with experience in survey design and in the evaluation of beverage taxes in other localities, including Philadelphia, Berkeley, Mexico, Cook County and Oakland: Dr. Sara Bleich, Dr. Shu Wen Ng, Dr. Lisa Powell, Dr. Jen Falbe, and the Bloomberg Philanthropies Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax External Advisory Committee. In addition, Dr. Dan Taber contributed to the conceptualization and design of this study and Dr. Phil Hurvitz contributed to the geospatial analytic work and the University of Washington Urban Form Lab allowed us to use their list of categorized food businesses for King County. To add a comparison site to the norms and attitudes survey, we received funding from Kaiser Permanente and the University of Washington’s Center for the Study of Demography and Ecology (through a grant received by Dr. Melissa Knox). The SeaSAW Kid's Cohort team would like to thank and acknowledge the following individuals and organizations who contributed their time and energy to this work: Fahmo Abdulle, Adriana Arghira, Suet Sen ‘Ellen’ Chau, Trina Colburn, Columbia City Health Clinic, Federal Way Multi-Service Center, Carmen Flores, Tierra Gogue Garcia, HealthPoint Medical Centers, Katie Hellerud, Alina Hyunh, King County Housing Authority, Leschi Elementary School, Sarah Mendivel, New Holly Housing Community, Tammy Nguyen, North Helpline Food Bank, Suzanne Peck, Fredericka Pie, Amanda Marchese, Diana Prise, Rainier Valley Food Bank, Rainier Vista Housing Community, The Seattle Children’s Research Associate Core, Alexandra Smith, Jenny Thach, Jonny Fernandez Trujillo, and The University District Food Bank. Again, the Evaluation Team is very grateful to all the contributors who provided input in the four month span of time to go from study design to completion of baseline data collection. We believe in the importance of evaluating public health policies and acknowledge the attention and funding the City of Seattle has provided for this study. This study is more rigorous and represents diverse perspectives because of the many contributions we received. BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 67 APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENTS BASELINE REPORT: EVALUATION OF SEATTLE’S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX 68 ITEM 1 STORE AUDIT SURVEY INSTRUMENTS i. BEVERAGE STORE Confidential SBT Beverage Store Observation Page 1 of 1 Data Tracking Business Study ID __________________________________ Business Name and Address __________________________________ (Type in Store Name & Address) Business City Seattle Kent Auburn Federal Way Data Collection Date __________________________________ Data Collector Name __________________________________ Audit Start Time __________________________________ Audit End Time __________________________________ Survey Completion Code Completed Partially Completed Not Started Not Eligible Survey Disposition Code Temporarily not accessible Not safe Asked to leave / Observation not allowed by staff Not accessible for audit ( i.e. only clerk-assisted Does not meet study criteria (describe in notes) Did this store receive a $10 cash incentive? Yes No () Cash incentive receipt: Take photo of receipt, upload here Did you use petty cash to purchase an item at this store? () () Yes No How much petty cash did you spend? __________________________________ () What did you spend the petty cash on? __________________________________ () Petty cash receipt: Take photo of receipt, upload here () Notes __________________________________________ data tracking time stamp 01/10/2018 3:33pm __________________________________ www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Beverage Store Observation Page 1 of 1 General Checkout Business Study ID __________________________________ Type of Store Coffee Shop, non-chain Coffee Shop, chain Bubble Tea Shop Are there pre-packaged fast food or other individual, ready-to-eat items available (e.g., display cases/refrigerated coolers with salads, sandwiches, yogurts, fruit cups, etc.)? Yes No Number of cash registers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and over Does the store have parking on-site? Are these available at CHECK-OUT: general checkout time stamp 01/10/2018 3:33pm Yes No (e.g. parking lot or designated stalls) Milk, flavored Milk, unflavored Bottled Water, plain Soda, regular Soda, diet Other sweetened beverage None of the above __________________________________ www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Beverage Store Observation Page 1 of 2 Coffee Business Study ID __________________________________ Drip Coffee, Hot: 12 Ounces May be called "Coffee" or "Brewed Coffee" on the menu Drip Coffee, self-serve or barista-served Price Sale Yes No __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Yes No Sale Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ Latte, Hot: 12 Ounces Note: "chai latte" not included here, this is for coffee lattes only Latte Coffee drink, plain NO flavor or sweetener Price Sale Yes No __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Yes No Sale Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ Latte Coffee drink, with sugar sweetener/flavoring Yes No (Ask if you can't tell between sugar & sugar-free) How is the sweetener/flavor price listed on the menu? Flavor cost listed separate from drink Flavored drink is listed with flavor price included Price of flavor/sweetner add-on: __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Price total of sweetened beverage: __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Price total of sweetened beverage: __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) 01/10/2018 3:33pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Sale Yes No Sale Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ Latte Coffee drink, with sugar-FREE sweetener/flavoring Yes No (Ask if you can't tell between sugar & sugar-free) How is the sweetener/flavor price listed on the menu? Flavor cost listed separate from drink Flavored drink is listed with flavor price included Price of flavor/sweetner add-on: __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Price total of sweetened beverage: __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Price total of sweetened beverage: __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ Chocolate Mocha: 12 Ounces Chocolate Mocha Coffee, regular chocolate (not white) Price Sale Yes No __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Yes No Sale Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) coffee time stamp __________________________________ 01/10/2018 3:33pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Beverage Store Observation Page 1 of 2 Bubble Tea Business Study ID __________________________________ Bubble Tea: Standard 16 Ounces Milk Tea, with sugar sweetener/flavoring Yes No (If multiple flavor options, choose cheapest option) Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ Milk Tea, with sugar-free sweetener/flavoring Yes No (If multiple flavor options, choose cheapest option) Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ "Fruit" or "Flavored" Tea, with sugar sweetener/flavoring (i.e. a non-milk bubble tea) Yes No (Ask if you can't tell if it has sugar. If multiple flavor options, choose cheapest option.) Name of tea on menu: __________________________________ Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ "Fruit" or "Flavored" Tea, with sugar-free sweetener/flavoring (i.e. a non-milk bubble tea) Yes No (Ask if you can't tell if it has sugar. If multiple flavor options, choose cheapest option.) 01/10/2018 3:33pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Name of tea on menu: __________________________________ Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ Smoothie, with sugar sweetener/flavoring Yes No (Ask if you can't tell if it has sugar) Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Price __________________________________ (99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ Upload Menu Picture Menu Picture: Upload picture of Bubble Tea Shop menu tea time stamp __________________________________ Tea Notes: __________________________________________ (e.g., "Only 22oz bubble tea sold. Prices here are for 22oz.") 01/10/2018 3:33pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Beverage Store Observation Page 1 of 2 Interiordisplay Business Study ID __________________________________ Interior Item Displays Interior item displays include any written signs, posters, pictures, or featured products arranged to help sell that item Sugary flavor or sweetner, not combined with a drink e.g., "Try our chocolate syrup!" Yes No Sugar-free drink of any kind (tea, coffee, other) Yes No Sweetened, Flavored Coffee Yes No Sweetened, Flavored Tea Yes No Regular Soda Yes No Diet Soda Yes No Regular Energy Drink (e.g., Monster, Red Bull) Yes No Diet Energy Drink Yes No Regular Sports Drink (e.g., Gatorade, Powerade, Vitamin Water) Yes No Diet Sports Drink Yes No Juice Drinks Yes No 100% Juice Yes No Plain Bottled Water Yes No Unflavored Milk Yes No Flavored Milk Yes No interior time stamp 01/10/2018 3:33pm __________________________________ www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Interior Display Notes: __________________________________________ ((e.g., "sugary flavor advertised") 01/10/2018 3:33pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Exteriormarketing Business Study ID SBT Beverage Store Observation Page 1 of 2 __________________________________ Exterior Marketing of Any Beverage Count and write down the number of ads that include... Flavored Coffee # of Flavored, Sweetened Coffee ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ (00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ (00 = None) # of Flavored, Sweetened Coffee ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ (00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ (00 = None) Sweetened Tea # of Flavored, Sweetened Tea/Bubble Tea ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ (00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ (00 = None) # of Flavored, Sweetened Tea / Bubble Tea ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ (00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ (00 = None) Sugar-Free Sweetened Drinks # of Flavored sugar-free, drink of any kind (tea, coffee, other) ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ (00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ (00 = None) # of Flavored sugar-free, drink of any kind (tea, coffee, other) ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ (00 = None) 01/10/2018 3:33pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ (00 = None) exterior marketing time stamp __________________________________ 01/10/2018 3:33pm www.projectredcap.org ITEM 1 STORE AUDIT SURVEY INSTRUMENTS ii. FAST FOOD Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 2 Data Tracking Business Study ID __________________________________ () Business Name and Address __________________________________ (Type in Store Name & Address) Business City () Seattle Kent Auburn Federal Way Data Collection Date __________________________________ () Data Collector Name __________________________________ () Audit Start Time __________________________________ () Audit End Time __________________________________ () Survey Completion Code () Survey Disposition Code () Did this store receive a $10 cash incentive? () Cash incentive receipt: Take photo of receipt, upload here Did you use petty cash to purchase an item at this store? Completed Partially Completed Not Started Not Eligible Temporarily not accessible Not safe Asked to leave / Observation not allowed by staff Not accessible for audit ( i.e. only clerk-assisted Does not meet study criteria (describe in notes) Yes No () () Yes No How much petty cash did you spend? __________________________________ () What did you spend the petty cash on? __________________________________ () Petty cash receipt: Take photo of receipt, upload here 01/10/2018 3:32pm () www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Notes: __________________________________________ () data tracking time stamp 01/10/2018 3:32pm __________________________________ () www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 4 Fountaindrinks Business Study ID __________________________________ () Fountain Drinks Are any fountain drinks available? () "Kids" fountain drinks available () Yes No Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () "Small" fountain drinks available () Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () 01/10/2018 3:32pm Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 4 Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () "Medium" fountain drinks available () Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () "Large" fountain drinks available () Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () "XL" fountain drinks available () 01/10/2018 3:32pm Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 4 Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () "XXL" fountain drinks available () Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Drink Availability 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 4 Which fountain drinks are available: () Coke Diet Coke Pepsi Diet Pepsi Sprite Sprite Zero Fanta Mountain Dew Diet Mountain Dew Dr Pepper Diet Dr Pepper Root Beer Sweetened Tea Unsweetened Tea / Diet Tea Lemonade Lite Lemonade Sports Drink Diet Sports Drink Energy Drink Diet Energy Drink Juice Drink 100% Juice Water Other Other fountain drink: __________________________________ () Other fountain drink: __________________________________ () Other fountain drink: __________________________________ () Other fountain drink: __________________________________ () Other fountain drink: __________________________________ () Refills Are free refills offered for fountain beverages at this location? Yes No ( If no sign and the machine is self-serve, then YES it is free refill) Self-Service Is the fountain beverage machine self-serve? () fountain drinks time stamp 01/10/2018 3:32pm Yes No __________________________________ () www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 1 General Checkout Business Study ID __________________________________ () Is the restaurant (check if yes): () Restaurant type: () Other restaurant type: () () Are these available at CHECK-OUT: () 01/10/2018 3:32pm Placed at the counter Picked up at the counter Paid for at the counter None of the above 1 2 3 4 or more ( If 4+, enter 4) Does the restaurant have (check if yes): general checkout time stamp Burger and Fries Mexican / Latin American Fried Chicken / Fried Fish Sandwich or Sub Shop (e.g., Subway, Quiznos) Pastry or bakery Pizzeria/Italian Chinese/Pan-Asian Other __________________________________ () Is the food order (check if yes): Number of exterior walls visible from parking lot or street In a Food Court or Mall In a shared space with a Grocery or Department Store In a shared space with a Gas Station or Convenience Store In a shared space with another Restaurant None of the above Outdoor seating Parking on-site Drive-thru Exterior play area Indoor play area Free water accessible to customers None of the above Milk, flavored Milk, unflavored Bottled Water, plain Soda, regular Soda, diet Other sweetened beverage None of the above __________________________________ () www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 5 Soda Business Study ID __________________________________ () Coca-Cola Coca-Cola 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coca-Cola 16.9 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coca-Cola 20 oz () 01/10/2018 3:32pm Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 5 Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke Diet Coke 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke 16.9 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:32pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 5 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Pepsi Pepsi 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 5 Pepsi 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Pepsi Diet Pepsi 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Pepsi 20 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:32pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 5 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () soda time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 3 Energydrink Business Study ID __________________________________ () Monster Monster 16 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Monster Zero Ultra Monster Zero Ultra 16 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 3 Red Bull Red Bull 8.4 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull 16 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull Sugarfree Red Bull Sugarfree 8.4 oz () Price 01/10/2018 3:32pm Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 3 Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull Sugarfree 16 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () energy drink time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 4 Sportsdrink Business Study ID __________________________________ () Gatorade Gatorade 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Gatorade 32 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 4 Gatorade G2 Gatorade G2 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Gatorade G2 32 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powerade Powerade 20 oz () Price 01/10/2018 3:32pm Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 4 Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powerade 32 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powerade Zero Powerade Zero 20 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () 01/10/2018 3:32pm Yes No Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 4 Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powerade 32 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () sports drink time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 2 Teacoffee Business Study ID __________________________________ () Arizona Green Tea Arizona Green Tea 23 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Arizona Zero Calorie Green Tea Arizona Zero Calorie Green Tea 23 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Pure Leaf Sweet Tea Pure Leaf Sweet Tea 18.5 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Pure Leaf Unsweetened Tea Pure Leaf Unsweetened Tea 18.5 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () tea coffee time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 2 Juice Business Study ID __________________________________ () Minute Maid (Cranberry Cocktail) Minute Maid (Cranberry Cocktail) 12 oz OR 15.2 oz () Price 12 oz 15.2 oz No 12 or 15.2oz __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Minute Maid 100 % Juice (Orange) Minute Maid 100 % Juice (Orange) 12 oz OR 15.2 oz () Price 12 oz 15.2 oz No 12 or 15.2oz __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Tropicana (Cranberry Cocktail) Tropicana (Cranberry Cocktail) 12 oz OR 15.2 oz () Price 12 oz 15.2 oz No 12 or 15.2oz __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Tropicana 100% Juice (Orange) Tropicana 100% Juice (Orange) 12 oz OR 15.2 oz () Price 12 oz 15.2 oz No 12 or 15.2oz __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () juice time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 2 Kidsdrinks Business Study ID __________________________________ () Capri Sun Juice Capri Sun Juice 6 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Capri Sun 100% Juice Capri Sun 100% Juice 6 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 kid drink time stamp 01/10/2018 3:32pm __________________________________ () www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 2 Water Business Study ID __________________________________ () Ice Mountain Ice Mountain, 20 oz, or if not available, 16.9 oz () Price 16.9 oz 20 oz None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Aquafina Water Aquafina Water, 20 oz, or if not available, 16.9 oz () Price 16.9 oz 20 oz None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Dasani Water Dasani Water, 20 oz, or if not available, 16.9 oz () Price 16.9 oz 20 oz None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () LaCroix Sparkling Water LaCroix Sparkling Waterr, 12 oz () Price 16.9 oz 20 oz None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () water time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 3 Milk Business Study ID __________________________________ () An 8oz carton of milk is the school lunch size of milk box. The Horizon brand of milk boxes are also 8oz. Milk Whole, unflavored (cheapest) Milk Whole, unflavored (cheapest), 8 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Milk 2%, unflavored (cheapest) Milk 2%, unflavored (cheapest), 8 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 3 Milk 1%, unflavored (cheapest) Milk 1%, unflavored (cheapest), 8 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Milk Skim / Fat-free, unflavored (cheapest) Milk Skim / Fat-free, unflavored (cheapest), 8 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 3 Chocolate Milk, Any fat (cheapest) Chocolate Milk, Any fat (cheapest), 8 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () milk time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Exteriormarketing Business Study ID SBT Fast Food Observations Page 1 of 4 __________________________________ () Exterior Marketing of Any Beverage Count and write down the number of ads that include... Regular Soda # of regular soda ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of regular soda ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Diet Soda # of diet soda ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of diet soda ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Regular Energy Drinks # of energy drink ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of energy drink ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 4 Diet Energy Drinks # of diet energy drink ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of diet energy drink ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Regular Sports Drinks # of sports drink ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of sports drink ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Diet Sports Drinks # of diet sports drink ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of diet sports drink ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Juice Drinks # of juice ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 4 # of juice ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) 100% Juice Drinks # of 100% juice ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of 100% juice ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Plain Bottled Water # of water ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of water ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Unflavored Milk # of unflavored milk ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of unflavored milk ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 4 Flavored Milk # of flavored milk ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of flavored milk ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) exterior marketing time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:32pm www.projectredcap.org ITEM 1 STORE AUDIT SURVEY INSTRUMENTS GROCERY STORE Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 2 Data Tracking Business Study ID __________________________________ Business Name and Address __________________________________ (Type in Store Name & Address) Business City () Seattle Kent Auburn Federal Way Data Collection Date __________________________________ () Data Collector Name __________________________________ () Audit Start Time __________________________________ () Audit End Time __________________________________ () Survey Completion Code () Survey Disposition Code () Did this store receive a $10 cash incentive? () Cash incentive receipt: Take photo of receipt, upload here Did you use petty cash to purchase an item at this store? Completed Partially Completed Not Started Not Eligible Temporarily not accessible Not safe Asked to leave / Observation not allowed by staff Not accessible for audit ( i.e. only clerk-assisted Does not meet study criteria (describe in notes) Yes No () () Yes No How much petty cash did you spend? __________________________________ () What did you spend the petty cash on? __________________________________ () Petty cash receipt: Take photo of receipt, upload here () Notes __________________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 data tracking time stamp 01/10/2018 3:30pm __________________________________ () www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 2 General Checkout Business Study ID __________________________________ Type of Store () Please record any notes about the type of store if needed, or if the store doesn't clearly fit into one of the above categories: __________________________________________ () Does the store accept EBT/SNAP? () Does the store accept WIC? () Are there fast food or other individual, ready-to-eat items available (e.g., display cases/refrigerated coolers with salads, pizza, hot dogs, fried chicken, etc.)? Is 50% or more of the store's inventory beer, wine, and/or liquor? () () Does the store sell any tobacco products? () Number of cash registers () Does the store have parking on-site? () Does the store sell gasoline? () Is there fresh meat available? () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Superstore (Walmart, Target) Supermarket (Safeway, QFC) Grocery (Red Apple, "mom & pop") Small Store (Chain & non-chain convenience, gas stations, "mom & pop") Drug Store / Pharmacy (Walgreens, Rite-Aid) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and over Yes No Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Does the store have a: () Are these available at CHECK-OUT: () general checkout time stamp 01/10/2018 3:30pm Butcher or fresh meat service counter Deli counter Bakery Pharmacy Bank None of the above Milk, flavored Milk, unflavored Bottled Water, plain Soda, regular Soda, diet Other sweetened beverage None of the above __________________________________ () www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 4 Soda1 Business Study ID __________________________________ Coca-Cola Coca-Cola 7.5 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coca-Cola 12 oz Yes No Can be can or bottle, choose cheapest () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coca-Cola 16.9 oz () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 4 Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coca-Cola 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coca-Cola 1 Liter () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 4 Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coca-Cola 1.25 Liter () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coca-Cola 2 Liter () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coca-Cola 6 Pack / 7.5 oz () Price 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 4 Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coca-Cola 12 Pack / 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () soda1 time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 8 Soda2 Business Study ID __________________________________ Diet Coke Diet Coke 7.5 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke 16.9 oz () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 8 Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke 1 Liter () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 8 Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke 1.25 Liter () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke 2 Liter () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke 6 Pack / 7.5 oz () Price 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 8 Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Coke 12 Pack / 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coke Zero Coke Zero 7.5 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 8 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coke Zero 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coke Zero 16.9 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 6 of 8 Coke Zero 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coke Zero 1 Liter () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coke Zero 1.25 Liter () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 7 of 8 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coke