1932

Abstract

Evidence showing the effectiveness of policies to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is growing. SSBs are one of the largest sources of added sugar in the diet and are linked to multiple adverse health conditions. This review presents a framework illustrating the various types of policies that have been used to reduce SSB exposure and consumption; policies are organized into four categories (financial, information, defaults, and availability) and take into consideration crosscutting policy considerations (feasibility, impact, and equity). Next, for each category, we describe a specific example and provide evidence of impact. Finally, we discuss crosscutting policy considerations, the challenge of choosing among the various policy options, and important areas for future research. Notably, no single policy will reduce SSB consumption to healthy levels, so an integrated policy approach that adapts to changing market and consumption trends; evolving social, political, and public health needs; and emerging science is critical.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-103005
2021-04-01
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/publhealth/42/1/annurev-publhealth-090419-103005.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-103005&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Abrams KM, Evans C, Duff BRL 2015. Ignorance is bliss. How parents of preschool children make sense of front-of-package visuals and claims on food. Appetite 87:20–29
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Allcott H, Lockwood BB, Taubinsky D 2019. Should we tax sugar-sweetened beverages? An overview of theory and evidence. J. Econ. Perspect. 33:202–27
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Andreyeva T, Chaloupka FJ, Brownell KD 2011. Estimating the potential of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce consumption and generate revenue. Prev. Med. 52:413–16
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Auerbach BJ, Dibey S, Vallila-Buchman P, Kratz M, Krieger J 2018. Review of 100% fruit juice and chronic health conditions: implications for sugar-sweetened beverage policy. Adv. Nutr. 9:78–85
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Bailey RL, Fulgoni VL III, Cowan AE, Gaine PC 2018. Sources of added sugars in young children, adolescents, and adults with low and high intakes of added sugars. Nutrients 10:102
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Bandy LK, Scarborough P, Harrington RA, Rayner M, Jebb SA 2020. Reductions in sugar sales from soft drinks in the UK from 2015 to 2018. BMC Med 18:20
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Basu S, Seligman H, Bhattacharya J 2013. Nutritional policy changes in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: a microsimulation and cost-effectiveness analysis. Med. Decis. Making 33:937–48
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Basu S, Seligman HK, Gardner C, Bhattacharya J 2014. Ending SNAP subsidies for sugar-sweetened beverages could reduce obesity and type 2 diabetes. Health Aff 33:1032–39
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Bennet S, Draper N, Farnsworth I, McBride F 2019. The Bay Area sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: an evaluation of community investments Rep., Praxis Proj., Berkeley Food Inst Berkeley, CA: https://food.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GSPP-Soda-Tax-Evaluation-Final-Draft_withdate.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Bhupathiraju SN, Hu FB. 2016. Epidemiology of obesity and diabetes and their cardiovascular complications. Circ. Res. 118:1723–35
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Bialkova S, Grunert KG, Juhl HJ, Wasowicz-Kirylo G, Stysko-Kunkowska M, van Trijp HCM 2014. Attention mediates the effect of nutrition label information on consumers’ choice. Evidence from a choice experiment involving eye-tracking. Appetite 76:66–75
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Bleich SN, Lawman HG, LeVasseur MT, Yan J, Mitra N et al. 2020. The association of a sweetened beverage tax with changes in beverage prices and purchases at independent stores. Health Aff 39:1130–39
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Bleich SN, Moran AJ, Vercammen KA, Frelier JM, Dunn C et al. 2020. Strengthening the public health impacts of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through policy. Annu. Rev. Public Health 41:453–80
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    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]
  15. 15. 
    Boztuğ Y, Juhl HJ, Elshiewy O, Jensen MB 2015. Consumer response to monochrome Guideline Daily Amount nutrition labels. Food Policy 53:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Braveman P, Arkin E, Orleans T, Proctor D, Plough A 2017. What is health equity? And what difference does a definition make? Rep., Robert Wood Johnson Found Princeton, NJ: https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2017/05/what-is-health-equity-.html
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D 2019. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on purchases and consumption by adults and children. J. Health Econ. 67:102225
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D 2020. Oakland's sugar-sweetened beverage tax: impacts on prices, purchases and consumption by adults and children. Econ. Hum. Biol. 37:100865
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Cawley J, Frisvold DE. 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]
  20. 20. 
