Purchases of Nontaxed Foods, Beverages, and Alcohol in a Longitudinal Cohort After Implementation of the Philadelphia Beverage Tax.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that sweetened beverage taxes reduce taxed beverage purchases, but few studies have used individual-level data to assess whether these taxes affect purchases of nontaxed foods, beverages, and alcohol. Additionally, research has not examined whether sweetened beverage taxes influence restaurant purchases. OBJECTIVES: We assessed changes in individuals' purchases of taxed beverage types; low-calorie/low-added-sugar nontaxed beverages; high-calorie/high-added-sugar nontaxed beverages, foods, and alcohol; and beverages from restaurants following implementation of the 1.5 cent-per-ounce Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort of adult sugar-sweetened beverage consumers in Philadelphia (n = 306; 67% female; mean age: 43.9 years) and Baltimore (n = 297; comparison city without a beverage tax; 58% female; mean age: 41.7 years) submitted all food and beverage receipts during 2-week periods at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months posttax. Difference-in-differences analyses compared changes in purchases from pre- to posttax in Philadelphia to changes in Baltimore. RESULTS: Purchases of taxed juice drinks [ratio of incidence rate ratios (RIRR) = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91], but not other taxed beverage types, decreased in Philadelphia compared to Baltimore following the tax. Analyses did not find changes in purchases of low-calorie/low-added-sugar nontaxed beverages, such as water or milk. Additionally, analyses did not find increases in purchases of most high-calorie/high-added-sugar nontaxed products, including alcohol, juice, candy, sweet snacks, salty snacks, and desserts. Purchases of beverage concentrates increased in Philadelphia (RIRR = 2.22; 95% CI, 1.39-3.54). CONCLUSIONS: In this difference-in-differences analysis, the Philadelphia beverage tax was associated with reduced purchases of taxed juice drinks. Purchases of beverage concentrates increased after the tax, but no increases were observed for other high-calorie/high-added-sugar nontaxed foods, beverages, or alcohol.

Association of a Beverage Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages With Changes in Beverage Prices and Sales at Chain Retailers in a Large Urban Setting.

Importance: Policy makers have implemented beverage taxes to generate revenue and reduce consumption of sweetened drinks. In January 2017, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, became the second US city to implement a beverage excise tax (1.5 cents per ounce). Objectives: To compare changes in beverage prices and sales following the implementation of the tax in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore, Maryland (a control city without a tax) and to assess potential cross-border shopping to avoid the tax in neighboring zip codes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used a difference-in-differences approach and analyzed sales data to compare changes between January 1, 2016, before the tax, and December 31, 2017, after the tax. Differences by store type, beverage sweetener status, and beverage size were examined. The commercial retailer sales data included large chain store sales in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the Pennsylvania zip codes bordering Philadelphia. These data reflect approximately 25% of the ounces of taxed beverages sold in Philadelphia. Exposures: Philadelphia's tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in taxed beverage prices and volume sales. Results: A total of 291 stores (54 supermarkets, 20 mass merchandise stores, 217 pharmacies) were analyzed. The mean price per ounce of taxed beverages in Philadelphia increased from 5.43 cents in 2016 to 6.24 cents in 2017 at supermarkets; from 5.28 cents to 6.24 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.60 cents to 8.28 cents at pharmacies. The mean price per ounce in Baltimore increased from 5.33 cents in 2016 to 5.50 cents in 2017 at supermarkets, from 6.34 cents to 6.52 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.76 cents to 6.93 cents at pharmacies. The mean per-ounce difference in price between the 2 cities was 0.65 cents (95% CI, 0.60 cents-0.69 cents; P<.001) at supermarkets; 0.87 cents (95 % CI, 0.72 cents-1.02 cents; P<.001) at mass merchandise stores, and 1.56 cents (95% CI, 1.50 cents-1.62 cents; P<.001) at pharmacies. Total volume sales of taxed beverages in Philadelphia decreased by 1.3 billion ounces (from 2.475 billion to 1.214 billion) or by 51.0% after tax implementation. Volume sales in the Pennsylvania border zip codes, however, increased by 308.2 million ounces (from 713.1 million to 1.021 billion), offsetting the decrease in Philadelphia's volume sales by 24.4%. In Philadelphia, beverage volume sales in ounces per 4-week period between before and after tax periods decreased from 4.85 million to 1.99 million at supermarkets, from 2.98 million to 1.72 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.16 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. In Baltimore, the beverage volume sales in ounces decreased from 2.83 million to 2.81 million at supermarkets, from 1.05 million to 1.00 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.14 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. This was a 58.7% reduction at supermarkets (difference-in-differences, -2.85 million ounces; 95% CI, -4.10 million to -1.60 million ounces; P < .001), 40.4% reduction at mass merchandise stores (difference-in-differences, -1.20 million ounces; 95% CI, -2.04 million to -0.36 million ounces; P = .001), and 12.6% reduction in pharmacies (difference-in-differences, -0.02 million ounces; 95% CI, -0.03 million to -0.01 million ounces; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In Philadelphia in 2017, the implementation of a beverage excise tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages was associated with significantly higher beverage prices and a significant and substantial decline in volume of taxed beverages sold. This decrease in taxed beverage sales volume was partially offset by increases in volume of sales in bordering areas.