Zero 2 Liter () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Coke Zero 6 Pack / 7.5 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 8 of 8 Coke Zero 12 Pack / 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () soda2 time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 6 Soda4 Business Study ID __________________________________ Mountain Dew Mountain Dew 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Mountain Dew 2 Liter () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 6 Diet Mountain Dew Diet Mountain Dew 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Mountain Dew 2 Liter () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 6 Dr. Pepper Dr. Pepper 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Dr. Pepper 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Dr. Pepper 2 Liter () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 6 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Dr. Pepper 12 Pack / 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Dr. Pepper Diet Dr. Pepper 12 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 6 Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Dr. Pepper 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Dr. Pepper 2 Liter () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Diet Dr. Pepper 12 Pack / 12 oz () Price 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 6 of 6 Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () soda4 time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 6 Gatorade Business Study ID __________________________________ Gatorade Gatorade 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Gatorade 32 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Gatorade 8 Pack / 20 oz () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 6 Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powder Gatorade Mix Powdered Gatorade Mix, 18.4 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powdered Gatorade Mix, 51 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 6 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powdered Gatorade Mix, 76.5 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powdered Gatorade Mix, 8-pack "Powder Packs" () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 6 Gatorade G2 Gatorade G2 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Gatorade G2 32 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Gatorade G2 8 Pack / 20 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 6 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () gatorade time stamp __________________________________ () Powder Gatorade G2 Mix Powder Gatorade G2 Mix, 19.4 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powder Gatorade G2 Mix, 51 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 6 of 6 Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powder Gatorade G2 Mix, 8-pack individual serving size Price () Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 3 Soda5 Business Study ID __________________________________ Jarritos Note: May be in Hispanic food aisle Jarritos, 12.5 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Jarritos Light Jarritos Light, 12.5 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Sale Price 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 3 Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Cheapest Non-Name Brand Soda Does the store sell any non-name brand soda, not yet included? () Cheapest Non-Name Brand Soda, 2 Liter () Yes No Yes No Name of Cheapest Non-Name Brand Soda, 2 Liter: __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Cheapest Non-Name Brand Soda, 12 Pack / 12 oz () Yes No Name of Cheapest Non-name Brand Soda, 12pk / 12oz: __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Sale Price 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 3 Extra sale price information __________________________________ () soda5 time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 3 Powerade Business Study ID __________________________________ Powerade Powerade 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powerade 32 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powerade 8 Pack / 20 oz () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 3 Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powerade Zero Powerade Zero 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powerade 32 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 3 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powerade 8 Pack / 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () powerade time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 7 Energydrink Business Study ID __________________________________ Monster Monster 16 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Monster 24 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Monster 4 Pack / 16 oz () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 7 Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Monster Zero Ultra Monster Zero Ultra 16 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Monster Zero Ultra 24 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 7 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Monster Zero Ultra 4 Pack / 16 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull Red Bull 8.4 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 7 Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull 16 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull 4 Pack / 8.4 oz () Price 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 7 Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull Sugarfree Red Bull Sugarfree 8.4 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull Sugarfree 12 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:30pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 6 of 7 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull Sugarfree 16 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Bull Sugarfree 4 Pack / 8.4 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 7 of 7 energy drink time stamp 01/10/2018 3:30pm __________________________________ () www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 2 Vitaminwater Business Study ID __________________________________ Vitamin Water Vitamin Water 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Vitamin Water 6 Pack / 16.9 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Vitamin Water Zero Vitamin Water Zero 20 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Vitamin Water Zero 6 Pack / 16.9 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () vitamin water time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:30pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 5 Juice Business Study ID __________________________________ Minute Maid (Cranberry Cocktail or Cranberry/Apple/Raspberry Cocktail) Minute Maid Cranberry or Cranberry/Apple/Raspberry Cocktail, 12oz (or 15.2 oz) () Price 12 oz (priority) 15.2 oz No 12 or 15.2oz __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Minute Maid (Fruit Punch) Minute Maid Fruit Punch, 59 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 5 Minute Maid 100 % Juice (Orange) Minute Maid 100% Juice Orange, 12oz (or 15.2 oz) () Price 12 oz (priority) 15.2 oz No 12 or 15.2oz __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Minute Maid 100% Juice Orange, 59oz Carton (or 59oz Jug) () Price 59 oz Carton (priority) 59 oz Jug None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 5 Tropicana (Cranberry Cocktail) Tropicana Cranberry Cocktail, 12oz (or 15.2 oz) () Price 12 oz (priority) 15.2 oz No 12 or 15.2oz __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Tropicana Twister (Fruit Punch) Tropicana Twister Fruit Punch, 59oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 5 Tropicana 100% Juice (Orange) Tropicana 100% Juice Orange, 12oz (or 15.2 oz) () Price 12 oz (priority) 15.2 oz No 12 or 15.2oz __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Tropicana 100% Orange Juice, 59oz Jug (or 59 oz Carton) () Price 59 oz Jug (priority) 59 oz Carton None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 5 Cheapest Non-Name Brand Juice Cheapest Non-Name Brand Juice, 12oz (or 15.2 oz) () 12 oz (priority) 15.2 oz No 12 or 15.2oz Name of Cheapest Non-Name Brand Juice: __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () juice time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 6 Teacoffee Business Study ID __________________________________ Arizona Green Tea If original Green Tea not available, any flavor OK Arizona Green Tea 23 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Arizona Green Tea 128 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 6 Arizona Zero Calorie Green Tea If original Green Tea not available, any flavor OK Arizona Zero Calorie Green Tea 23 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Arizona Zero Calorie Green Tea 128 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 6 Pure Leaf Sweet Tea Pure Leaf Sweet Tea 18.5 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Pure Leaf Sweet Tea 64 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 6 Pure Leaf Unsweetened Tea Pure Leaf Unsweetened Tea 18.5 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Pure Leaf Unsweetened Tea 64 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 6 Starbucks Frappuccino, Bottled Starbucks Frappuccino 13.7 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Starbucks Frappuccino 9.5 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Starbucks Frappuccino, coffee flavor 4 Pack / 9.5 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 6 of 6 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () tea coffee time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 4 Lemonade Business Study ID __________________________________ Powder Country Time Lemonade Mix Country Time Lemonade Powder Mix, 19 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Country Time Lemonade Powder Mix, 29 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Country Time Lemonade Powder Mix, 82.5 oz () 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 4 Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Country Time Lemonade Powder Mix, 116 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Country Time Lemonade Powder Mix, 10-pack individual serving size packets Price () __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 4 Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Powder Crystal Lite Lemonade Mix Crystal Lite Lemonade Powder Mix, 6-pack "pitcher" packets Priority = regular lemonade, if not available, pink lemonde or sweet tea is OK Price () Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Crystal Lite Lemonade Powder Mix, 10-pack "on-the-go" packets Priority = regular lemonade, if not available, pink lemonde or sweet tea is OK Price () Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 4 lemonade time stamp 01/10/2018 3:31pm __________________________________ () www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 6 Milk Business Study ID __________________________________ Milk Whole, unflavored (cheapest) Note: Cheapest includes sale price Milk Whole, unflavored (cheapest), 1/2 gallon () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Milk Whole, unflavored (cheapest), 1 gallon () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 6 Milk 2%, unflavored (cheapest) Note: Cheapest includes sale price Milk 2%, unflavored (cheapest), 1/2 gallon () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Milk 2%, unflavored (cheapest), 1 gallon () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 6 Milk 1%, unflavored (cheapest) Milk 1%, unflavored (cheapest), 1/2 gallon () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Milk 1%, unflavored (cheapest), 1 gallon () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 6 Milk Skim / Fat-free, unflavored (cheapest) Note: Cheapest includes sale price Milk Skim / Fat-free, unflavored (cheapest), 1/2 gallon Price () Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Milk Skim / Fat-free, unflavored (cheapest), 1 gallon () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 6 Chocolate Milk, Any fat (cheapest) Note: Cheapest includes sale price Chocolate Milk, Any fat (cheapest), 14 oz A 14oz bottle of milk is usually the single-serving bottles, e.g., the Nesquick bottles Price () Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Chocolate Milk, Any fat (cheapest), 1/2 gallon () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Chocolate Milk, Any fat (cheapest), 1 gallon () Price 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 6 of 6 Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () milk time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 4 Water Business Study ID __________________________________ Ice Mountain Ice Mountain, 8 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Ice Mountain, 20 oz (if not available, 16.9 oz) () Price 20 oz (priority) 16.9 oz None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Ice Mountain, 24 pk / 16.9 oz () 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 4 Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Aquafina Water Aquafina Water, 20 oz (if not available, 16.9 oz) () Price 20 oz (priority) 16.9 oz None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Dasani Water Dasani Water, 20 oz (if not available, 16.9 oz) () Price 01/10/2018 3:31pm 20 oz (priority) 16.9 oz None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 4 Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Cheapest Bottled Water Cheapest Bottles Water, 20 oz (if not available, 16.9 oz) () Price 20 oz (priority) 16.9 oz None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () LaCroix Sparkling Water LaCroix Sparkling Waterr, 12 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:31pm 12 oz None Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 4 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () water time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 5 Fountaindrinks Business Study ID __________________________________ Fountain Drinks Are any fountain drinks available? () "Kids" fountain drinks available () Yes No Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () "Small" fountain drinks available () Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 5 Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () "Medium" fountain drinks available () Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () "Large" fountain drinks available () Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 5 "XL" fountain drinks available () Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () "XXL" fountain drinks available () Yes No Ounces __________________________________ () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 5 Drink Availability Which fountain drinks are available: () Coke Diet Coke Pepsi Diet Pepsi Sprite Sprite Zero Fanta Mountain Dew Diet Mountain Dew Dr Pepper Diet Dr Pepper Root Beer Sweetened Tea Unsweetened Tea / Diet Tea Lemonade Lite Lemonade Sports Drink Diet Sports Drink Energy Drink Diet Energy Drink Juice Drink 100% Juice Water Other Other fountain drink: __________________________________ () Other fountain drink: __________________________________ () Other fountain drink: __________________________________ () Other fountain drink: __________________________________ () Other fountain drink: __________________________________ () Refills Are free refills offered for fountain beverages at this location? 