    Cawley J, Thow AM, Wen K, Frisvold D 2019. The economics of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: a review of the effects on prices, sales, cross-border shopping, and consumption. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 39:317–38
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Cent. Sci. Public Interest 2017. Big Soda versus public health: 2017 edition Fact Sheet, Cent. Sci. Public Interest Washington, DC: https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/big-soda-2017.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Cent. Sci. Public Interest 2019. A roadmap for comprehensive Food Service Guidelines Rep., Cent. Sci. Public Interest Washington, DC: https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/Roadmap_for_Comprehensive_FSG_11-22-19.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Cent. Sci. Public Interest 2019. State and local restaurant kids' meal policies. Chart, Cent. Sci. Public Interest Washington, DC: https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/CSPI_chart_of_local_km_policies_October_2019_0.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Centurión M, Machín L, Ares G 2019. Relative impact of nutritional warnings and other label features on cereal bar healthfulness evaluations. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 51:850–56
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Chaloupka FJ, Powell LM, Warner KE 2019. The use of excise taxes to reduce tobacco, alcohol, and sugary beverage consumption. Annu. Rev. Public Health 40:187–201
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Cheng YJ, Kanaya AM, Araneta MRG, Saydah SH, Kahn HS et al. 2019. Prevalence of diabetes by race and ethnicity in the United States, 2011–2016. JAMA 322:2389–98
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Chi DL, Scott JM. 2019. Added sugar and dental caries in children: a scientific update and future steps. Dent. Clin. North Am. 63:17–33
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Chriqui JF, Sansone CN, Powell LM 2020. The sweetened beverage tax in Cook County, Illinois: lessons from a failed effort. Am. J. Public Health 110:1009–16
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Colchero MA, Molina M, Guerrero-López CM 2017. After Mexico implemented a tax, purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages decreased and of water increased: difference by place of residence, household composition, and income level. J. Nutr. 147:1552–57
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    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]
  31. 31. 
    Colchero MA, Rivera-Dommarco J, Popkin BM, Ng S 2017. In Mexico, evidence of sustained consumer response two years after implementing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Health Aff 36:564–71
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    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]
  33. 33. 
    Collin J, Hill S. 2019. Structure and tactic of the tobacco, alcohol, and sugary beverage industries Backgr. Pap., Task Force on Fiscal Policy for Health New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Collin LJ, Judd S, Safford M, Vaccarino V, Welsh JA 2019. Association of sugary beverage consumption with mortality risk in US adults: a secondary analysis of data from the REGARDS study. JAMA Netw. Open 2:e193121
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Corvalán C, Reyes M, Garmendia ML, Uauy R 2019. Structural responses to the obesity and non-communicable diseases epidemic: update on the Chilean law of food labelling and advertising. Obes. Rev. 20:367–74
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    County of San Diego 2016. Eat well practices Rep., County of San Diego San Diego, CA: https://www.livewellsd.org/content/dam/livewell/topics/Eat-Well-Practices/PDFs_EatWell/Eat%20Well%20Practices.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Cowburn G, Stockley L. 2005. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 8:21–28
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Cradock AL, Kenney EL, McHugh A, Conley L, Mozaffarian RS et al. 2015. Evaluating the impact of the Healthy Beverage Executive Order for city agencies in Boston, Massachusetts, 2011–2013. Prev. Chronic Dis. 12:140549
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    De la Cruz-Góngora V, Torres P, Contreras-Manzano A, Jáuregui de la Mota A, Mundo-Rosas V et al. 2017. Understanding and acceptability by Hispanic consumers of four front-of-pack food labels. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity 14:28
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Di Cesare M, Khang Y-H, Asaria P, Blakely T, Cowan MJ et al. 2013. Inequalities in non-communicable diseases and effective responses. Lancet 381:585–97
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Downs JS, Loewenstein G, Wisdom J 2009. Strategies for promoting healthier food choices. Am. Econ. Rev. 99:159–64
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Drewnowski A, Rehm CD. 2014. Consumption of added sugars among US children and adults by food purchase location and food source. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100:901–7
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Drouin-Chartier J-P, Zheng Y, Li Y, Malik V, Pan A et al. 2019. Changes in consumption of sugary beverages and artificially sweetened beverages and subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three large prospective U.S. cohorts of women and men. Diabetes Care 42:2181–89
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Ducrot P, Julia C, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Touvier M et al. 2016. Impact of different front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Prev. Med. 50:627–36
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Ducrot P, Méjean C, Julia C, Kesse-Guyot E, Touvier M et al. 2015. Effectiveness of front-of-pack nutrition labels in French adults: results from the NutriNet-Santé Cohort Study. PLOS ONE 10:e0140898
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Duffey KJ, Popkin BM. 2007. Shifts in patterns and consumption of beverages between 1965 and 2002. Obesity 15:2739–47
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Dunn C, Vercammen KA, Frelier J, Moran AJ, Bleich SN 2020. Nutrition composition of children's meals in 26 large U.S. chain restaurants. Public Health Nutr 23:2245–52
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Epel ES, Hartman A, Jacobs LM, Leung C, Cohn MA et al. 2020. Association of a workplace sales ban on sugar-sweetened beverages with employee consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and health. JAMA Intern. Med. 180:9–16
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Falbe J, Grummon AH, Rojas N, Ryan-Ibarra S, Silver LD, Madsen KA 2020. Implementation of the first US sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Berkeley, CA, 2015–2019. Am. J. Public Health 110:1429–37
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    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]
  51. 51. 
