Introduction

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), including soda, pop, cola, tonic, fruit punch, lemonade, sweetened powdered drinks, and sports and energy drinks, are increasingly common in the United States and abroad. Studies show that 63% of American adults consume them daily, and 57.1% of young children consume them at least weekly. This paper analyzes the effectiveness of SSB taxes as a health policy intervention to reduce SSB consumption and combat the rising rates of weight gain and obesity.

Background and Context

Sweetened soft drinks date back to the 17th century, with the first marketed soft drinks being lemon juice sweetened with honey. The development of carbonated soft drinks stemmed from the desire to replicate the effervescent waters of springs believed to carry health benefits. The popularity of soft drinks began to rise steadily in 1820, reaching a climax in 1886 with the invention of Coca-Cola.

The idea of taxation as a deterrence is unique to modern society. In 1890, the United States instituted a tax on morphine and opium, followed by a tax on cannabis, hemp, and marijuana in 1937. The first tax on SSBs in the United States was implemented in 2014. Unlike taxes on alcohol in 1790, which were part of a broader federal revenue program, taxes on SSBs aim to reduce consumption and fund public health initiatives.

Health Implications of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

The consumption of SSBs can have severe health implications, especially if consumed from an early age into adulthood. The CDC recognizes several diseases linked to SSB consumption, including weight gain, obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, non-alcoholic liver disease, tooth decay, and gout. Research shows that including SSBs in the diet results in a significant rise in body weight and that these beverages are exceptionally poor at achieving satiety or fullness.

Mechanisms of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes

SSB taxes utilize four levers to reduce consumption and promote health: consumer price increases, consumer awareness, health promotion, non-price industry changes, and government health programs. Consumer price increases can be levied at the supply chain, retail, or manufacturing level, where they are usually specific based on volume or sugar content. A review found that 70% of the tax levied at the manufacturing level was passed on to consumers compared with 65% at the retail level. Revenue from SSB taxes can vary but is generally substantial, as seen in South Africa and Portugal.

Effectiveness of SSB Taxes in Improving Public Health

Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes have been implemented in various regions, each with unique outcomes. In San Francisco, the introduction of an SSB tax led to a 34.1% reduction in average daily SSB consumption, especially among lower-income residents, without increasing cross-border shopping. In Mexico, the tax led to a significant reduction in the purchase of middle-priced SSBs but did not significantly impact the consumption of low- and high-priced SSBs. In Seattle, a significant price increase for taxed beverages led to a notable decrease in the volume sold, especially for family-sized drinks, without increasing cross-border shopping but with a rise in the sales of untaxed beverages. Philadelphia experienced only a slight decline in monthly SSB consumption, illustrating that the impact of the tax varies depending on local factors.

Health Impact and Economic Savings

Literature suggests that even a mild reduction in SSB consumption can positively affect health outcomes and healthcare costs. In Oakland, a 26.8% reduction in SSB consumption led to savings of over $100,000 in healthcare costs per 10,000 residents and an addition of 94 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per 10,000 residents. Another study found that SSB taxes significantly improved perinatal health, reducing the risk of gestational diabetes, weight gain, and the risk of infants being born small by gestational age.

Policy Recommendations

Policy recommendations for SSB taxes fall into two broad categories: tax structure and complementary policies. The most typical tax structure is excise taxes, which have proven effective. Current tax rates range from 5% to 20%, with some regions implementing rates as high as 50% to 100%. It is crucial to ensure that funds generated from SSB taxes are reinvested into programs promoting healthier lifestyles and educating the public about the risks of excessive sugar consumption.

Complementary policies include implementing regulations and restrictions on marketing and advertising sugary products and labeling requirements to increase consumer awareness. Using funds to subsidize healthier beverages and food options can promote healthier choices and improve public health. Clear labeling can alert consumers to the health hazards associated with SSBs and justify higher costs.

Conclusion

While SSB taxes effectively encourage better dietary habits and reduce health risks, their implementation and support through complementary policies are crucial to their effectiveness. To optimize the positive effects of these taxes on public health, ongoing assessment and modification of the levies and related policies will be essential as more data becomes available.

References

– Acton, R. B., et al. (2022). Tax Awareness and Perceived Cost of Sugar-sweetened Beverages in Four Countries. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.
– CDC. (2022). Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
– Chevinsky, J., et al. (2021). Prevalence of Self-Reported Intake of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Among US Adults. Preventing Chronic Disease.
– Falbe, J., et al. (2016). Impact of the Berkeley Excise Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption. American Journal of Public Health.
– Fontinelle, A. (2023). A Brief History of Taxes in the U.S. Investopedia.
– Hamner, H. C., et al. (2023). Fruit, Vegetable, and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake Among Young Children. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
– Hattersley, L., & Mandeville, K. (2023). Global Coverage and Design of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes. JAMA Network Open.
– Hattersly, et al. (2020). Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: International Evidence and Experiences. World Bank Knowledge Brief.
– Hernández, J. C. S., et al. (2023). Changes in Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Purchases After the Implementation of a Tax in Mexico. BMC Public Health.
– History Channel. (2017). War on Drugs – Timeline in America. HISTORY.
– Jackson, K. E., et al. (2023). Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes and Perinatal Health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
– Liu, S., et al. (2022). Modelling the Health and Economic Impact of Sugary Sweetened Beverage Tax in Canada. PLOS ONE.
– Malik, V., & Hu, F. B. (2022). The Role of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages in the Global Epidemics of Obesity and Chronic Diseases. Nature Reviews Endocrinology.
– Malik, V., et al. (2006). Intake of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
– Martin, A., et al. (2015). Energy-Dense Snacks Can Have the Same Expected Satiation as Sugar-Containing Beverages. Appetite.
– Pietka, M. J., & Korab, H. E. (2023). Soft Drink | Definition, History, Production, & Health Issues. Encyclopedia Britannica.
– Popkin, B. M., & Ng, S. W. (2021). Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: Lessons to Date and the Future of Taxation. PLOS Medicine.
– Powell, L. M., & Leider, J. (2021). Impact of a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Two Years Post-Tax Implementation in Seattle. Journal of Public Health Policy.
– Powell, et al. (2021). A Review and Meta-Analysis of Tax Pass-Through of Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes in the United States. UIC Policy, Practice, and Prevention Research Center.
– Schillinger, & White. (2023). Sugary Drink Tax Improves Health, Lowers Health Care Costs. UC San Francisco.
– Silver, L., et al. (2023). Changes in Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption in San Francisco’s Tax. PLOS Global Public Health.
– T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (2023). Sugary Drinks. The Nutrition Source.
– Zhong, Y., et al. (2020). Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year After the Beverage Tax. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.