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No ( If no sign and the machine is self-serve, then YES it is free refill) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 5 Self-Service Is the fountain beverage machine self-serve? () fountain drinks time stamp 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No __________________________________ () www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 5 Snacks Business Study ID __________________________________ Lay's Regular Potato Chips, Salted Lay's Regular Potato Chips, Salted 2.75 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Lay's Regular Potato Chips, Salted 10 oz Yes No Might be called "Family Size" () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 5 Pringles Regular Potato Chips, Salted Salted, Original=Priority, if not available, any flavor pringles OK Pringles Regular Potato Chips, Salted 2.36 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Pringles Regular Potato Chips, Salted 5.2 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 5 Cookies, Original Oreos Cookies, Original Oreos 2 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Cookies, Original Oreos 14.3 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 5 Little Debbie Honey Buns Little Debbie Honey Buns 3 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Little Debbie Honey Buns 10.6 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Reese's Peanut Butter cups Reese's Peanut Butter cups 1.5 oz (2pk) () Price 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 5 Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () snacks time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 4 Groceries Business Study ID __________________________________ Produce Banana () Price 1 lb Each None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Red Delicious Apple () Price 1 lb Each None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 4 Yellow Onions () Price 1 lb Each None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Tomatoes (cheapest) () Price 1 lb Each None __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Bakery White Bread (cheapest), 1 loaf () Price 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 4 Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Refridgerated White Eggs (cheapest), 1 dozen () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Cereal Frosted Flakes Cereal, 15 oz () Price __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () 01/10/2018 3:31pm Yes No Yes No www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 4 Sale Type () Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () Original Cheerios Cereal, 12 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ ( 99.99 = Not able to obtain price) Sale () Sale Type () Yes No Reduced price Reduced price per quantity Minimum quantity required to get reduced price Buy one get one Other Sale Price __________________________________ (55.55=Sale information in Extra Sales Price Info box ) Extra sale price information __________________________________ () groceries time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 2 Interiordisplay Business Study ID __________________________________ Interior Item Displays Please walk around the entire inside of the store to make sure no sections are skipped Regular Soda () Diet Soda () Regular Energy Drink (e.g., Monster, Red Bull) () Diet Energy Drink () Regular Sports Drink (e.g., Gatorade, Powerade, Vitamin Water) () Diet Sports Drink () Juice Drinks () 100% Juice () Plain Bottled Water () Unflavored Milk () 01/10/2018 3:31pm End-aisle display Special floor display No display End-aisle display Special floor display No display End-aisle display Special floor display No display End-aisle display Special floor display No display End-aisle display Special floor display No display End-aisle display Special floor display No display End-aisle display Special floor display No display End-aisle display Special floor display No display End-aisle display Special floor display No display End-aisle display Special floor display No display www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 2 Flavored Milk () interior display time stamp 01/10/2018 3:31pm End-aisle display Special floor display No display __________________________________ () www.projectredcap.org Confidential Exteriormarketing Business Study ID SBT Grocery Store Observations Page 1 of 4 __________________________________ Exterior Marketing of Any Beverage Count and write down the number of ads that include... Regular Soda # of regular soda ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of regular soda ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Diet Soda # of diet soda ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of diet soda ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Regular Energy Drinks # of energy drink ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of energy drink ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 4 Diet Energy Drinks # of diet energy drink ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of diet energy drink ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Regular Sports Drinks # of sports drink ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of sports drink ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Diet Sports Drinks # of diet sports drink ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of diet sports drink ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Juice Drinks # of juice ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 4 # of juice ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) 100% Juice Drinks # of 100% juice ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of 100% juice ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Plain Bottled Water # of water ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of water ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Unflavored Milk # of unflavored milk ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of unflavored milk ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 4 Flavored Milk # of flavored milk ads on building exterior (i.e. Signs on the door, exterior walls) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Exterior Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) # of flavored milk ads on property (e.g., Signs in the parking lot, on a post, sandwich board, billboard) __________________________________ ( 00 = None) Property Price Promotion Ad Total __________________________________ ( 00 = None) exterior marketing time stamp __________________________________ () 01/10/2018 3:31pm www.projectredcap.org ITEM 2 CHILD COHORT SURVEY INSTRUMENTS i. SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE SeaSAW Screening Questionnaire ID#________________ Thank you for your interest in the Seattle Area Shopping and Wellness or SeaSAW Study! To see if your family is eligible, we need to ask you a few questions. 1. What is your child’s age? 7-10 or 12-17 (if multiple eligible children, choose one with closest birthday to today) 2. What is your home address (including zip code)? Street address: ______________________________, Unit #: _______________________________ City: _______________________, State:_______, Zipcode: ___________________ 3. Does your child live in your residence on average five days per week or more? a. Yes b. No 4. Are you planning on moving out of the area (King County) anytime in the next 1-2 years? a. Yes b. No 5. How many adults (including yourself) live in your household? _______ adults 6. How many children under 18 live in your household? ________ children 7. Please reference the chart below and tell us if your total gross annual household income (before taxes and other things taken out) including all sources of income for your household is above or below the annual or monthly income associated with your household size. a. Above b. Below Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Annual $37,627.20 $50,668.80 $63,710.40 $76,752.00 $89,793.60 $102,835.20 $115,876.80 $128,918.40 $145,236.00 $161,553.60 Monthly $3,135.60 $4,222.40 $5,309.20 $6,396.00 $7,482.80 $8,569.60 $9,656.40 $10,743.20 $12,103.00 $13,462.80 1 For the following questions, please answer what is most accurate for your child (if parent) or you (if adolescent) in the past week: Never or almost never Less than 1 time per week 1-2 times per week 3-4 times per week 5 or more times per week 9. Eat at restaurants? 1 2 3 4 5 10. Eat food served from a school cafeteria? 1 2 3 4 5 11. Not counting restaurants or school, how many times did your child (you) meals away from home (e.g., friends home, other family members’ home)? 1 2 3 4 5 How often did your child (you): 12. Does your child ever drink sugary beverages like: regular soda/pop (such as Coke or Sprite), fruit-flavored drinks (like Sunny Delight), coffee or tea drinks with added sugar (like Starbucks Frappucinnos, Arizona Iced Tea, Chai Tea, bubble tea), or regular sports drinks or energy drinks (such as Gatorade or Red Bull)? a.Yes b. No Please Provide Your Contact Information: Parent First Name: _______________________________, Parent Last Name: ______________________________ Parent Phone:_______________________________, Parent Email: _______________________________________ 2 ITEM 2 CHILD COHORT SURVEY INSTRUMENTS ii. DIETARY SCREENER QUESTIONNAIRE DIETARY SCREENER QUESTIONNAIRE These questions are about  foods you ate or drank during the past month, that is, the past 30 days. When answering, please include meals and snacks at home, at work or school, in restaurants, and anyplace else. Mark an      to indicate your answer. To change your answer, completely fill the box for the incorrectly marked answer (       ). Then mark an X in the correct one. Your answers are important. 1 How old are you (in years)? 6 years 2 Are you male or female? Never Male 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week During the past month, how often did you eat hot or cold cereals? Mark one     . Never Go to question 4. 1 time per day 2­3 times per day 4­5 times per day 6 or more times per day 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 7 During the past month, what kind of cereal did you usually eat?    Print cereal. 5 If there was another kind of cereal that you usually ate during the past month, what kind was it?    Print cereal, if none leave blank. During the past month, what kind of milk did you usually drink?  Mark one     . Whole or regular milk 2% fat or reduced­fat milk 1%, ½%, or low­fat milk Fat­free, skim or nonfat milk Soy milk Other kind of milk Print milk. 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 4 Go  to  question  8. 1 time last month 2­3 times last month Female 3 During the past month, how often did you have any milk (either to drink or on cereal)? Include regular milks, chocolate or other flavored milks, lactose­free milk, buttermilk. Please do not include soy milk  or small amounts of milk in coffee or tea. Mark one     . 8 During the past month, how often did you drink regular soda or pop that contains sugar? Do not include diet soda. Mark one     . Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2­3 times per day 4­5 times per day 6 or more times per day 1 1 29836 9 During the past month, how often did you drink 100% pure fruit juices such as orange, mango, apple, grape and pineapple juices? Do not include fruit­flavored drinks with added sugar or fruit juice you made at home and added sugar to.  Mark one     . 11 Never During the past month, how often did you drink sweetened fruit drinks, sports or energy drinks, such as Kool­Aid, lemonade, Hi­C, cranberry drink, Gatorade, Red Bull or Vitamin Water? Include fruit juices you made at home and added sugar to.  Do not include diet drinks or artificially sweetened drinks. Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2­3 times per day 4­5 times per day 6 or more times per day 1 time per day 2­3 times per day 4­5 times per day 6 or more times per day 10 During the past month, how often did you drink coffee or tea that had sugar or honey added to it?  Include coffee and tea you sweetened yourself  and presweetened tea and coffee drinks such as Arizona Iced Tea and Frappuccino. Do not include artificially sweetened coffee or diet tea. 12 During the past month, how often did you eat fruit?  Include fresh, frozen or canned fruit. Do not include juices. Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month Never 1 time per week 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 13 1 time per day 2­3 times per day 4­5 times per day 6 or more times per day During the past month, how often did you eat a green leafy or lettuce salad, with or without other vegetables? Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 2 29836 14 During the past month, how often did you eat any kind of  fried potatoes, including french fries, home fries, or hash brown potatoes? 17 Never Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 15 During the past month, how often did you eat brown rice or other cooked whole grains, such as bulgur, cracked wheat, or millet?  