    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]
  52. 52. 
    Farley TA, Halper HS, Carlin AM, Emmerson KM, Foster KN, Fertig AR 2017. Mass media campaign to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in a rural area of the United States. Am. J. Public Health 107:989–95
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Fleischhacker SE, Evenson KR, Rodriguez DA, Ammerman AS 2011. A systematic review of fast food access studies. Obes. Rev. 12:e460–71
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Fooks GJ, Williams S, Box G, Sacks G 2019. Corporations’ use and misuse of evidence to influence health policy: a case study of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation. Glob. Health 15:56
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Franckle RL, Polacsek M, Bleich SN, Thorndike AN, Findling MTG et al. 2019. Support for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) policy alternatives among US adults, 2018. Am. J. Public Health 109:993–95
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Fryar CD, Carroll MD, Ahluwalia N, Ogden CL 2020. Fast food intake among children and adolescents in the United States, 2015–2018 NCHS Data Brief 375, Natl. Cent. Health Stat Hyattsville, MD: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db375.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Garasky S, Mbwana K, Romualdo A, Tenaglio A, Roy M 2016. Foods typically purchased by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) households Rep., US Dep. Agric., Food Nutr. Serv https://foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased_16.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Glob. Food Res. Progr., Univ. N. C 2020. Sugary drink taxes around the world Maps, Glob. Food Res. Progr., Univ. N. C Chapel Hill, NC: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bqbj501wgocor24/UNCGFRP_SSB_tax_maps.pdf?dl=0
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Gollust SE, Barry CL, Niederdeppe J 2014. Americans’ opinions about policies to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. Prev. Med. 63:52–57
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Grier SA, Kumanyika SK. 2008. The context for choice: health implications of targeted food and beverage marketing to African Americans. Am. J. Public Health 98:1616–29
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Grummon A, Hall MG. 2020. Sugary drink warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. PLOS Med 17:5e1003120
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Grummon AH, Smith NR, Golden SD, Frerichs L, Taillie LS, Brewer NT 2019. Health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages: simulation of impacts on diet and obesity among U.S. adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 57:765–74
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Guasch-Ferré M, Hu FB. 2019. Are fruit juices just as unhealthy as sugar-sweetened beverages. ? JAMA Netw. Open 2:e193109
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Guerrero-López CM, Molina M, Colchero MA 2017. Employment changes associated with the introduction of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and nonessential energy-dense food in Mexico. Prev. Med. 105S:S43–49
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Han E, Powell LM. 2013. Consumption patterns of sugar-sweetened beverages in the United States. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 113:43–53
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Harnack L, Oakes JM, Elbel B, Beatty T, Rydell S, French S 2016. Effects of subsidies and prohibitions on nutrition in a food benefit program: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 176:1610–18
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Harris J, Hyary M, Seymour N, Choi Y-Y 2017. Are fast-food restaurants keeping their promises to offer healthier kids’ meals? Rudd Rep., UConn Rudd Cent Food Policy Obesity Hartford, CT: http://www.uconnruddcenter.org/files/Pdfs/272-9%20_%20Rudd_Healthier%20Kids%20Meals%20Report_Final%20Round_Web-150dpi_080117.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Harris J, Hyary M, Seymour N, Choi Y-Y 2018. Parents’ reports of fast-food purchases for their children: Have they improved? Rudd Rep., UConn Rudd Cent Food Policy Obesity Hartford, CT: http://uconnruddcenter.org/files/272-10%20%20Healthier%20Kids%20Meals%20Parent%20Survey%20Report_Release_8_31_18.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Healthy Food America 2016. A roadmap for successful sugary drink tax campaigns Rep., Healthy Food America Seattle, WA: http://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/a_roadmap_for_successful_sugary_drink_tax_campaigns
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Healthy Food America 2020. Map and chart the movement. Healthy Food America http://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/map
