1932

Abstract

During the past decade, dozens of countries, regions, and cities have enacted taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). They have been primarily motivated by a desire to raise prices, reduce sales and consumption, improve population health, and raise revenue. This review outlines the economic rationale for SSB taxes and illustrates their predicted effects. It reviews the research on the effects of these taxes on retail prices, sales, cross-border shopping, consumption, and product availability. The evidence indicates that the amount by which taxes increase retail prices (also called the pass-through of the tax) varies by jurisdiction, ranging from less than 50% to 100% of the tax. Sales tend to decrease significantly in the taxing jurisdiction, although this seems to be partly offset by residents increasingly shopping outside of the taxing jurisdiction (i.e., engaging in cross-border shopping).Overall, taxes lower consumption of the taxed beverages by adults, although not for all types of beverages or all groups of consumers. We conclude with suggestions for improving the design of such taxes and directions for future research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-082018-124603
2019-08-21
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nutr/39/1/annurev-nutr-082018-124603.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-082018-124603&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Allcott H, Cass RS. 2015. Regulating internalities. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 34:3698–705
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Am. Acad. Pediatr. Dent 2017. Policy on Dietary Recommendations for Infants, Children, and Adolescents Chicago, IL: Am. Acad. Pedatr. Dent.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Azad MB, Abou-Setta AM, Chauhan BF, Rabbani R, Lys J et al. 2017. Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies. CMAJ 189:E929–39
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Berardi N, Sevestre P, Tepaut M, Vigneron A 2016. The impact of a ‘soda tax’ on prices: evidence from French micro data. Appl. Econ. 48:113976–94
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Bergman UM, Hansen NL. 2017. Are excise taxes on beverages fully passed through to prices? The Danish evidence Work Pap., ResearchGate, Berl., Ger. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268429840_Are_Excise_Taxes_on_Beverages_Fully_Passed_Through_to_Prices_The_Danish_Evidence/download
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Bleich SN, Vercammen KA, Koma JW, Li Z 2018. Trends in beverage consumption among children and adults, 2003–2014. Obesity 26:432–41
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Bollinger B, Sexton S. 2018. Local excise taxes, sticky prices, and spillovers: evidence from Berkeley's soda tax Work Pap. SSRN Rochester, N.Y: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3087966
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Br. Med. Assoc 2015. Food for Thought: Promoting Healthy Diets Among Children and Young People London: Br. Med. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Cameron AC, Miller DL. 2015. A practitioner's guide to cluster-robust inference. J. Hum. Resour. 50:317–73
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Castelló JV, López-Casasnovas G. 2018. Impact of SSB taxes on consumption Work Pap. 201804–10 CRES-UPF, Barc. Spain: https://www.upf.edu/documents/3223410/7582912/CRESWP201804110.pdf/c888c03c-06e2-7c2b-415f-accae486a9c7
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Cawley J. 2015. An economy of scales: a selective review of obesity's economic causes, consequences, and solutions. J. Health Econ. 43:244–68
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Cawley J, Crain C, Frisvold D, Jones D 2018. The pass-through of the largest tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: the case of Boulder, Colorado NBER Work Pap. 25050. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25050
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Cawley J, Frisvold D. 2017. The pass-through of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to retail prices: the case of Berkeley, California. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 36:303–26
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D 2018. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on prices and product availability NBER Work Pap. 24990. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24990
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D 2018. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on purchases and consumption by adults and children NBER Work Pap. 25052. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25052
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Cawley J, Meyerhoefer C. 2012. The medical care costs of obesity: an instrumental variables approach. J. Health Econ. 31:219–30
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Cawley J, Willage B, Frisvold D 2018. Pass-through of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages at the Philadelphia International Airport. JAMA 319:305–6
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Colantuoni F, Christian R. 2015. The impact of soda sales taxes on consumption: evidence from scanner data. Contemp. Econ. Policy 33:4714–34
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Colchero MA, Guerrero-López CM, Molina M, Rivera J 2016. Beverage sales in Mexico before and after implementation of a sugar sweetened beverage tax. PLOS ONE 11:e0163463
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Colchero MA, Popkin BM, Rivera JA, Ng SW 2016. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ 352:h6704
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Colchero MA, Salgado JC, Unar-Munguía M, Molina M, Ng S, Rivera-Dommarco JA 2015. Changes in prices after an excise tax to sweetened sugar beverages was implemented in Mexico: evidence from urban areas. PLOS ONE 10:e0144408
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Cornelsen L, Smith RD. 2018. Soda taxes—four questions economists need to address. Food Policy 74:138–42
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Donald SG, Lang K. 2007. Inference with difference-in-differences and other panel data. Rev. Econ. Stat. 89:221–33
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Dubois P, Griffith R, O'Connell M 2017. The effects of banning advertising in junk food markets. Rev. Econ. Stud. 85:396–436