Do not include white rice. 1 time per day 2 or more times per day During the past month, how often did you eat any other kind of potatoes, such as baked, boiled, mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes, or potato salad? 18 During the past month, not including what you just told me about (green salads, potatoes, cooked dried beans), how often did you eat other vegetables? Never Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 16 1 time per day 2 or more times per day During the past month, how often did you eat refried beans, baked beans, beans in soup, pork and beans or any other type of  cooked dried beans?  Do not include green beans. 19 During the past month, how often did you have Mexican­type salsa made with tomato? Never Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 3 29836 20 During the past month, how often did you eat pizza?  Include frozen pizza, fast food pizza, and homemade pizza. 23 During the past month, how often did you eat red meat, such as beef, pork, ham, or sausage?  Do not include chicken, turkey or seafood.  Include red meat you had in sandwiches, lasagna, stew, and other mixtures.  Red meats may also include veal, lamb, and any lunch meats made with these meats. Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month Never 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 21 During the past month, how often did you have tomato sauces such as with spagetti or noodles or mixed into foods such as lasagna?  Do not include tomato sauce on pizza. 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 24 During the past month, how often did you eat any processed meat, such as bacon, lunch meats, or hot dogs?  Include processed meats you had in sandwiches, soups, pizza, casseroles, and other mixtures. Processed meats are those preserved by smoking, curing, or salting, or by the addition of preservatives.  Examples are: ham, bacon, pastrami, salami, sausages, bratwursts, frankfurters, hot dogs, and spam. Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 22 During the past month, how often did you eat any kind of  cheese?  Include cheese as a snack, cheese on burgers, sandwiches, and cheese in foods such as lasagna, quesadillas, or casseroles.  Do not include cheese on pizza. 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week Never 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 4 29836 25 During the past month, how often did you eat whole grain bread including toast, rolls and in sandwiches?  Whole grain breads include whole wheat, rye, oatmeal and pumpernickel. Do not include white bread. 28 During the past month, how often did you eat cookies, cake, pie or brownies?  Do not include sugar­free kinds. Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 29 During the past month, how often did you eat ice cream or other frozen desserts?  Do not include sugar­free kinds. 26 During the past month, how often did you eat chocolate or any other types of candy?  Do not include sugar­free candy. Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 30 During the past month, how often did you eat popcorn? 27 During the past month, how often did you eat doughnuts, sweet rolls, Danish, muffins, pan dulce, or pop­tarts?  Do not include sugar­free items. Never 1 time last month 2­3 times last month Never 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time last month 2­3 times last month 1 time per week 2 times per week 3­4 times per week 5­6 times per week 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 1 time per day 2 or more times per day 5 29836 ITEM 2 CHILD COHORT SURVEY INSTRUMENTS CHILD SURVEY ID#____________, Date ___________ Beverage Consumption Questionnaire for Child Cohort (SeaSAW) CHILD To be completed by parent if child is 7-10 years old or by 12-17 year old themselves. Updated 12 20 2017 We want to learn about the types and amounts of different beverages that your child drinks. Please read the list of beverages and mark if your child has had the beverage in the past month. If they drink something at least once a week, I will ask about how much they usually have each time they drink that type of beverage. For example, if your child drinks fruit juice as part of a snack after school each school day but does not drink it any other time throughout the day or on the weekend, you would tell me she drinks it 5 times each week. Do not count beverages used in cooking or other preparations such as milk in cereal. There are no right or wrong answers. We want to get an honest picture of what your child drinks. A) How Often Do You Drink It? (Choose One) Type of Beverage Never or less than 1 time per week- go to next beverage 1 time per week 2-3 times per week 4-6 times per week 1 time per day 2+ times per day B) How Much Each Time? (Choose One) 3+ times per day Less than 6 fl oz (3/4 cup) Size of most juice boxes 1. Tap water → 2. Plain bottled water (e.g., Aquafina, Dasani, Smart Water) → 3. Flavored water without added sugar or other caloric sweeteners (e.g., coconut water; club soda or bubbly water; aqua frescas without sugar or other caloric sweeteners such as honey) or other flavored waters with low or no calories (e.g., La Croix, Mio, Vitamin Water Zero, Sobe Life Water) 4. 100% Fruit juice (e.g., orange, apple, Honest Kids) 5. Fruit-flavored drinks with added sugar that are ready to drink – in bottle/can or from a drink fountain/dispenser (e.g., lemonade, Sunny Delight, Hawaiian Punch) → → → 8 fl oz (1 cup) 12 fl oz (1 ½ cups) Size of a regular can of soda/pop 16 fl oz (2 cups) Size of most sports drinks/ bottled drinks More than 20 fl oz cups (2 ½ cups) Type of Beverage Never or less than 1 time per week- go to next beverage 1 time per week 2-3 times per week 4-6 times per week 1 time per day 2+ times per day 3+ times per day Less than 6 fl oz (3/4 cup) Size of most juice boxes 6. Regular milk with no added sugar (cow, almond, or other plant or nut milks)(e.g., 2% milk, Silk Unsweetened Almond Milk) → 7. Flavored milk (e.g., chocolate, strawberry, horchata, or sweetened vanilla almond milk) → 8. Regular soft drinks, soda, or pop (e.g., Coke, Pepsi Sprite, Root Beer, Orange Soda, Jarritos, Dr. Pepper); not including diet soda → 9. Diet or low or no calorie soft drinks, soda, or pop (e.g., Coke Zero Sugar, Diet Pepsi) → 10. Tea or coffee drink with sugar or syrups added (in bottle/can or prepared by barista or seller) (e.g. Arizona Iced Tea, Snapple, Pure Leaf, Starbucks Frappuccino, mocha, or bubble teas) or hot chocolate 11. Tea or coffee drink you/your child prepared to which you added sugar, honey, or syrups 12. Tea or coffee drink (prepared by you/your child, by a barista or seller, or in a bottle/can) with low or no calorie sweetener or flavoring added 13. Tea or coffee without sugar or other flavorings or sweeteners added (plain or with milk/cream) (made at home or purchased) 14. Regular energy drinks (e.g., Red Bull, Rockstar, Monster) → → → → → 8 fl oz (1 cup) 12 fl oz (1 ½ cups) Size of a regular can of soda/pop 16 fl oz (2 cups) Size of most sports drinks or bottled drinks More than 20 fl oz cups (2 ½ cups) Type of Beverage Never or less than 1 time per week- go to next beverage 1 time per week 2-3 times per week 4-6 times per week 1 time per day 2+ times per day 3+ times per day Less than 6 fl oz (3/4 cup) Size of most juice boxes 15. Regular sports drinks that are ready to drink – from a bottle or drink fountain/dispenser (e.g., Gatorade, Powerade, Vitamin Water) → 16. Low or no calorie sports drinks (e.g., Gatorade G2) → 17. Fruit-flavored drinks or sports drinks prepared by you/your child (e.g., Kool Aid, made-frompowder lemonade or Gatorade) → 18. Are there any other beverages you have consumed in the past month that we did not already capture? → Other ________________ 19. Other _________________ → 20. Other _________________ → 21. Other ________________ → Please describe other beverages in as much detail as you can: Brand, flavor, diet or not. 8 fl oz (1 cup) 12 fl oz (1 ½ cups) Size of a regular can of soda/pop 16 fl oz (2 cups) Size of most sports drinks or bottled drinks More than 20 fl oz cups (2 ½ cups) ITEM 2 CHILD COHORT SURVEY INSTRUMENTS iv. ADULT SURVEY Beverage Consumption Questionnaire for Child Cohort (SeaSAW) PARENT ID#_____________ Updated 12 20 2017 We want to learn about the types and amounts of different beverages that you drink. Please choose the best answer for each of the questions below. If you drink something at least once a week, please answer how much you usually have each time you drink that type of beverage. For example, if you drink fruit juice as part of a snack after work each weekday day but do not drink it any other time throughout the day or on the weekend, you would choose 5 times each week. Do not count beverages used in cooking or other preparations such as milk in cereal or in coffee. There are no right or wrong answers. We want to get an honest picture of what you drink. A) How Often Do You Drink It? (Choose One) Type of Beverage Never or less than 1 time per week- go to next beverage 1 time per week 2-3 times per week 4-6 times per week 1 time per day 2+ times per day B) How Much Each Time? (Choose One) 3+ times per day Less than 6 fl oz (3/4 cup) Size of most juice boxes 1. Tap water → 2. Plain bottled water (e.g., Aquafina, Dasini, Smart Water) → 3. Flavored water without added sugar or other caloric sweeteners (e.g., coconut water; club soda or bubbly water; aqua frescas without sugar or other caloric sweeteners such as honey) or other flavored waters with low or no calories (e.g., La Croix, Mio, Vitamin Water Zero, Sobe Life Water) 4. 100% Fruit juice (e.g., orange, apple, Honest Kids) 5. Fruit-flavored drinks with added sugar that are ready to drink – in bottle/can or from a drink fountain/dispenser (e.g., lemonade, Sunny Delight, Hawaiian Punch) → → → 8 fl oz (1 cup) 12 fl oz (1 ½ cups) Size of a regular can of soda/pop 16 fl oz (2 cups) Size of most sports drinks or bottled drinks More than 20 fl oz cups (2 ½ cups) Type of Beverage Never or less than 1 time per week- go to next beverage 1 time per week 2-3 times per week 4-6 times per week 1 time per day 2+ times per day 3+ times per day Less than 6 fl oz (3/4 cup) Size of most juice boxes 6. Regular milk with no added sugar (cow, almond, or other plant or nut milks)(e.g., 2% milk, Silk Unsweetened Almond Milk) → 7. Flavored milk (e.g., chocolate, strawberry, horchata, or sweetened vanilla almond milk) → 8. Regular soft drinks, soda, or pop (e.g., Coke, Pepsi Sprite, Root Beer, Orange Soda, Jarritos, Dr. Pepper); not including diet soda → 9. Diet or low or no calorie soft drinks, soda, or pop (e.g., Coke Zero Sugar, Diet Pepsi) → 10. Tea or coffee drink with sugar or syrups added (in bottle/can or prepared by barista or seller) (e.g. Arizona Iced Tea, Snapple, Pure Leaf, Starbucks Frappuccino, mocha, or bubble teas) or hot chocolate 11. Tea or coffee drink you/your child prepared to which you added sugar, honey, or syrups 12. Tea or coffee drink (prepared by you/your child, by a barista or seller, or in a bottle/can) with low or no calorie sweetener or flavoring added 13. Tea or coffee without sugar or other flavorings or sweeteners added (plain or with milk/cream) (made at home or purchased) 14. Regular energy drinks (e.g., Red Bull, Rockstar, Monster) → → → → → 8 fl oz (1 cup) 12 fl oz (1 ½ cups) Size of a regular can of soda/pop 16 fl oz (2 cups) Size of most sports drinks or bottled drinks More than 20 fl oz cups (2 ½ cups) Type of Beverage Never or less than 1 time per week- go to next beverage 1 time per week 2-3 times per week 4-6 times per week 1 time per day 2+ times per day 3+ times per day Less than 6 fl oz (3/4 cup) Size of most juice boxes 15. Regular sports drinks that are ready to drink – from a bottle or drink fountain/dispenser (e.g., Gatorade, Powerade, Vitamin Water) → 16. Low or no calorie sports drinks (e.g., Gatorade G2) → 17. Fruit-flavored drinks or sports drinks prepared by you/your child (e.g., Kool Aid, made-frompowder lemonade or Gatorade) → 18. Beer, Ales, Wine Coolers, Non-Alcoholic or Light Beer. → 19. Hard Liquor (shots, rum, tequila, etc.) → 20. Wine (red, white, or rose) → 21. Are there any other beverages you have consumed in the past month that we did not already capture? → Other ________________ 22. Other _________________ → 23. Other _________________ → 24. Other ________________ → For ‘Other’; provide as complete a description as possible including brand, name of beverage, and any other information. 