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Healthy Food America, ChangeLab Solutions 2018. A legal and practical guide for designing sugary drink taxes Rep., Healthy Food America Seattle, WA: http://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/a_legal_and_practical_guide_for_designing_sugary_drink_taxes
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Jilcott Pitts SB, Graham J, Mojica A, Stewart L, Walter M et al. 2016. Implementing healthier foodservice guidelines in hospital and federal worksite cafeterias: barriers, facilitators and keys to success. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 29:677–86
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Jou J, Niederdeppe J, Barry CL, Gollust SE 2014. Strategic messaging to promote taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages: lessons from recent political campaigns. Am. J. Public Health 104:847–53
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Julia C, Péneau S, Buscail C, Gonzalez R, Touvier M et al. 2017. Perception of different formats of front-of-pack nutrition labels according to sociodemographic, lifestyle and dietary factors in a French population: cross-sectional study among the NutriNet-Santé cohort participants. BMJ Open 7:e016108
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 74a. 
    Karpyn A, Ritchie L, Harpainter P, Lessard L, Tsai Met al 2020. Assessing the implementation of kids' meals healthy default beverage policies in the State of California and City of Wilmington, Del. Res. Brief CAS059, Healthy Eat. Res., Durham, NC. https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/assessing-the-implementation-of-kids-meals-healthy-default-beverage-policies-in-the-state-of-california-and-city-of-wilmington-del/
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 75. 
    Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA 2016. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern. Med. 176:1680–85
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 76. 
    Kelly B, Jewell J. 2018. What is the evidence on the policy specifications, development processes and effectiveness of existing front-of-pack food labelling policies in the WHO European Region? Health Evid. Netw. Synth. Rep. 61, World Health Organ Reg. Off. Eur. Copenhagen: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/384460/Web-WHO-HEN-Report-61-on-FOPL.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 77. 
    Kenney EL, Barrett JL, Bleich SN, Ward ZJ, Craddock AL, Gortmaker SL 2020. Impact of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act on obesity trends. Health Aff 39:71122–29
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 78. 
    Keybridge Public Policy Economics 2020. 2025 Beverage Calories Initiative: report on 2019 progress toward the National Calorie Goal Rep., Keybridge Washington, DC: https://www.healthiergeneration.org/sites/default/files/documents/20200925/bb4718c7/BCI%202019%20National%20Progress%20Report%20%2809%2025%202020%29%20FINAL%20AHG.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 79. 
    Krueger PM, Reither EN. 2015. Mind the gap: race/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in obesity. Curr. Diabetes Rep. 15:95
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 80. 
    Kumanyika SK. 2016. Health equity is the issue we have been waiting for. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 22:S8–10
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 81. 
    Kumanyika SK. 2019. A framework for increasing equity impact in obesity prevention. Am. J. Public Health 109:1350–57
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 82. 
    Lawman HG, Bleich SN, Yan J, LeVasseur MT, Mitra N, Roberto CA 2019. Unemployment claims in Philadelphia one year after implementation of the sweetened beverage tax. PLOS ONE 14:e0213218
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 83. 
    Lee MM, Falbe J, Schillinger D, Basu S, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA 2019. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption 3 years after the Berkeley, California, sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Am. J. Public Health 109:637–39
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 84. 
    Lee Y, Mozaffarian D, Sy S, Huang Y, Liu J et al. 2019. Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives for improving diet and health through Medicare and Medicaid: a microsimulation study. PLOS Med 16:e1002761
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 85. 
    Long MW, Gortmaker SL, Ward ZJ, Resch SC, Moodie ML et al. 2015. Cost effectiveness of a sugar-sweetened beverage excise tax in the U.S. Am. J. Prev. Med. 49:112–23
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 86. 
