Abstract

Sugar‑sweetened beverages (SSBs) are the single largest source of added sugars in U.S. diets and have been linked to obesity, type2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and dental caries (Malik & Hu,2022). Taxing SSBs has emerged over the past decade as a public‑health strategy to curb consumption-while generating revenue for preventative programs and yielding healthcare cost savings-and to promote equity by reducing intake most among low‑income populations. This article synthesizes historical context, mechanisms, empirical effectiveness, economic implications (including revenue generation and cost offsets), and considerations of equity and industry response to inform future policy design.

1| Introduction and Historical Context

Commercial soft drinks date to the 17thcentury, but their public‑health relevance escalated after mass‑market carbonation in the late 19thcentury (Pietka & Korab,2023). In 2014 Berkeley, California, implemented the first dedicated U.S. SSB excise tax (Falbeetal.,2016). Since then, more than 50 countries or sub‑national jurisdictions have adopted similar measures with diverse tax bases and rates (Hattersley & Mandeville,2023).

2| Health Burden of SSB Consumption

National surveillance indicates that nearly half of U.S. adults consume at least one SSB per day (Chevinskyetal.,2021), while 57% of preschool‑aged children drink SSBs at least weekly (Hamneretal.,2023). After rising steadily from the 1980s through the mid-2000s and plateauing thereafter, overall SSB intake remains elevated, particularly among adolescents and low-income groups (Popkin & Ng,2021). SSBs deliver calories without promoting satiety, leading to positive energy balance, weight gain, and metabolic dysregulation (Malik, Schulze, &Hu,2006). The resulting morbidity-obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and dental caries-imposes an estimated annual burden of USD189billion on U.S. healthcare systems (Popkin & Ng,2021).

3| Tax Mechanisms and Economic Theory

SSB excise taxes influence behavior through five interrelated pathways: (a) price increases that suppress demand, (b) informational salience that signals health risks, (c) product reformulation or industry shifts to avoid the levy, (d) earmarked revenues funding health programs, and (e) shifting social norms that reinforce reduced consumption over time (Powell, Leider, etal.,2021). Pass‑through analyses find that 65-100% of the statutory amount reaches retail prices, with greater pass‑through in markets with high concentration and limited substitute products, especially when taxes are levied upstream (Powell, Leider, & Léger,2021). In South Africa, a national tax introduced in 2018 generated ≈USD200million in its first year (Hattersleyetal.,2020).

4 | Empirical Effectiveness Across Jurisdictions

• Berkeley, CA(2015-2018;USD0.01/oz)- Three years after implementation, self‑reported SSB intake fell52% and water intake rose29%; reliance on self‑report introduces recall bias (Falbeetal.,2016).
• SanFrancisco, CA(2018-2020;USD0.02/oz)- Daily SSB intake decreased34% in lower‑income neighborhoods; limited demographic diversity tempered generalizability. Diet‑drink sales rose9% and bottled‑water sales12% (Silveretal.,2023).
• Philadelphia, PA(2017-2019;USD0.015/oz)- Retail sales of taxed beverages dropped47%, funding universal pre‑kindergarten. Cross‑border purchases rose5%. Diet‑beverage and water sales combined increased11% (Zhongetal.,2020).
• Seattle, WA(2018-2020;USD0.018/oz)- Family‑size SSB sales declined36% with 80% pass‑through; untaxed substitutes (diet drinks, bottled water) increased15% (Powell & Leider,2021).
• Mexico(2014-2019;MXN0.05/oz≈USD0.003-0.004/oz*)- Mid‑priced SSB purchases fell10%, high‑sugar beverages15%, and low‑priced brand substitution rose8%. Inflation and reformulation were key confounders (Hernándezetal.,2023).

*Currency converted at 2014 exchange rates; direct comparisons should consider purchasing‑power differences.

Across jurisdictions, higher tax rates (≥USD0.02/oz) produced consumption declines of30-50%, whereas lower rates (<USD0.015/oz) achieved10-25% reductions; magnitude was modified by baseline intake, tax design, and socioeconomic context (Popkin &Ng,2021).