8 fl oz (1 cup) 12 fl oz (1 ½ cups) Size of a regular can of soda/pop 16 fl oz (2 cups) Size of most sports drinks or bottled drinks More than 20 fl oz cups (2 ½ cups) ITEM 2 CHILD COHORT SURVEY INSTRUMENTS v. HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION SURVEY ID#____________, Date ___________ 1 SeaSAW Household Information Survey It is important for us to know who is in the SeaSAW study. As with all the information we collect, this household and personal information will be kept confidential and not linked to you or anyone in your family. We will not share this information with anyone else and we will combine this information with the hundreds of other children and families in SeaSAW when we report findings. About your child: What is your child’s birthdate? _________________ What is your child gender? Male Female Self-identify________________________ Is your child of Hispanic or Latino origin? (Check all that apply.) NOT HISPANIC/LATINO MEXICAN/ MEXICAN AMERICAN/ CHICANO CUBAN CENTRAL AMERICAN DOMINICAN SOUTH AMERICAN SPANIARD LATIN AMERICAN PUERTO RICAN OTHER HISPANIC/LATINO What race(s) do you consider your child? (Check all that apply.) AFRICAN AMERICAN/ BLACK/AFRICAN ALASKA NATIVE WHITE/CAUCASIAN ASIAN INDIAN CAMBODIAN CHINESE FILIPINO HMONG INDONESIAN JAPANESE KOREAN LAOTIAN MALAYSIAN PAKISTANI SINGAPOREAN TAIWANESE THAI VIETNAMESE OTHER ASIAN NATIVE HAWAIIAN FIJIAN GUAMANIAN or CHAMORRO MARIANA ISLANDER MELANESIAN MICRONESIAN SAMOAN TONGAN OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER WASHINGTON INDIAN OTHER AMERICAN INDIAN What is your child’s current height? ______inches or _______ cm What is your child’s current weight? ______ lbs or _______ kg 2 About parent (you): Age of Parent/Caregiver: _________ Gender of Parent or Caregiver: Male Female Self-identify________________________ Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? (Check all that apply.) NOT HISPANIC/LATINO MEXICAN/ MEXICAN AMERICAN/CHICANO CUBAN CENTRAL AMERICAN DOMINICAN SOUTH AMERICAN SPANIARD LATIN AMERICAN PUERTO RICAN OTHER HISPANIC/LATINO What race(s) do you consider yourself? (Check all that apply.) AFRICAN AMERICAN/ BLACK ALASKA NATIVE WHITE/CAUCASIAN ASIAN INDIAN CAMBODIAN CHINESE FILIPINO HMONG INDONESIAN JAPANESE KOREAN LAOTIAN MALAYSIAN PAKISTANI SINGAPOREAN TAIWANESE THAI VIETNAMESE OTHER ASIAN NATIVE HAWAIIAN FIJIAN GUAMANIAN or CHAMORRO MARIANA ISLANDER MELANESIAN MICRONESIAN SAMOAN TONGAN OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER WASHINGTON INDIAN OTHER AMERICAN INDIAN Do you speak a language other than English at home? Yes No If yes, what language do you primary speak at home? _____________________ If yes, how well do feel that you speak English? Very well Well Not well Not at all What was your highest education level you completed? Did not complete high school 3 Completed high school or got a GED Some college or vocational training Completed college or university Completed graduate or professional degree What is the highest level of education among all the adults in your household? (Choose one) Did not complete high school Completed high school or got a GED Some college or vocational training Completed college or university Completed graduate or professional degree What is your current employment status? Unemployed Full-time caregiver or stay-at-home parent Employed full-time Employed part-time Temporary unemployed or looking for work Permanently disabled and not working Retired and currently not working On temporary medical leave Do you rent or own the house or apartment you currently live in? Rent Own Other What is your marital status? Married or living with partner Widowed/divorced/separated Single and never married 4 About Your Household Where you Shop: When you OR THE MAIN FOOD SHOPPER IN YOUR HOME go food shopping, how often do you go to each of these types of stores? Never or <1 time per month 1 time per month 1 time every other week 1 time per week 2+ times per week 11. Large supermarket such as Safeway, QFC, Fred Meyer, Albertsons, Whole Foods 1 2 3 4 5 12. Warehouse store such as Costco 1 2 3 4 5 13. Small to medium grocery store, such as Trader Joes, Red Apple, or corner market 1 2 3 4 5 14. Ethnic market or ethnic grocery store such as Uwajimaya 1 2 3 4 5 15. Discount/bargain store such as Grocery Outlet 1 2 3 4 5 16. Convenience Store, such as 7-11 or AM/PM 1 2 3 4 5 17. Farmer’s market or produce stand 1 2 3 4 5 Do you receive any federal or state assistance or benefits (please check all that apply) None SNAP WIC TANF Unemployment Insurance Other: ______________________ If yes, on what day of the month do you receive your benefit? ____________ How many people (including yourself, adults, and children) generally eat dinner or an evening meal at/from your home on average day? ________ people 5 We would like to get a better sense of your household income. Please think about the income that all earners in your household make combined. Is it easier for you to think about this for the whole year or monthly? (use the corresponding list). I am going to start reading some income ranges to you, please say ‘stop’ when we get to the range that best fits your [monthly or yearly] household income: Monthly Yearly <$500 <$6000 500 –under 1000 6000 –under 12,000 1000 –under 2000 12000 –under 24,000 2000 –under 3000 24,000 –under 36,000 3000 –under 4000 36,000 –under 48,000 4000 –under 5000 48,000 –under 60,000 5000 –under 6000 60,000 –under 72,000 6000 –under 7000 72,000 –under 84,000 7000 – under 8000 84,000 –under 96,000 8000 – under9000 96,000 –under 108,000 9000 – under 10000 108,000 –under120,000 >10000 >120,000 ADULT SURVEYINSTRUMENTS Norms and Attitudes Survey Phone Version Hello, my name is ___________. I’m working with the University of Washington and I am looking for someone to answer some questions about the sugary drink tax that will start in January in Seattle. There are no right or wrong answers and your answers will be kept confidential. Do you have a few minutes to answer some brief questions? INTERVIEWER NOTE: if needed, the survey will take about 15 minutes to complete. Screener Questions First, I’d like to ask you a few questions about your household to make sure you are eligible for this survey. 1. Can you tell me what zip code you live in? _______________________ INTERVIEWER NOTES: IF respondent does not live in any of the zip codes listed below, TERMINATE IF respondent lives in a zip code entirely within city limits CONTINUE If respondent lives in zip code that borders Northern city limits ask question 2 If respondent lives in zip code that borders Southern city limits as question 3 If DK OR REFUSED - TERMINATE Zip codes clearly in Seattle city limits: 98101, 98102, 98103, 98104, 98105, 98107, 98109, 98112, 98115, 98116, 98119, 98121, 98122, 98125, 98126, 98134, 98144, 98154, 98164, 98174, 98177, 98195, 98199 Zip codes the overlap Seattle city limits in North: 98133, 98117 Zip codes the overlap Seattle city limits in South: 98146, 98136, 98106, 98108, 98118, 98178 2. Do you live above or below 145th street?  Above [TERMINATE]  Below [CONTINUE] DK/REFUSED - TERMINATE 3. Do you live within Seattle city limits?  No [TERMINATE]  Yes [CONTINUE] DK / REFUSED - TERMINATE 4. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? (Check all that apply)  No, not of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin  Yes, Mexican, Mexican American or Chicano  Yes, Puerto Rican  Yes, Cuban  Yes, another Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin  DON’T KNOW  REFUSED 5. What race(s) do you consider yourself? (Check all that apply)  White  Black or African American  American Indian or Alaska Native (ASSIGN TO OTHER)  Asian  Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (ASSIGN TO ASIAN)  Other _________________________  DON’T KNOW - TERMINATE  REFUSED - TERMINATE 6. How many adults (including yourself) live in your household? _______ adults IF DK/REFUSED - TERMINATE 7. How many children under 18 live in your household? ________ children IF DK/REFUSED TERMINATE 8. Is your total annual household income above or below_________ per year? IF DK/REFUSED TERMINATE INTERVIEWER NOTE: use chart to get household size specific value for 260% FPL for this household  Above (“high” income)  Below (“low” income) PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTIONS Household Size Add Q2+Q3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Annual 260% Insert in Q8 $ 31,356 $ 42,224 $ 53,092 $ 63,960 $ 74,828 $ 85,696 $ 96,564 $ 107,432 Domain 1: Current Consumption INTERVIEWER: READ DRINK TYPES IN BOLD ONLY – READ BRANDS IN PARENTHESIS ONLY IF NEEDED Because we will be talking today about sugary drinks, I want to start off by telling you what we mean when we refer to sugary drinks. Sugary drinks include regular soft drinks, soda or pop (such as Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, Root Beer, Orange Soda, Jarritos, Dr. Pepper), fruit-flavored drinks (such lemonade, Sunny Delight, Hawaiian Punch), sports drinks (such as Gatorade, Powerade), sweetened teas or coffees (such as Arizona Iced Tea, Snapple, Pure Leaf, Starbucks Frappuccino, mochas, or bubble teas), and energy drinks (such as Red Bull, Rockstar, Monster). They do NOT include milk, 100% fruit juice, diet drinks, or artificially sweetened drinks. To start off, I’m interested in learning about whether you drink sugary drinks. 1. During the past 30 days, did you drink sugary drinks never or less than 1 time per week, 1 time per week, 2-6 times per week, 1 time per day, or 2 or more times per day?  Never or less than 1 time per week  1 time per week  2-6 times per week  1 time per day  2 or more times per day  Don't know  REFUSED Domain 2: Norms/Attitudes towards tax itself Next, I’d like to tell you a little bit about the new tax on sugary drinks in Seattle. Starting on January 1, 2018, the City of Seattle will start taxing sugary drinks. In Seattle, large distributors will now pay a 1.75 cents per ounce tax on sugary drinks. Taxed beverages include drinks that have added sugar. The tax will NOT include diet beverages, 100% fruit juices, or milk products. Money from the tax will help give more people access to healthy and affordable food, expand early education for pre-school aged kids, and help high school graduates enter college. 2. Have you heard of this tax, yes or no?  Yes  No  Don’t know  REFUSED 3. Based on what you know, do you strongly disapprove, somewhat disapprove, somewhat approve, strongly approve of this tax?  Strongly disapprove  Somewhat disapprove  Somewhat approve  Strongly approve  Don’t know  REFUSED 4. I’m going to read you pairs of statements that people have made about this new tax on sugary drinks. After I read each pair, please tell me which statement is closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right. (INTERVIEWER PROMPT) Which statement comes closer to your own view? ____ 4A 1. This tax WILL improve public health in Seattle. 2. This tax will NOT improve public health in Seattle. ____ 4B 1. This tax WILL improve the health and well-being of children in Seattle. 2. This tax will NOT improve the health and well-being of children in Seattle. (AFTER CHOICE IS MADE, INTERVIEWER PROBE:) Is that MUCH closer or SOMEWHAT closer?  FIRST statement is MUCH closer  FIRST statement is SOMEWHAT closer  SECOND statement is MUCH closer  SECOND statement is SOMEWHAT closer  Don’t know  REFUSED Domain 3: Unintended Impacts Now, I’d like to ask a few questions on how the new tax on sugary drinks might affect people and businesses in Seattle. 5. Like I did earlier, I’m going to read you pairs of statements that people have made about this new tax on sugary drinks. After I read each pair, please tell me which statement is closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right. (INTERVIEWER PROMPT) Which statement comes closer to your own view? ____ 5A Statement 1: I WILL travel to another city to buy sugary drinks so I don’t have to pay the tax. Statement 2: I will NOT travel to another city to buy sugary drinks because of the tax. Statement 1: This tax will have a POSITIVE effect on Seattle's economy. ____ 5B Statement 2: This tax will have a NEGATIVE effect on Seattle's economy. ____ 5C Statement 1: This tax WILL have a negative effect on small businesses in Seattle. Small businesses may lose money and could even go out of business because of the tax. Statement 2: This tax will NOT have negative effects on small businesses in Seattle. It’s not likely that businesses will lose money or go out of business because of the tax. Statement 1: This tax WILL result in job loss in Seattle. ____ 5D Statement 2: This tax will NOT result in job loss in Seattle. Statement 1: This tax WILL have a negative impact on my family's finances ____ 5E Statement 2: This tax will NOT have a negative impact on my family's finances. ____5F Statement 1: This tax will have a POSITIVE impact on low-income and minority people’s health and well-being and help them access affordable, healthy food in Seattle. Statement 2: This tax will have a NEGATIVE impact on low-income and minority people’s finances, will drive up the cost of living for those who can least afford to pay the tax, and further increase income inequality. (AFTER CHOICE IS MADE, INTERVIEWER PROBE:) Is that MUCH closer or SOMEWHAT closer?  FIRST statement is MUCH closer  FIRST statement is SOMEWHAT closer  SECOND statement is MUCH closer  SECOND statement is SOMEWHAT closer  Don’t know  REFUSED Domain 4: Norms/Attitudes towards healthfulness of sugary drinks INTERVIEWER: READ DRINK TYPES IN BOLD ONLY – READ BRANDS IN PARENTHESIS ONLY IF NEEDED 6. Remembering back to how I defined sugary drinks earlier, I am now going to read you some statements about how sugary drinks affect health. Would it help if I repeated the definition? (INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF YES, read: Sugary drinks include regular soft drinks, soda or pop (such as Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, Root Beer, Orange Soda, Jarritos, Dr. Pepper), fruit-flavored drinks (such lemonade, Sunny Delight, Hawaiian Punch), sports drinks (such as Gatorade, Powerade), sweetened teas or coffees (such as Arizona Iced Tea, Snapple, Pure Leaf, Starbucks Frappuccino, mochas, or bubble teas), and energy drinks (such as Red Bull, Rockstar, Monster). They do NOT include milk, 100% fruit juice, diet drinks, or artificially sweetened drinks.) Using a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 means Strongly Disagree and 4 means Strongly Agree, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. [READ EACH STATEMENT; REPEAT SCALE AS NEEDED] Responses are:  Strongly disagree  Somewhat disagree  Somewhat agree  Strongly agree  Don’t know  REFUSED INTERVIEWER: READ ‘DRINKING SUGARY DRINKS’ WITH FIRST STATEMENT – THEN REPEAT ONLY AS NECESSARY… i. Drinking sugary drinks causes serious health problems. ii. Drinking sugary drinks significantly raises a person’s chances of dental health problems, including cavities and tooth decay. iii. Drinking sugary drinks significantly raises a person’s chances of obesity. iv. Drinking sugary drinks significantly raises a person’s chances of diabetes. v. Drinking sugary drinks significantly raises a person’s chances of heart disease. 7. Using the same scale of 1 means strongly Disagree and 4 means Strongly Agree, how much do you agree or disagree that consuming excessive amounts of sugar from any source, not only from drinks but also from foods such as cookies or cereals, can lead to serious health problems.  Strongly disagree  Somewhat disagree  Somewhat agree  Strongly agree  Don’t know  REFUSED 8. Now, thinking about how sugary drinks affect health, what is the MOST people should drink them? READ IF NECESSARY: Please tell me if it’s never or less than 1 time per week, 1 time per week, 2-6 times per week, 1 time per day, or 2 or more times per day.  Never or less than 1 time per week 1 time per week  2-6 times per week  1 time per day  2 or more times per day  Don't know  REFUSED 9. Next, I am going to read a list of the types of sugary drinks. Please tell me whether you think regularly drinking each type of drink doesn’t increase, probably increases, or definitely increases a person’s chances of developing health problems like diabetes or becoming overweight. (INTERVIEWER NOTE: READ ITEMS IN RANDOM ORDER – READ BRANDS IN PARENTHESIS ONLY IF NECESSARY) i. ii. iii. iv. v. Regular soft drinks, soda or pop, not including diet (e.g. Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, Root Beer, Orange Soda, Jarritos, Dr. Pepper) Fruit-Flavored drinks (e.g. lemonade, Sunny Delight, Hawaiian Punch) Sports drinks (e.g. Gatorade, Powerade) Sweetened teas or coffees (e.g. Arizona Iced Tea, Snapple, Pure Leaf, Starbucks Frappuccino, mocha, or bubble teas) Energy drinks (e.g. Red Bull, Rockstar, Monster) Responses for each drink are:  Doesn’t increase  Probably increases  Definitely increases  Don’t know  REFUSED INTERVIEWER NOTE: Skip question 9 if respondent answered, “never or less than 1 time per week” to question 1 10. Using a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 means Very Unlikely and 4 means Very Likely, if you were to choose to drink something instead of a sugary drink, how likely would it be that you would choose each of the following? : (INTERVIEWER NOTE: READ ITEMS IN RANDOM ORDER; REPEAT SCALE AS NEEDED) i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. Tap water Filtered tap water Bottled water (READ ONLY IF NECESSARY e.g., Aquafina, Dasani, Smart Water, La Croix, Mio) Unflavored Milk Unsweetened coffee or tea Diet drinks (READ ONLY IF NECESSARY e.g. Diet coke, Coke Zero Sugar, Diet Pepsi) Responses for each drink are:  Very Unlikely  Somewhat Unlikely  Somewhat Likely  Very Likely  Don’t know  REFUSED 11. And, using a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 means Very Unhealthy and 4 means Very Healthy, how healthy do you think each of these drinks are? (INTERVIEWER NOTE: READ ITEMS IN RANDOM ORDER - REPEAT SCALE AS NEEDED i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. Tap water Filtered tap water Bottled water ((READ ONLY IF NECESSARY e.g., Aquafina, Dasani, Smart Water, La Croix, Mio) Unflavored Milk Unsweetened coffee or tea Diet drinks (READ ONLY IF NECESSARY) e.g. Diet Coke, Coke Zero Sugar, Diet Pepsi) Responses for each drink are:  Very Unhealthy  Somewhat Unhealthy  Somewhat Healthy  Very Healthy  Don’t know  REFUSED Domain 5: Norms/attitudes towards government regulation of individual behaviors 12. Similar to prior questions, I'm going to read you a pair of statements. After I read both statements please tell me which one comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right. (INTERVIEWER PROMPT) Which statement comes closer to your own view? Statement 1: Under this tax, people will still have the CHOICE to drink what they want. Statement 2: This tax will significantly LIMIT people's ability to choose what they drink. (AFTER CHOICE IS MADE, INTERVIEWER PROBE:) Is that MUCH closer or SOMEWHAT closer?  FIRST statement MUCH closer  FIRST statement SOMEWHAT closer  SECOND statement MUCH closer  SECOND statement SOMEWHAT closer  Don’t know  REFUSED Domain 6: Conclusion and Demographics 13. After hearing more about the tax, let me ask you again, do you strongly disapprove, somewhat disapprove, somewhat approve, or strongly approve of this tax?  Strongly disapprove  Somewhat disapprove  Somewhat approve  Strongly approve  Don’t know  REFUSED Finally, I want to ask you a few questions about yourself and your household. 14. What is your age?  18-30  31-40  41-50  51-64  65+  REFUSED 15. What is your gender?  Male  Female  Self-identify(Specify:_______________  REFUSED 16. What was your highest education level you completed?  Some high school  Completed high school  Some college or vocational training  Completed college or university  Completed graduate or professional degree  REFUSED 17. What is your marital status?  Married  Widowed/divorced/separated  Single and never married  Living with partner  REFUSED 18. DELETED – 11-08-17Are you the parent or legal guardian of any children under age 18?  Yes  No  REFUSED 19. DELETED = 11-08-17 What is your current employment status?  Unemployed  Full-time homemaker  Employed full-time  Employed part-time  Permanently disabled and not working  Retired and currently not working  On temporary medical leave  REFUSED 20. DELETED 11-08-17 Do you speak a language other than English at home? Yes If yes, how well do feel that you speak English?  Not at all  Not well  Well  Very well  DON’T KNOW  REFUSED  No 21. Now, we don’t want to know your exact income, but just roughly, could you tell me if your annual household income before taxes is:  <$30,000  $30,000-$59,999  $60,000-$89,999  $90,000-$120,000  >$120,000  DON’T KNOW  REFUSED 22. Can you tell me if you have been covered by Medicaid in the last 12 months?  Yes  No  DON’T KNOW  REFUSED 23. Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as (ROTATE) a Democrat, an Independent, a Republican, or what?  Democrat  Independent  Republican  Other (SPECIFY)  DON’T KNOW  REFUSED 24. To help us make sure people from all Seattle neighborhoods are included in this survey, we would like to know the nearest intersection to your home. Please name the two cross-streets of this intersection. What is the name of the first street? ___________________________ INTERVIEWER NOTE: Confirm street spelling and directionals (e.g. N, S, NW, NE) What is the name of the second street?_________________________ INTERVIEWER NOTE: Confirm street spelling and directionals (e.g. N, S, NW, NE) ASK FUTURE RESEARCH SECTION (Q25 THROUGH Q34 IF: s7=1 OR MORE CHILDREN UNDER 18 s8=BELOW FPL OTHERWISE – SKIP TO CLOSING Q25. You mentioned earlier that you have children under 18 living in your home. Do you have a child or children who are 7-10 years old OR 12-15 years old?  Yes (CONTINUE)  No (SKIP TO CLOSING)  REFUSED (SKIP TO CLOSING) If you have more than one child that falls in these age groups, please think of your child with the closest birthday to today for the remaining questions. Q26. Does this child live in your residence five days per week or more?  Yes (CONTINUE)  No (SKIP TO CLOSING)  REFUSED (SKIP TO CLOSING) Q27. Are you planning on moving out of the area (King County) anytime in the next 1 to 2 years?  Yes (SKIP TO CLOSING-SELECT IF THEY HAVE A CONCRETE PLAN TO MOVE)  No (CONTINUE)  REFUSED (SKIP TO CLOSING) Q28. How often did your child: Never or almost never Less than 1 time per week 1-2 times per week 3-4 times per week Drink sugary beverages like: regular soda/pop (such as Coke or Sprite), fruit-flavored drinks (like Sunny Delight), coffee or tea drinks with added sugar (like Starbucks 1 2 3 4 Frappuccino’s, Arizona Iced Tea, Chai Tea, bubble tea), or regular sports drinks or energy drinks (such as Gatorade or Red Bull)? IF Q28=CODES 4 OR 5 – CONTINUE; OTHERWISE SKIP TO CLOSING 5 or more times per week 5 Q29. In addition to the survey you just completed, the University of Washington may be conducting a study in the near future about shopping habits and wellness in the Seattle area. Would you like to be contacted by a study team member to see if you might be interested in a future study, where you may be compensated for your time and opinions?  Yes  No  REFUSED Q30. Great! May I verify the best phone number to reach you? ________________ Q31. May I have your email address: _________________(CONFIRM CORRECT ADDRESS) Q32. And, may I have your first and last name? First:______________ Last: _____________ Q33. What is the best day and time to reach you? Days: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Time of Day 9am-noon 1pm – 5pm 6pm – 9pm Q34. Thank you - a study team member will reach out to you by email or phone in the near future to discuss the next steps. CLOSING: Those are all of our questions. Thank you for taking the time to complete our survey. ITEM4 STAKEHOLDER INSTRUMENTS Objective: To evaluate how key stakeholders experience and perceive the tax and its implementation Key Concepts 1. Knowledge about SBT 2. Process of implementation (barriers and facilitators) Focus Groups Key Informant Interviews Distributors Manufacturers Retailers Tax Administrators City Officials/ Electeds Health advocates Consumers X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3. Impact on job and economic indicators (business practices, X revenues, volume) 4. Impact of SBT on beverage X prices & sales 5. Impacts on sweetened beverage consumption 6. Impact on consumer spending (household food expenditures) 7. Impact of SBT on consumer X choices/purchases 8. Attitudes about sweetened beverage consumption * Impact: Perceived (pre) and actual (post) X X Key Concepts for Focus Groups (Adult and Youth) 1. Knowledge about SBT (including use of SBT revenues) 4. Impact of SBT on beverage prices & sales 5. Impacts on sweetened beverage consumption 6. Impact on consumer spending (household food expenditures) 7. Impact of SBT on consumer choices/purchases (including impact on community) 8. Attitudes about sweetened beverage consumption Focus Group Questions General Knowledge & Behaviors regarding 1. When you hear the terms “sugary beverages” or “sugar sweetened beverages”, what does that mean to you? What types of drinks come to mind? 2. How often do you drink sugar-sweetened beverages such as sodas, fruit drinks, sports or energy drinks, sweetened coffee drinks or teas? On what occasions? How much do you typically drink of these beverages? 3. What other kinds of beverages do you drink that are not considered “sugary beverages”? How often do you drink other beverages? How often do you drink water? 4. How would you describe the health effects of sugary drinks? Do these effects differ depending on the type of drink? Attitudes & Behaviors about the SBT and SBT’s impacts (including price sensitivity/substitution, inclination to shop across the border) 5. Have you heard about the new tax on sugary drinks that's supposed to happen in Seattle? What do you know about it? What have you heard? Brief description of SBT: A tax rate of $0.0175 per whole fluid ounce of sweetened beverages that a distributor distributes. For example, for a 20oz drink with some form of sweetener, the distributor would be taxed 35 cents. Right now, we don’t know if or how much the distributor will pass that tax onto a store, and stores onto customers. 6. The tax is actually on Distributors of sugary beverages, not a tax directly on the people who buy it. What do you think about that? Do you think the tax would cause hardship to anyone? (e.g., to small business, job loss) 7. If this ends up meaning that these drinks cost a little bit more, would this change how much of these drinks you buy? (Probe: Would you buy more, less or the same amount of sugary drinks once the tax is in place?) 8. Would a higher price on these drinks make you buy something else instead? Like what? What beverages would you drink instead if the cost of soda, energy drinks, or sweet teas, etc. increased? 9. Would you go outside of Seattle to buy sugary drinks? (Probe: What would you do to avoid paying the tax?) Perceptions about sugary beverage tax 10. What do you think about putting a tax on sugary beverages? 11. How would a tax like this impact your community? (Probe: Would it hurt or benefit your community? How?) 12. Are you aware of how the money collected from the tax will be used? How do you think it should be spent? Key Concepts for Key Informant Interviews (Retailers, Distributers, Manufacturers, City staff and Councilmembers) 1. Knowledge about SBT 2. Process of implementation (barriers and facilitators) 3. Impact on job and economic indicators (business practices, revenues, volume) 4. Impact of SBT on beverage prices & sales 7. Impact of SBT on consumer choices/purchases Retailers General Knowledge 1. What do you think about the new sweetened beverage tax? 2. How does the tax apply to you? Is it clear to you which items are subject to the tax? 3. Where do you get information about how to apply the tax? Were implementation guidelines provided?  What communication have you received from the city about the tax?  What can be improved? What information would you like?)  Have you had any communication with your customers about the tax? Overall Perceptions 4. What concerns do you have about this tax? 5. How do you anticipate the beverage tax will affect your business? Implementation Process 6. How likely are you to change pricing of sweetened beverages in your store/restaurant?  How will the SBT impact the prices of products in your store(s)/restaurant(s)? (Probes: Will some product prices be increased more than others? Will the increase apply to all store locations? How are those decisions made?) 7. How does your store/restaurant buy the beverages it sells? If store/restaurant has a distributor:  Have any distributors communicated with you about the tax? If yes, what types of communications? Who initiated? What did they tell you? 8. How would you describe the process of implementing the tax in your business? (Probes: What are you doing in anticipation of the tax? How do you anticipate the tax changing any of your processes?) 9. What are some challenges to implementing the tax? 10. What types of supports would help you to implement this ordinance? Expected Impact 11. Will the tax have any impact on your customers? 12. Do you think customers will change their shopping practices as a result of the tax? 13. Do you think there are any good things about the tax? Bad things?  Whom do you think the tax is good for? Bad for?  What advice would you like to give the city about how to work with small businesses on health laws like this? Distributors/Manufacturers General Knowledge 1. What do you think about the new sweetened beverage tax? 2. How does the tax apply to you? Is it clear to you which items are subject to the tax? 3. Where do you get information about how to apply the tax? Were implementation guidelines provided?  What communication have you received from the city about the tax? What types of communication? What was communicated to you?  How satisfied are you with the communications from the City? What sort of communication was most effective? What can be improved? What information would you like?  Have you had any communication with your customers about the tax? Overall Perceptions 4. What concerns do you have about this tax? 5. How do you anticipate the beverage tax will affect your business? Implementation Process 6. How would you describe the process of implementing the tax in your business? (Probes: What are you doing in anticipation of the tax? How do you anticipate the tax changing any of your processes?) 