    Los Angeles County Board Superv 2011. Healthy food promotion in LA County food services contracts Motion, March 8, Los Angel. County Board Superv Los Angel., CA: http://www.centertrt.org/content/docs/Intervention_Documents/Intervention_Materials/LA_County/County_of_LA_Food_Procurement_Motion.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 87. 
    Lucan SC, Maroko AR, Sanon OC, Schechter CB 2017. Unhealthful food-and-beverage advertising in subway stations: targeted marketing, vulnerable groups, dietary intake, and poor health. J. Urban Health 94:220–32
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 88. 
    Luger M, Lafontan M, Bes-Rastrollo M, Winzer E, Yumuk V, Farpour-Lambert N 2017. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review from 2013 to 2015 and a comparison with previous studies. Obes. Facts 10:674–93
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 89. 
    Malik VS. 2019. Non-sugar sweeteners and health. BMJ 364:k5005
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 90. 
    Malik VS, Li Y, Pan A, De Koning L, Schernhammer E et al. 2019. Long-term consumption of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages and risk of mortality in US adults. Circulation 139:2113–25
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 91. 
    Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Després JP, Hu FB 2010. Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease risk. Circulation 121:1356–64
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 92. 
    Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Després JP, Willett WC, Hu FB 2010. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 33:2477–83
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 92a. 
    Marinello S, Leider J, Pugach O, Powell LM 2021. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on employment: a synthetic control analysis. Econ. Hum. Biol 40:100939
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 93. 
    Marinello S, Pipito AA, Leider J, Pugach O, Powell LM 2020. The impact of the Oakland sugar-sweetened beverage tax on bottled soda and fountain drink prices in fast-food restaurants. Prev. Med. Rep. 17:101034
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 94. 
    Mass. Dep. Public Health 2012. Massachusetts State Agency Food Standards Mass in Motion Doc., Mass. Dep. Public Health Boston: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/09/ng/eo509-state-agency-food-standards.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 95. 
    Menino TM. 2011. An order relative to healthy beverage options Exec. Order Mayor TM Menino City of Boston: https://www.cityofboston.gov/news/uploads/5742_40_7_25.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 96. 
    Micha R, Peñalvo JL, Cudhea F, Imamura F, Rehm CD, Mozaffarian D 2017. Association between dietary factors and mortality from heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes in the United States. JAMA 317:912–24
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 97. 
    Moran AJ, Block JP, Goshev SG, Bleich SN, Roberto CA 2017. Trends in nutrient content of children's menu items in U.S. chain restaurants. Am. J. Prev. Med. 52:284–91
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 98. 
    Morley BC, Niven PH, Dixon HG, Swanson MG, McAleese AB, Wakefield MA 2018. Controlled cohort evaluation of the LiveLighter mass media campaign's impact on adults’ reported consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. BMJ Open 8:e019574
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 99. 
    Mozaffarian D, Liu J, Sy S, Huang Y, Rehm C et al. 2018. Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives and disincentives for improving food purchases and health through the US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: a microsimulation study. PLOS Med 15:e1002661
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 100. 
    Muth ND, Dietz WH, Magge SN, Johnson RK 2019. Public policies to reduce sugary drink consumption in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 143:e20190282
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 101. 
    Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med 2016. Framing the Dialogue on Race and Ethnicity to Advance Health Equity: Proceedings of a Workshop Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press https://doi.org/10.17226/23576
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. 102. 
    Ng SW, Rivera JA, Popkin BM, Colchero MA 2018. Did high sugar-sweetened beverage purchasers respond differently to the excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Mexico. ? Public Health Nutr 22:750–56
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 103. 
    N. Y. City Dep. Health 2020. Nutrition: at work and in city facilities. NYC Health https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/healthy-workplaces.page
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 104. 
    Off. Mayor, Dep. Revenue 2018. Data released demonstrating strong employment in sectors affected by Philadelphia Beverage Tax News Release, April 11, City Phila Phila. PA: https://www.phila.gov/2018-04-11-data-released-demonstrating-strong-employment-in-sectors-affected-by-pbt/
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 105. 
    Oliveira V. 2019. The food assistance landscape: FY 2018 annual report Rep. EIB-207, Econ. Res. Serv. (ERS) Washington, DC: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/92896/eib-207.pdf?v=2120.1
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 106. 
    Peñalvo JL, Cudhea F, Micha R, Rehm CD, Afshin A et al. 2017. The potential impact of food taxes and subsidies on cardiovascular disease and diabetes burden and disparities in the United States. BMC Med 15:208
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 107. 
