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.

Targeted Beverage Taxes Influence Food and Beverage Purchases among Households with Preschool Children.

BACKGROUND: How beverage taxes might influence purchases of foods and beverages among households with preschool children is unclear. Thus, we examined the relation between beverage taxes and food and beverage purchases among US households with a child 2-5 y of age. OBJECTIVES: We examined how a potential tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), or SSBs and >1% fat and/or high-sugar milk, would influence household food and beverage purchases among US households with a preschool child. We aimed to identify the lowest tax rate associated with meaningful changes in purchases. METHODS: We used household food and beverage purchase data from households with a single child who participated in the 2009-2012 Nielsen Homescan Panel. A 2-part, multilevel panel model was used to examine the relation between beverage prices and food and beverage purchases. Logistic regression was used in the first part of the model to estimate the probability of a food/beverage being purchased, whereas the second part of the model used log-linear regression to estimate predicted changes in purchases among reporting households. Estimates from both parts were combined, and bootstrapping was performed to obtain corrected SEs. In separate models, prices of SSBs, or SSBs and >1% and/or high-sugar milk, were perturbed by +10%, +15%, and +20%. Predicted changes in food and beverage purchases were compared across models. RESULTS: Price increases of 10%, 15%, and 20% on SSBs were associated with fewer purchases of juice drinks, whereas price increases of 10%, 15%, and 20% simulated on both SSBs plus >1% fat and/or high-sugar milk (combined tax) were associated with fewer kilocalories purchased from >1% fat, low-sugar milk, and meat, poultry, fish, and mixed meat dishes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides further evidence that a tax on beverages high in sugar and/or fat may be associated with favorable changes in beverage purchases among US households with a preschool child.

An Evaluation of Healthy Hydration Recommendations for 93 Countries with Sugary Beverage Tax Legislation Globally, 2000-2023.

Adequate water intake is essential for human health. Sugary beverage taxes are a best buy policy to reduce obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) promote healthy dietary patterns. The study purpose was to evaluate national FBDGs for countries with sugary beverage tax legislation (2000-2023) to promote water and discourage sugary beverage consumption. We developed a coding framework to conduct a content analysis of FBDG documents, and used six indicators to identify messages and images to assign healthy hydration recommendation (HHR) scores from 0-12 to compare FBDGs across countries and six regions. Results showed 93 countries with sugary beverage tax legislation of which 58 countries (62%) had published FBDGs (1998-2023). Of 58 FBDGs reviewed, 48 (83%) had complementary recommendations that encouraged water and discouraged sugary beverages. Of 93 countries, 13 (14%) had the highest HHR scores (11-12); 22, (24%) had high HHR scores (9-10); 20 (21%) had medium HHR scores (4-8); 3 (3%) had low HHR scores (0-3); and 35 (38%) countries had no FBDGs. To reduce health risks for populations, governments must ensure policy coherence to optimize sugary beverage tax impacts by developing FBDGs that encourage water and discourage sugary beverages complementary to national policies.

Low-income parents' perceptions of a sweetened beverage tax in Philadelphia.

Objective: To characterise perceptions of the Philadelphia Beverage Tax among low-income parents. Design: We conducted semi-structured interviews and administered demographic questions via telephone. We based the interview guide and initial codebook on a conceptual model illustrating perceived fairness and effectiveness as essential for successfully adopting food policies. We performed thematic analysis using NVivo 12. Setting: We recruited from a primary care paediatrics clinic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from July to August 2020. Participants: Philadelphia parents/caregivers of 2- to 11-year-old children with Medicaid insurance. Results: Participants were predominantly African American (97 %), female (100 %), and had annual household incomes <$50 000 (80 %). Participants were 26- to 72-years old, with an average aged child of 5 years (range 7 months to 20 years). Themes emerged regarding tax perceptions, revenue use and behaviour change due to the tax. Using revenue for highly valued programmes and accountability of city government to use revenue as promised were critical elements in perceptions of tax fairness. Some parents avoided the tax through cross-border shopping and buying drink powders or concentrates, influencing perceptions of tax effectiveness. The tax signalled the health dangers of sweetened beverage consumption to most parents. Conclusion: Our findings bring to light four key takeaways for policymakers designing sweetened beverage taxes. (1) Dedication of tax revenue to programmes highly valued by parents and (2) transparency in revenue spending may improve acceptability. (3) State or national taxes may be more effective at decreasing consumption due to cross-border shopping. (4) Pairing taxes with health promotion campaigns may enhance behaviour change.

Impact of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax two-year post-tax implementation in Seattle, Washington, United States.

This study examines longer-run impacts of the Seattle, Washington, Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) on beverage prices, volume sold, and cross-border shopping. We use a difference-in-differences estimation approach, drawing on universal product code-level store scanner data on taxed and untaxed beverages one-year pre-tax and two-year post-tax with Portland, Oregon, as the comparison site. Two-year post-tax, prices of taxed beverages increased by 1.04 cents per ounce (59% tax pass-through rate). Volume sold of taxed beverages fell by 22%. Declines were larger for family-size (29%) compared to individual-size (10%) beverages; particularly for soda (36% decrease for family-size compared to no change for individual-size). We found no change in volume sold of taxed beverages in Seattle's 2-mile border area, suggesting no cross-border shopping. Overall, we found a sustained impact of the Seattle SBT two-year post-tax implementation suggesting that sugar-sweetened beverage taxes may yield permanent reductions in demand for sugary beverages and associated health harms.