Association of a Beverage Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages With Changes in Beverage Prices and Sales at Chain Retailers in a Large Urban Setting.

Importance: Policy makers have implemented beverage taxes to generate revenue and reduce consumption of sweetened drinks. In January 2017, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, became the second US city to implement a beverage excise tax (1.5 cents per ounce). Objectives: To compare changes in beverage prices and sales following the implementation of the tax in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore, Maryland (a control city without a tax) and to assess potential cross-border shopping to avoid the tax in neighboring zip codes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used a difference-in-differences approach and analyzed sales data to compare changes between January 1, 2016, before the tax, and December 31, 2017, after the tax. Differences by store type, beverage sweetener status, and beverage size were examined. The commercial retailer sales data included large chain store sales in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the Pennsylvania zip codes bordering Philadelphia. These data reflect approximately 25% of the ounces of taxed beverages sold in Philadelphia. Exposures: Philadelphia's tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in taxed beverage prices and volume sales. Results: A total of 291 stores (54 supermarkets, 20 mass merchandise stores, 217 pharmacies) were analyzed. The mean price per ounce of taxed beverages in Philadelphia increased from 5.43 cents in 2016 to 6.24 cents in 2017 at supermarkets; from 5.28 cents to 6.24 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.60 cents to 8.28 cents at pharmacies. The mean price per ounce in Baltimore increased from 5.33 cents in 2016 to 5.50 cents in 2017 at supermarkets, from 6.34 cents to 6.52 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.76 cents to 6.93 cents at pharmacies. The mean per-ounce difference in price between the 2 cities was 0.65 cents (95% CI, 0.60 cents-0.69 cents; P<.001) at supermarkets; 0.87 cents (95 % CI, 0.72 cents-1.02 cents; P<.001) at mass merchandise stores, and 1.56 cents (95% CI, 1.50 cents-1.62 cents; P<.001) at pharmacies. Total volume sales of taxed beverages in Philadelphia decreased by 1.3 billion ounces (from 2.475 billion to 1.214 billion) or by 51.0% after tax implementation. Volume sales in the Pennsylvania border zip codes, however, increased by 308.2 million ounces (from 713.1 million to 1.021 billion), offsetting the decrease in Philadelphia's volume sales by 24.4%. In Philadelphia, beverage volume sales in ounces per 4-week period between before and after tax periods decreased from 4.85 million to 1.99 million at supermarkets, from 2.98 million to 1.72 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.16 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. In Baltimore, the beverage volume sales in ounces decreased from 2.83 million to 2.81 million at supermarkets, from 1.05 million to 1.00 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.14 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. This was a 58.7% reduction at supermarkets (difference-in-differences, -2.85 million ounces; 95% CI, -4.10 million to -1.60 million ounces; P < .001), 40.4% reduction at mass merchandise stores (difference-in-differences, -1.20 million ounces; 95% CI, -2.04 million to -0.36 million ounces; P = .001), and 12.6% reduction in pharmacies (difference-in-differences, -0.02 million ounces; 95% CI, -0.03 million to -0.01 million ounces; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In Philadelphia in 2017, the implementation of a beverage excise tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages was associated with significantly higher beverage prices and a significant and substantial decline in volume of taxed beverages sold. This decrease in taxed beverage sales volume was partially offset by increases in volume of sales in bordering areas.