    Pharis ML, Colby L, Wagner A, Mallya G 2018. Sales of healthy snacks and beverages following the implementation of healthy vending standards in City of Philadelphia vending machines. Public Health Nutr 21:339–45
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 108. 
    Phila. Dep. Public Health 2016. Philadelphia nutrition standards: why nutrition standards?. Get Healthy Philly https://www.phila.gov/media/20181009160845/Philadelphia_Nutrition_Standards.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 109. 
    Pomeranz JL. 2015. Outstanding questions in First Amendment law related to food labeling disclosure requirements for health. Health Aff 34:1986–92
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 110. 
    Pomeranz JL, Mozaffarian D, Micha R 2018. Can the government require health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverage advertisements. ? JAMA 319:227–28
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 111. 
    Pomeranz JL, Mozaffarian D, Micha R 2020. Sugar-sweetened beverage warning policies in the broader legal context: health and safety warning laws and the First Amendment. Am. J. Prev. Med. 58:783–88
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 112. 
    Pomeranz JL, Zellers L, Bare M, Pertschuk M 2019. State preemption of food and nutrition policies and litigation: undermining government's role in public health. Am. J. Prev. Med. 56:47–57
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 113. 
    Popkin BM, Hawkes C. 2016. Sweetening of the global diet, particularly beverages: patterns, trends, and policy responses. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4:174–86
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 114. 
    Popova L, Nonnemaker J, Taylor N, Bradfield B, Kim A 2019. Warning labels on sugar-sweetened beverages: an eye tracking approach. Am. J. Health Behav. 43:406–19
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 115. 
    Powell LM, Leider J. 2020. The impact of Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax on beverage prices and volume sold. Econ. Hum. Biol. 37:100856
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 116. 
    Powell LM, Leider J, Léger PT 2020. The impact of a sweetened beverage tax on beverage volume sold in Cook County, Illinois, and its border area. Ann. Intern. Med. 172:390–97
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 117. 
    Powell LM, Leider J, Léger PT 2020. The impact of the Cook County, IL, Sweetened Beverage Tax on beverage prices. Econ. Hum. Biol. 37:100855
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 118. 
    Powell LM, Nguyen BT. 2013. Fast-food and full-service restaurant consumption among children and adolescents: effect on energy, beverage, and nutrient intake. JAMA Pediatr 167:14–20
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 119. 
    Ribakove S, Wootan M. 2019. Soda still on the menu: progress, but more to do to get soda off restaurant children's menus Rep., Cent. Sci. Public Interest Washington, DC: https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/Soda%20Still%20on%20the%20Menu%202019.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 120. 
    Roache SA, Platkin C, Gostin LO, Kaplan C 2018. Big food and soda versus public health: industry litigation against local government regulations to promote healthy diets. Fordham Urb. L. J. 45:1051–89
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 121. 
    Roberto CA, Lawman HG, LeVasseur MT, Mitra N, Peterhans A et al. 2019. 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. JAMA 321:1799–810
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 122. 
    Sánchez-Romero LM, Canto-Osorio F, González-Morales R, Colchero MA, Ng S-W et al. 2020. Association between tax on sugar sweetened beverages and soft drink consumption in adults in Mexico: open cohort longitudinal analysis of Health Workers Cohort Study. BMJ 369:m1311
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 123. 
    Sánchez-Romero LM, Penko J, Coxson PG, Fernández A, Mason A et al. 2016. Projected impact of Mexico's sugar-sweetened beverage tax policy on diabetes and cardiovascular disease: a modeling study. PLOS Med 13:e1002158
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 124. 
    Scarborough P, Adhikari V, Harrington RA, Elhussein A, Briggs A et al. 2020. Impact of the announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy on sugar content, price, product size and number of available soft drinks in the UK, 2015–19: a controlled interrupted time series analysis. PLOS Med 17:e1003025
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 125. 
    Schwartz MB. 2017. Moving beyond the debate over restricting sugary drinks in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Am. J. Prev. Med. 52:S199–205
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 126. 
    Schwartz MB, Schneider GE, Choi Y-Y, Li X, Harris J et al. 2017. Association of a community campaign for better beverage choices with beverage purchases from supermarkets. JAMA Intern. Med. 177:666–74
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 127. 