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Etilé F, Lecocq S, Boizot-Szantai C 2018. The incidence of soft-drink taxes on consumer prices and welfare: evidence from the French soda tax Work Pap. 2018–24 Paris Sch. Econ. Paris, Fr: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01808198/document
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Falbe J, Rojas N, Grummon AH, Madsen KA 2015. Higher retail prices of sugar-sweetened beverages 3 months after implementation of an excise tax in Berkeley, California. Am. J. Public Health 105:2194–201
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA 2016. Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Am. J. Public Health 106:1865–71
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Fletcher JM, Frisvold DE, Tefft N 2011. Are soft drink taxes an effective mechanism for reducing obesity. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 30:655–62
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Fullerton D, Metcalf GE. 2002. Tax Incidence. Handbook of Public Economics, Vol. 4 A Auerbach, M Feldstein 1787–872 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Grogger J. 2017. Soda taxes and the prices of sodas and other drinks: evidence from Mexico. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99:481–98
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Gruber J. 2013. Public Finance and Public Policy New York: Worth. , 4th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Gruber J, Koszegi B. 2001. Is addiction “rational”? Theory and evidence. Q. J. Econ. 116:1261–303
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Harding M, Lovenheim M. 2017. The effect of prices on nutrition: comparing the impact of product- and nutrient-specific taxes. J. Health Econ. 53:53–71
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Johnson RK, Appel LJ, Brands M, Howard BV, Lefevre M et al. 2009. Dietary sugars intake and cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 120:1011–20
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Kotlikoff LJ, Summers LH. 1987. Tax incidence. Handbook of Public Economics 2 A Auerbach, M Feldstein 1043–92 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Leider J, Pipito A, Powell L 2018. The impact of the Cook County, Illinois, sweetened beverage tax on prices, 2017 Chicago: Ill. Prev. Res. Cent., Univ. Chic.
  38. 38.
    Lockwood BB, Taubinsky D. 2017. Regressive sin taxes NBER Work Pap. 23085. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23085
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Malik VS, Hu FB. 2011. Sugar-sweetened beverages and health: Where does the evidence stand. ? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 94:1161–62
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB 2006. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 84:274–88
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Mandrioli D, Kearns CE, Bero LA 2016. Relationship between research outcomes and risk of bias, study sponsorship, and author financial conflicts of interest in reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes: a systematic review of reviews. PLOS ONE 11:e0162198
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Marshall TA. 2013. Preventing dental caries associated with sugar-sweetened beverages. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 144:1448–152
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    NCD Risk Factor Collab 2016. Trends in adult body-mass index in 200 countries from 1975 to 2014: a pooled analysis of 1,698 population-based measurement studies with 19.2 million participants. Lancet 387:1377–96
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    NCD Risk Factor Collab 2016. Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: a pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4.4 million participants. Lancet 387:1513–30
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Pym H. 2018. Sugar tax is already producing results. BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43372295
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Rojas C, Wang E. 2017. Do taxes for soda and sugary drinks work? Scanner data evidence from Berkeley and Washington Work. Pap. SSRN Rochester, N.Y: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3041989
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, Taillie LS, Induni M et al. 2017. Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: a before-and-after study. PLOS Med 14:e1002283
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Thow AM, Quested C, Juventin L, Kun R, Khan AN, Swinburn B 2011. Taxing soft drinks in the Pacific: implementation lessons for improving health. Health Promot. Int. 26:55–64
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Weyl EG, Fabinger M. 2013. Pass-through as an economic tool: principles of incidence under imperfect competition. J. Political Econ. 121:528–83
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    WHO (World Health Organ.) 2009. Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risks Geneva: WHO
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    WHO (World Health Organ.) 2015. Public Health Product Tax in Hungary: An Example of Successful Intersectoral Action Using a Fiscal Tool to Promote Healthier Food Choices and Raise Revenues for Public Health Geneva: WHO
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    WHO (World Health Organ.) 2016. Report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity Geneva: WHO
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    World Cancer Res. Fund Int 2018. NOURISHING Framework: Use Economic Tools to Address Food Affordability and Purchase Incentives London: World Cancer Res. Fund Int.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Zhen C, Finkelstein EA, Nonnemaker JM, Karns SA, Todd JE 2014. Predicting the effects of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on food and beverage demand in a large demand system. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 96:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Zhen C, Wohlgenant MK, Karns SA, Kaufman P 2011. Habit formation and demand for sugar-sweetened beverages. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93:1175–93
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Zhong Y, Auchincloss AH, Lee BK, Kanter GP 2018. The short-term impacts of the Philadelphia beverage tax on beverage consumption. Am. J. Prev. Med. 55:26–34
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-082018-124603
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-082018-124603
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error