A qualitative study on retailer experiences with Philadelphia's sweetened beverage tax.

The Philadelphia Beverage Tax was implemented on January 1, 2017 for some sugar- and artificially-sweetened beverages. Few qualitative studies have assessed retailers' reactions to beverage taxes. We aimed to understand food retailers' knowledge and attitudes about the Philadelphia beverage tax and how they responded to it with the goal of informing the framing and implementation of beverage taxes in other interested jurisdictions. Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with retailers within Philadelphia before (n = 15) and after (n = 11) the Philadelphia Beverage Tax was implemented. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants with different store locations and customer base characteristics. A priori codes based on the interview guide were used to organize data, and analytic memos were developed and reviewed to identify themes that emerged within the data using a grounded theory approach. Five themes emerged: (a) concerns about the tax purpose, amount, and use of revenue; (b) concerns about the tax's impact on finances and business operations; (c) business strategies implemented to lessen financial burden of the tax; (d) perceptions of customer responses to the tax based on income; and (e) confusion around tax implementation. Results highlighted ways to improve implementation. Retailers in Philadelphia implemented various strategies to offset negative effects on taxed beverage sales. Cities implementing a beverage tax would benefit from investment in educational outreach and support to business owners prior to tax implementation and ensure transparency in how tax revenue will be spent.

Prior research has shown that while retailers worry about the impact a beverage tax would have on sales, many pass the tax onto consumers as a strategy to mitigate loss. This paper uncovers additional retailer concerns that can inform the framing and implementation of beverage taxes in other interested jurisdictions. Retailers especially desired transparency in governmental tax revenue spending. Increased investment in educational outreach to retailers about the tax may help address misconceptions and improve implementation.

Analysis of Public Testimony About Philadelphia's Sweetened Beverage Tax.

INTRODUCTION: Although interest in beverage taxes has increased in recent years, industry opposition and other challenges have limited their spread in the U.S. Because beverage tax proposals are often unsuccessful, there is limited empirical evidence to inform advocacy efforts. Philadelphia's 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages provides an opportunity to understand how public testimony for and against the tax was framed in a city that ultimately passed the policy. METHODS: A content analysis of all public testimony about the beverage tax presented to the Philadelphia City Council in 2016 was conducted. Testimonies were coded for policy stance (protax or antitax), speaker type, and specific protax or antitax arguments. Quantitative data were analyzed in 2018-2019 using chi-square tests. RESULTS: A total of 177 unique testimonies were identified, which included 40 protax arguments (grouped into 11 themes) and 31 antitax arguments (grouped into 10 themes). Most testimonies were delivered orally, and most speakers argued in favor of the tax (58%). Among tax supporters, funding early childhood education was the most common argument (71%), whereas tax opponents most frequently argued that sugar-sweetened beverages were the wrong target for the tax (50%). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of public testimony revealed that protax advocacy efforts highlighted the revenue benefits for early childhood education and community infrastructure rather than the tax's potential to reduce sweetened beverage consumption and improve health. By contrast, antitax arguments centered on the unfairness of targeting a single industry, potential negative economic impacts, and the perceived lack of evidence that the tax would influence consumer behavior.

Association of a Sweetened Beverage Tax With Purchases of Beverages and High-Sugar Foods at Independent Stores in Philadelphia.