7. What are some challenges to implementing the tax? 8. What types of supports would help you to implement this ordinance? 9. How likely are you to change pricing of sweetened beverages to retailers? (Probes: Will some product prices be increased more than others? Will the increase apply to all store locations? How are those decisions made?) Expected Impact 10. Will the tax have any impact on your customers (retailers)? 11. Do you think customers will change their shopping practices as a result of the tax? 12. Do you think there are any good things about the tax? Bad things?  Whom do you think the tax is good for? Bad for?  What advice would you like to give the city about how to work with small businesses on health laws like this? City of Seattle – Tax Administrators City of Seattle – Tax Administrator Pre-Tax Implementation Process 1. What are (were) the major steps involved in implementing this SBT ordinance? What is going well? What has been challenging? 2. Which departments are/have been involved?  Who/which depts. are the major decision-makers?  What roles are they tasked with?  Are there other departments that you think could/should be involved? Implementation Process 3. How would you describe the process for distributors/self-distributing retailers to implement this tax? 4. How will the tax be collected and what is being done to minimize burden on the tax payer? 5. Who is responsible for educating businesses? 6. What communication has the city initiated with distributors, retailers and other businesses directly affected by the tax? (with information about the tax and how to comply)  How are implementation guidelines provided?  What forms of communications?  What types of information was shared in these communications?  To which types of businesses?  How were these businesses identified?  Even though the tax applies directly to distributors and self-distributing retailers only, what kind of outreach to retailers to explain the tax is happening or being considered? 7. Other than reading the law and city FAQ, what other ways can a business can determine whether a particular product is taxed or exempt? Are lists of taxed/untaxed products available to distributors? How about to retailers? (e.g., Philly website)  What challenges, if any, have there been in specifying what beverages are taxed?  Are there challenges in defining what constitutes a distribution and when a taxable event occurs? 8. What external factors affect successful implementation? [Ask at post-assessment.] 9. What are some challenges that distributors and retailers and small manufacturers might face as a result of the SBT?  What resources are available to support them with implementation? 10. What kinds of things (concerns, questions) have distributors communicated with the city? What have they asked about/for? 11. What kinds of things (concerns, questions) have small manufacturers and retailers communicated with the city? What have they asked about/for? 12. What is the plan for ensuring compliance with the tax ordinance?  When will compliance checks begin? Who is responsible for determining compliance? City of Seattle – City staff involved in SBT planning and Elected Officials NB: Given limited time with Councilmembers, prioritize highlighted questions. Questions for City staff and Elected Officials 1. What do you think of the Seattle SBT?  What are the goals or purpose of the Seattle SBT? (Short/long-term goals, revenue, impact SSB consumption, health awareness/improvement)  What was the history or key events that led to the passage of the tax? 2. What were key concerns that emerged and how were they addressed?  What concerns or questions have been raised since the passing of the tax and how have these been addressed? 3. What do you think about proposed plans for revenue generated by the tax?  What would you change if you had the opportunity? 4. How do you think the tax will impact consumption of SSBs in Seattle? (related to Q1) 5. We’ve heard concerns about a tax like this being regressive. What are your thoughts about this? 6. Which communities do you think will be most impacted by the SBT?  In what ways both positive and negative? 7. Looking ahead, what challenges do you anticipate with implementing the tax? 8. How do you anticipate the tax affecting local businesses? Any concerns? 9. How do you view the role of the SBT Community Advisory Board? 10. What other concerns do you have about the tax that haven’t already been mentioned? (Employment, revenue loss, cross-border shopping, etc.) Key Concepts for Health/Community Advocates 1. Knowledge about SBT 3. Impact on job and economic indicators (business practices, revenues, volume) 4. Impact of SBT on beverage prices & sales 5. Impacts on sweetened beverage consumption 6. Impact on consumer spending (household food expenditures) 7. Impact of SBT on consumer choice 8. Attitudes about sweetened beverage consumption Advocates General Knowledge 1. How was your organization involved in the development, passage, and/or rule-making for the SBT? 2. What do you think about the new sweetened beverage tax? Overall Perceptions 3. Do you think there are any good things about the tax? Bad things? Whom do you think the tax is good for? Bad for? 4. What advice would you like to give the city about how to work with small businesses and consumers on health laws like this? Implementation Process 5. Is your organization involved in the implementation or roll-out of the tax in any way? If so, how? (e.g., educating consumers, engaging with distributors and/or retailers) Expected Impact 6. Do you expect that the cost increase will be passed on to consumers?  Will the costs be passed on equitably? 7. Which communities will be most impacted by the SBT? 8. How will the tax impact consumption of SSBs in Seattle? 9. What concerns do you have about the tax? (equity concerns) 10. What concerns do you have about the use of sugary beverage tax funds? (equity concerns) APPENDIXC I STORE DEFINITIONS APPENDIX C STORE DEFINITIONS Grocery & Food Stores SBT Retail Audit Store Type Definitions 1) Superstore/Warehouse - Superstores carry a wide array of products usually including clothing, household items, and often children’s items such as toys. Some general merchandize stores may also have a grocery or supermarket within the store. Examples include Walmart, Target, and Costco. 2) Supermarket – To qualify as a supermarket, the store must (1) sell fresh meat (uncooked, unprocessed, not frozen meat, not fish/seafood, not packaged deli meat); (2) have four or more cash registers (including self-checkout); and (3) have at least two of the following services: butcher, bakery and/or deli. The butcher, bakery and deli must be staffed service counters (i.e., availability of fresh bread and/or fresh meat does not count if there is not a separate, staffed service counter). Examples of supermarkets include Safeway, QFC, and Metropolitan Market. 3) Grocery Store – To qualify as a grocery store, the store must (1) sell fresh meat (uncooked, unprocessed, not frozen meat, not fish/seafood, not packaged deli meat) and (2) not meet all of the criteria for being a supermarket. Examples of grocery stores include Red Apple, Pioneer Square Market, Viet-Wah, and some ethnic and “mom-and-pop” food stores. 4) Small Stores – Store types A-D qualify as “small stores.” These stores do not sell fresh meat. They may, but typically do not, have deli and/or bakery service counters. Please note there should not be butcher or fresh meat service counters and this is why they are identified as small stores. a. Chain Convenience- This includes small chain stores that sell an edited selection of staple groceries and other convenience items, i.e., ready-to-heat and ready-to-eat foods. They often sell fresh milk and may have a deli or sell some processed meats (hot dogs, cold cuts, etc.) and other hot foods. Convenience stores are typically open long hours. Examples of convenience stores are 7-Eleven and Plaid Pantry. In this study, based on pre-screening, we will indicate chain versus non-chain status for field workers. b. Non-Chain Convenience- This includes small, independently-owned stores that sell an edited selection of staple groceries and other convenience items, i.e., ready-to-heat and ready-to-eat foods. They often sell fresh milk and may have a deli or sell some processed meats (hot dogs, cold cuts, etc.) and other hot foods. Convenience stores are typically open long hours. Please note that corner stores will also be classified as non-chain convenience stores. Examples include Union Market, and many ethnic and “mom and pop” stores. c. Discount Store – This includes small stores that sell a variety of goods like household, personal, and party supplies and household cleaning products, as well as some food and beverages, typically at discounted prices. We will include stores that have the word “dollar” or “discount” in the title. Examples include Dollar General and Dollar Tree. d. Gas Station – This includes the quick-stop shops at gas stations. Gas station shops sell a selection of snacks, beverages, convenience items, and ready-to-heat and ready-to-eat foods. They may sell a selection of staple groceries. To be a gas station store, these stores must have gas pumps connected to the store. A few stores, such as 7-11s, can be both “gas stations” and “chain convenience stores.” The distinction is the presence of gas pumps. Examples include AMPM, 76, or Shell. 5) Drug Store/Pharmacy – This includes stores that sell prescription and over the counter medication, as well as additional merchandise including food and beverages. Examples include Walgreens, CVS, and Rite Aid. Beverage Stores 1) Coffee Shop – A small café that serves primarily coffee as well as other drinks. Usually but does not have to serve simple foods. Can be a separate building, or inside of a larger store or restaurant. Can be a drive-thru or a walk-in café. If it is a drive-thru only coffee stand, only survey if the coffee stand has a menu that is visible to the exterior. If there is no exterior menu, do not survey the shop. 2) Bubble Tea Shop – A small café that serves primarily bubble tea as well as other drinks, including coffee. Can serve simple food. Can be a separate building, or inside of a larger store or restaurant. Fast Food / Quick Service 1) Quick Service Chain – A restaurant that serves fast food cuisine and has minimal table service. Food is usually offered from a limited menu, cooked or prepped in bulk in advance and kept hot, finished and packaged to order, and usually available for take away, though seating may be provided. “Fast casual” are also included in this category, and tend to have more seating, and food items that are made-to-order. “Chain” quick-service refer to national fast-food brands (e.g., McDonalds, Dairy Queen, Taco Bell). 2) Quick Service Non-Chain – A restaurant that serves fast food cuisine and has minimal table service. Food is usually offered from a limited menu, cooked in bulk in advance and kept hot, finished and packaged to order, and usually available for take away, though seating may be provided. “Fast casual” are also included in this category, and tend to have more seating, and food items that are made-to-order. “Non-chain” quick-service refers to chains that are not national chains / brands. Local chains (e.g., Dicks, Pagliacci Pizza) are included in this category. APPENDIX I PRICING OF SIZE BEVERAGES APPENDIX D PRICING OF "GRAB-AND-GO" SIZE BEVERAGES Pricing of “grab-and-go” size beverages Appendix D displays the mean pricing for all available “grab-and-go” size beverages, including all beverages less than or equal to 32 ounces. The prices of grab-and-go size beverages in Seattle and the comparison areas were similar. Compared to the mean prices of all sizes of beverages, the grab-and-go size beverages were more expensive. Among these smaller beverage sizes, sports beverages were the only beverage category where the diet beverage was less expensive than its regular version; this was true in both the regular and lowest price per ounce calculations and in Seattle and the comparison area. APPENDIX D. CENTS PER OUNCE OF ALL INDIVIDUAL-SIZE BEVERAGES (≤32OZ) IN SEATTLE AND COMPARISON AREAS BY BEVERAGE TAX CATEGORY: LOWEST AND REGULAR PRICE LOWEST PRICE PER OUNCE REGULAR PRICE PER OUNCE COMPARISON SEATTLE AREA PRICE PRICE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE MEAN CENTS/ MEAN CENTS/ MEAN CENTS/ MEAN CENTS/ IN CENTS1 IN CENTS1 OZ OZ OZ OZ SEATTLE COMPARISON AREA SE (N) SE (N) SE (N) SE (N) TAXED BEVERAGES SODA SPORTS BEVERAGES ENERGY BEVERAGES JUICE BEVERAGES COFFEE & TEA, BOTTLED COFFEE & TEA, PREPARED 8.9 8.8 0.086 (856) 0.10 (897) 6.4 6.5 0.13 (375) 0.14 (354) 21 20 0.31 (490) 0.28 (562) 13 13 0.31 (124) 0.41 (126) 6.9 6.8 0.23 (201) 0.21 (204) 23 20 0.72 (8) 1.6 (2) 8.8 8.6 0.076 (555) 0.079 (508) 0.10 -0.045 1.3 -0.23 0.14 2.4 9.2 9.2 0.088 (853) 0.099 (897) 7.1 7.1 0.12 (372) 0.12 (354) 23 22 0.30 (484) 0.28 (561) 13 14 0.32 (123) 0.41 (126) 7.2 7.3 0.23 (201) 0.22 (204) 23 20 0.72 (8) 1.6 (2) 9.2 9.9 0.072 (554) 0.53 (508) -0.037 0.0080 0.70 -0.65 -0.096 2.4 NON-TAXED SUGAR-FREE BEVERAGES DIET SODA DIET SPORTS BEVERAGES DIET ENERGY BEVERAGES 100% JUICE MILK POWDERED SUGAR-FREE BEVERAGES2 WATER 5.7 5.0 0.19 (165) 0.22 (117) 22 20 0.43 (416) 0.29 (489) 14 14 0.20 (120) 0.21 (146) 23 22 1.8 (11) 1.1 (20) --- --- 7.2 7.3 0.14 (295) 0.15 (318) 0.23 0.70 1.6 0.22 0.90 ---0.017 6.7 6.1 0.17 (165) 0.21 (116) 23 22 0.42 (410) 0.29 (488) 14 14 0.19 (119) 0.18 (146) 23 22 1.8 (11) 1.1 (20) --- --- 7.4 7.4 0.14 (292) 0.16 (318) -0.72 0.58 0.96 -0.097 0.90 --0.056 COFFEE & TEA, BOTTLED 8.8 9.1 0.27 (113) 0.22 (98) 27 26 0.88 (81) 0.66 (72) 15 15 0.77 (90) 0.38 (109) --- --- 22 20 0.32 (128) 0.35 (120) 32 30 1.0 (51) 0.45 (53) COFFEE & TEA, PREPARED -0.27 1.3 9.2 9.8 0.26 (113) 0.19 (98) 27 26 0.88 (81) 0.66 (72) 16 15 0.75 (90) 0.36 (108) --- --- 23 22 0.29 (127) 0.25 (120) 32 30 1.0 (51) 0.45 (53) -0.66 1.3 NON-TAXED SUGAR-ADDED BEVERAGES CHOCOLATE MILK POWDERED SUGAR-ADDED BEVERAGES2 COFFEE & TEA, BOTTLED COFFEE & TEA, PREPARED 1 2 0.75 --1.9 2.6 A negative price differences indicates the comparison area price is higher than the city of Seattle price “—” indicate no beverage items observed in that category 0.81 --0.45 2.6