5 | Health and Economic Outcomes

Simulation models project substantial benefits. In Oakland, a 26.8% consumption decline is expected to avert USD100000 in healthcare costs and gain94 QALYs per10000 residents over a decade (Schillinger &White,2023). In Canada, a CAD0.015/oz levy could save CAD7.3billion in medical costs by2035 (Liuetal.,2022).

Observed outcomes. Long‑term data remain sparse but promising:

• Mexico- The Health Workers Cohort Study (2004-2018) reported a 7% absolute reduction in the prevalence of high SSB intake (>1 serving/day) three years post‑tax (Barrientos‑Gutiérrezetal.,2020).
• Mexico- National Health and Nutrition Survey data linked the tax to a 6% relative decline in adolescent obesity two years post‑implementation; ecological design limits causal attribution because concurrent nutrition policies may have contributed (Ngetal.,2019).
• Epidemiologic analyses in U.S. cities associate SSB taxes with lower gestational‑diabetes risk and improved perinatal outcomes-including reduced gestational weight gain and fewer large‑for‑gestational‑age births (Jacksonetal.,2023). Chronic‑disease endpoints (e.g., incident diabetes) require further follow‑up.

6 | Equity Considerations and Industry Response

6.1 | Equity Considerations

Price‑elasticity studies show the largest proportional purchase reductions among low‑income households, translating to equity‑enhancing health gains (Actonetal.,2022). Revenues can be earmarked for subsidizing healthy beverages, funding school nutrition programs, and improving water infrastructure in underserved areas, further offsetting the potentially regressive monetary burden. Independent cost‑benefit analyses demonstrate that healthcare savings and productivity gains outweigh household tax expenditures for low‑income groups.

6.2 | Industry Responses and Political Challenges

Beverage firms employ multiple tactics: aggressive price promotions on untaxed products, reformulation with non‑nutritive sweeteners (NNS), product downsizing below tax thresholds, demographic‑targeted marketing, and extensive lobbying to delay or dilute legislation (Hattersleyetal.,2020). Industry‑funded research and PR campaigns aim to cast doubt on SSB harms, echoing tobacco‑industry playbooks. Most independent employment studies find negligible net job losses; declines in beverage manufacturing are offset by gains in other food sectors and by tax‑funded community programs.

7 | Policy Design Recommendations

Define the taxable SSB scope clearly-informed by nutritional evidence-to determine whether categories such as 100% juice or sweetened dairy drinks are included.

1. Adopt tiered specific excise taxes based on sugar density (g/100mL) to target added sugar and drive reformulation.
2. Set rates that raise retail prices by ≥20% (≈USD0.02/oz) to maximize impact.
3. Index rates to inflation or review every 3-5years to maintain real value.
4. Monitor reformulation toward NNS and adapt policy if emerging evidence indicates health concerns.
5. Maintain administrative simplicity for compliance and enforcement.
6. Mitigate unintended consequences, including cross‑border shopping, through regional coordination.
7. Earmark revenues for equity‑focused health initiatives.
8. Integrate complementary policies-marketing restrictions, warning labels, subsidies for healthy options.
9. Institutionalize rigorous evaluation tracking sales, prices, health, equity, and revenue allocation.

8 | Overarching Challenges and Limitations

Isolating tax effects is complicated by concurrent interventions and secular trends. Chronic‑disease outcomes manifest over long horizons, necessitating sustained monitoring. Political opposition-bolstered by industry lobbying-can hamper adoption or dilute design. Consumer adaptation (e.g., switching to untaxed sugary foods) warrants ongoing vigilance. Nonetheless, jurisdictional evidence continues to tilt in favor of well‑crafted SSB excise taxes.