Importance: The relationship between a sweetened beverage tax and changes in the prices and purchases of beverages and high-sugar food is understudied in the long term and in small independent food retail stores where sugar-sweetened beverages are among the most commonly purchased items. Objective: To examine whether a 1.5 cent-per-fluid-ounce excise tax on sugar- and artificially sweetened beverages Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was associated with sustained changes in beverage prices and purchases, as well as calories purchased from beverages and high-sugar foods, over 2 years at small independent stores. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a difference-in-differences approach to compare changes in beverage prices and purchases of beverages and high-sugar foods (candy, sweet snacks) at independent stores in Philadelphia and Baltimore, Maryland (a nontaxed control) before and 2 years after tax implementation, which occurred on January 1, 2017. Price comparisons were also made to independent stores in Philadelphia's neighboring counties. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in mean price (measured in cents per fluid ounce) of taxed and nontaxed beverages, mean fluid ounces purchased of taxed and nontaxed beverages, and mean total calories purchased from beverages and high-sugar foods. Results: Compared with Baltimore independent stores, taxed beverage prices in Philadelphia increased 2.06 cents per fluid ounce (95% CI, 1.75 to 2.38 cents per fluid ounce; P < .001), with 137% of the tax passed through to prices 2 years after tax implementation, while nontaxed beverage prices had no statistically significant change. A total of 116 independent stores and 4738 customer purchases (1950 [41.2%] women; 4351 [91.8%] age 18 years or older; 1006 [21.2%] White customers, 3185 [67.2%] Black customers) at independent stores were assessed for price and purchase comparisons. Purchases of taxed beverages declined by 6.1 fl oz (95% CI, -9.9 to -2.4 fl oz; P < .001), corresponding to a 42% decline in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore; there were no significant changes in purchases of nontaxed beverages. Although there was no significant moderation by neighborhood income or customer education level, exploratory stratified analyses revealed that declines in taxed beverage purchases were larger among customers shopping in low-income neighborhoods (-7.1 fl oz; 95% CI, -13.0 to -1.1 fl oz; P = .001) and individuals with lower education levels (-6.9 fl oz; 95% CI, -12.5 to -1.3 fl oz; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that a tax on sweetened beverages was associated with increases in price and decreases in purchasing. Beverage excise taxes may be an effective policy to sustainably decrease purchases of sweetened drinks and calories from sugar in independent stores, with large reductions in lower-income areas and among customers with lower levels of education.

The Association Of A Sweetened Beverage Tax With Changes In Beverage Prices And Purchases At Independent Stores.

In January 2017 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, implemented an excise tax of 1.5 cents per ounce on beverages sweetened with sugar or artificial sweeteners. Small independent stores are an important yet understudied setting. They are visited frequently in urban and low-income areas, and sugary beverages are among the most commonly purchased items in them. We compared changes in beverage prices and purchases before and twelve months after tax implementation at small independent stores in Philadelphia and an untaxed control city, Baltimore, Maryland. Our sample included 134 stores with price data and 4,584 customer purchases. Compared with Baltimore, Philadelphia experienced significantly greater increases in the price of taxed beverages (1.81 cents per ounce, or 120.4 percent of the tax) and significantly larger declines in the volume of taxed beverages sold (5.76 ounces, or 38.9 percent) after tax implementation. Beverage excise taxes may be an effective policy tool for decreasing the purchase of sweetened drinks in small independent stores, particularly among populations at higher risk for sugar-sweetened beverage consumption.

One-year changes in sugar-sweetened beverage consumers' purchases following implementation of a beverage tax: a longitudinal quasi-experiment.

BACKGROUND: Few longitudinal studies examine the response to beverage taxes, especially among regular sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine changes in objectively measured beverage purchases associated with the Philadelphia beverage tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages. METHODS: A longitudinal quasi-experiment was conducted with adult sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumers in Philadelphia (n = 306) and Baltimore (n = 297; a nontaxed comparison city). From 2016 to 2017 participants submitted all food and beverage receipts during a 2-wk period at: baseline (pretax) and 3, 6, and 12 mo posttax (91.0% retention; data analyzed in 2019). Linear mixed effects models were used to assess the difference-in-differences in total purchased ounces (fl oz) of taxed beverages in a 2-wk period in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore. Secondary analyses: 1) excluded weeks that contained major holidays at baseline and 12 mo (42% of measured weeks at baseline and 12 mo) because policy implementation timing necessitated data collection during holidays when SSB demand may be more inelastic, and 2) aggregated posttax time points to address serial correlation and low power. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant changes in purchased ounces of taxed beverages in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore in the primary analysis. After excluding holiday purchasing, the tax was associated with statistically significant reductions of taxed beverage purchases at 3 and 6 mo (-157.1 ounces, 95% CI: -310.1, -4.1 and -175.1 ounces, 95% CI: -328.0, -22.3, respectively) but not 12 mo. Analyses aggregating all 6 wk of posttax time points showed statistically significant reductions (-203.7 ounces, 95% CI: -399.6, -7.8). CONCLUSIONS: A sweetened beverage tax was not associated with reduced taxed beverage purchases among SSB consumers 12 mo posttax in the full sample. Both secondary analyses excluding holiday purchasing or aggregating posttax time periods found reductions in taxed beverage purchases ranging from -4.9 to -12.5 ounces per day. Larger longitudinal studies are needed to further understand tax effects.