Is the public sweet on sugary beverages? Social desirability bias and sweetened beverage taxes.

Social desirability bias has been documented in self-reported diet as well as in voting behavior, but not in regards to sweetened beverage consumption or sweetened beverage taxes. We find evidence that respondents in a mixed-mode opinion survey exhibit social desirability bias in both reported sweetened beverage consumption and beliefs about the health and economic benefits of sweetened beverage taxes. We do so in a study of 1704 adults residing in Seattle, Minneapolis, and the D.C. metro area. Phone respondents in our survey under-report sweetened beverage consumption by 0.63 beverages per week relative to web respondents (average web respondent consumption is 3.55 beverages per week). They also over-report their beliefs about the positive health and economic impacts of sweetened beverage taxes by 0.54 points in an 18-point index (average web respondent index score is 2.79). These differences are measured after we control for selection into survey mode by using matching methods, and we interpret them as occurring due to social desirability bias. In contrast to these findings, there is no modal difference in respondents' stated approval of sweetened beverage taxes, and so we conclude that this question is not subject to social desirability bias.

Impact of a sweetened beverage tax on beverage prices in Seattle, WA.

Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax is an excise tax of 1.75 cents per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages and is one of the highest beverage taxes in the U.S. This study examined the impact of Seattle's tax on the prices of beverages. We conducted audits of 407 retail food stores and eating places (quick service restaurants and coffee shops) before and 6 months after the tax was implemented in Seattle and in a comparison area. Ordinary least squares difference-in-differences models with store fixed effects were used to estimate the effect of the tax on prices, stratified by beverage type and store type. In secondary analyses, we assessed the effect of the tax on the price of non-taxed beverages and foods. Results from the adjusted difference-in-differences models indicated the tax was associated with an average increase of 1.58 cents per ounce among Seattle retailers, representing 90 % of the price of the tax. By store type, price increases were highest in smaller grocery stores and drug stores. By beverage type, price increases were highest for energy beverages and soda and lowest for bottled coffee and juice drinks. Prices of some non-taxed beverages also increased while the prices of select healthy foods generally did not. The sweetened beverage tax in Seattle is higher than beverage taxes in most other cities, and nearly the full cost of the tax is being passed through to consumers for many beverage types and stores types.

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.

Distribution of sugar-sweetened beverage sales volume by sugar content in the United States: implications for tiered taxation and tax revenue.

This study draws on data on sales volume, brand-level market shares, and sugar content to calculate the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) sales volume by sugar content, propose sugar content thresholds for a tiered tax structure, and estimate tax revenue. The most common SSBs sold had 26 g of sugar/8-oz serving; 70.8% had ≥ 25 g of sugar/8-oz serving, 16.9% were in the 10-15 g range, and 8.7% were in the 16-20 g range. A tiered tax with cut points at < 20 g and < 5 g of sugar/8-oz serving is proposed. A tax of 1¢/oz for SSBs in the second tier and 2¢/oz in third tier is projected to raise $18.2 billion in tax revenue similar to the 1.5¢/oz flat tax projection ($18.0 billion) but would yield 9% lower SSB volume. Understanding the distribution of SSB sales volume by sugar content informs policymakers on tiered tax structures, which may discourage consumption of SSBs with high levels of sugar and incentivize reformulation.

Can the updated nutrition facts label decrease sugar-sweetened beverage consumption?

Sugar-sweetened beverages are the primary source of added sugar consumption in the U.S, and the Food and Drug Administration recently updated the Nutrition Facts Label to communicate the amount of added sugars in manufactured food. The changes to the Nutrition Facts Label (NFL) is concurrent with some cities implementing policies that place an excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. While sugar-sweetened beverages taxes may be effective at changing quantity demanded, the updated NFL has the potential to shift the demand curve by decreasing friction and mental gaps associated with the communication of nutrition information. We conducted a randomized control trial using eye tracking technology to determine if the updated NFL garnered more visual attention or affected beverage choice. Participants were also exposed to an information intervention to determine if the updated NFL affected choice after receiving information about added sugars. We found that consumers were more visually attentive to nutrition information displayed by the updated NFL; however, viewing the updated label did not affect choice of beverages nor did it improve the effectiveness of the dietary information on subsequent choices.

The evidence-and acceptability-of taxes on unhealthy foods.

The global obesity pandemic has public advocates and policymakers grappling with the question of how best to respond. Among the various policy options, unhealthy food and beverage taxes have gained attention as a potentially effective intervention to reduce non-nutritive caloric intake, while raising government funds for health promotion programs at the community level. Yet in many countries, including in Israel, such proposals have not gained broad support. Cities in both United States and Mexico have found that taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages reduce consumption. Yet the food industry has successfully fought many such policies. Looking forward, those supporting taxation policies will need to provide clear evidence, a compelling use of funds raised, a convincing answer to industry claims, and attention to equity in implementation. With no easy fixes in sight to obesity, it is likely that taxes will remain viable - if contested - options for the foreseeable future.