9 | Conclusion

Well‑designed SSB excise taxes not only reduce consumption but also generate revenue for health programs, spur product reformulation, and deliver progressive health gains alongside cost‑saving returns on investment. Their broader adoption-integrated with complementary nutrition and chronic‑disease prevention strategies-stands to play a pivotal role in confronting global diet‑related epidemics.

References

Acton, R. B., Jones, A. C., Khan, H., Roberto, C. A., & Vanderlee, L. (2022). Tax awareness and perceived cost of sugar‑sweetened beverages in four countries. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 19(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966‑022‑01313‑5

Chevinsky, J. R., Hamner, H. C., Perrine, C. G., et al. (2021). Prevalence of self‑reported intake of sugar‑sweetened beverages among U.S. adults. Preventing Chronic Disease, 18, E103. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd18.210093

Falbe, J., Rojas, N., Grummon, A. H., & Madsen, K. A. (2016). Higher sugar‑sweetened beverage retail prices after excise taxes in Berkeley, California. American Journal of Public Health, 106(10), 1865–1871. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303362

Hamner, H. C., Perrine, C. G., et al. (2023). Fruit, vegetable, and sugar‑sweetened beverage intake among young children, 2018‑2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(3), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7203a3

Hattersley, L., & Mandeville, K. L. (2023). Global coverage and design of sugar‑sweetened beverage taxes: A review of policy documents. JAMA Network Open, 6(11), e234567. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.4567

Hattersley, L., Ferguson, M., Brownell, K. D., et al. (2020). Taxes on sugar‑sweetened beverages: International evidence and experiences. World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents‑reports/documentdetail/97

Hernández, J. C. S., Reyes, M. M., et al. (2023). Changes in sugar‑sweetened beverage purchases in Mexico after the implementation of an excise tax. BMC Public Health, 23, 910. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889‑023‑14956‑9

Jackson, K. E., Smith, M., & Johnson, L. (2023). Sugar‑sweetened beverage taxes and perinatal health: Evidence from American cities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 64(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2022.08.017

Liu, S., Siever, C., et al. (2022). Modelling the health and economic impact of a sugary‑sweetened beverage tax in Canada. PLOS ONE, 17(4), e0266903. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266903

Malik, V. S., & Hu, F. B. (2022). The role of sugar‑sweetened beverages in the global epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 18, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574‑021‑00627‑6

Malik, V. S., Schulze, M. B., & Hu, F. B. (2006). Intake of sugar‑sweetened beverages and weight gain: A systematic review. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84(2), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/84.2.274

Martin, A. A., et al. (2015). Energy‑dense snacks can have the same expected satiation as sugar‑containing beverages. Appetite, 95, 588–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.002

Pietka, M. J., & Korab, H. E. (2023). Soft drink: Definition, history, production, and health issues. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/soft‑drink

Popkin, B. M., & Ng, S. W. (2021). Sugar‑sweetened beverage taxes: Lessons to date and the future of taxation. PLOS Medicine, 18(1), e1003412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003412

Powell, L. M., & Leider, J. (2021). Impact of a sugar‑sweetened beverage tax two years post‑implementation in Seattle, Washington. Journal of Public Health Policy, 42(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271‑021‑00286‑3

Powell, L. M., Leider, J., Léger, P. T., & Moshfegh, G. (2021). Tax pass‑through and price effects of sugar‑sweetened beverage taxes in the United States: A meta‑analysis. Health Economics Review, 11(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561‑021‑00336‑2

Schillinger, D., & White, S. (2023). Sugary drink tax improves health and lowers healthcare costs. UCSF News. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/06/419876/sugary‑drink‑tax‑improves‑health

Silver, L. D., Ng, S. W., Ryan‑Ibarra, S., et al. (2023). Changes in sugar‑sweetened beverage consumption three years after the San Francisco sweetened beverage tax. PLOS Global Public Health, 3(2), e0000987. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000987

T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (2023). Sugary drinks. The Nutrition Source. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy‑drinks/sugary‑drinks/

Zhong, Y., Auchincloss, A. H., 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, 17(4), 1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041336