    Scruggs G. 2020. Seattle turns soda tax revenue into emergency grocery vouchers during pandemic. Next City March 30. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/seattle-turns-soda-tax-revenue-into-emergency-grocery-vouchers-pandemic
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 128. 
    Shangguan S, Afshin A, Shulkin M, Ma W, Marsden D et al. 2019. A meta-analysis of food labeling effects on consumer diet behaviors and industry practices. Am. J. Prev. Med. 56:300–14
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 129. 
    Siegrist M, Leins-Hess R, Keller C 2015. Which front-of-pack nutrition label is the most efficient one? The results of an eye-tracker study. Food Qual. Prefer. 39:183–90
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 130. 
    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]
  133. 131. 
    Sohn W, Burt B, Sowers M 2006. Carbonated soft drinks and dental caries in the primary dentition. Br. Dent. J. 200:669–69
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 132. 
    Stacey N, Mudara C, Ng SW, van Walbeek C, Hofman K, Edoka I 2019. Sugar-based beverage taxes and beverage prices: evidence from South Africa's Health Promotion Levy. Soc. Sci. Med. 238:112465
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 133. 
    Stern D, Tolentino L, Barquera S 2011. Revisión del etiquetado frontal: análisis de las Guías Diarias de Alimentación (GDA) y su comprensión por estudiantes de nutrición de México Rep., Int. Nac. Salud Pública, Cuernavaca México:
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 134. 
    Story MT, Duffy E. 2020. Supporting healthy eating: synergistic effects of nutrition education paired with policy, systems, and environmental changes. Nestlé Nutr. Inst. Workshop Ser. 92:69–82
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 135. 
    Sundar A, Kardes FR. 2015. The role of perceived variability and the health halo effect in nutritional inference and consumption. Psychol. Mark. 32:512–21
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 136. 
    Swart R. 2020. Taxed and untaxed beverage consumption by young adults in Langa, South Africa before and one year after a national sugar-sweetened beverage tax Presented at the Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) Research Symposium Somerset West: S. Afr., March 4
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 137. 
    Taillie LS, Hall MG, Popkin BM, Ng SW, Murukutla N 2020. Experimental studies of front-of-package nutrient warning labels on sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra-processed foods: a scoping review. Nutrients 12:569
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 138. 
    Taillie LS, Reyes M, Colchero MA, Popkin B, Corvalán C 2020. An evaluation of Chile's Law of Food Labeling and Advertising on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases from 2015 to 2017: a before-and-after study. PLOS Med 17:e1003015
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 139. 
    Talati Z, Pettigrew S, Ball K, Hughes C, Kelly B et al. 2017. The relative ability of different front-of-pack labels to assist consumers discriminate between healthy, moderately healthy, and unhealthy foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 59:109–13
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 140. 
    Talati Z, Pettigrew S, Hughes C, Dixon H, Kelly B et al. 2016. The combined effect of front-of-pack nutrition labels and health claims on consumers’ evaluation of food products. Food Qual. Prefer. 53:57–65
    [Google Scholar]
  143. 141. 
    Teng AM, Jones AC, Mizdrak A, Signal L, Genç M, Wilson N 2019. Impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on purchases and dietary intake: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes. Rev. 20:1187–204
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 142. 
    USDA (US Dep. Agric.) 2013. Nutrition standards for CACFP meals and snacks. Food and Nutrition Service, Child and Adult Care Food Program https://www.fns.usda.gov/cacfp/meals-and-snacks
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 143. 
    USDA (US Dep. Agric.) 2013. What can SNAP buy. ? Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items
    [Google Scholar]
  146. 144. 
    USDA (US Dep. Agric.) 2013. WIC food packages—regulatory requirements for WIC-eligible foods. Food and Nutrition Service, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-packages-regulatory-requirements-wic-eligible-foods
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 145. 
    USDA (US Dep. Agric.) 2019. Expenditures for the USDA's food assistance programs in fall 2018. Economic Research Service, Food Security and Nutrition Assistance https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/?topicId=14832
    [Google Scholar]
  148. 146. 
    USDA (US Dep. Agric.) 2019. Nutrition standards for school meals. Food and Nutrition Service, Child Nutrition Programs https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/nutrition-standards-school-meals
    [Google Scholar]
  149. 147. 
    US DHHS (Dep. Health Hum. Serv.), USDA (US Dep. Agric.) 2015. Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Rep., Off. Dis. Prev., Health Promot Washington, DC: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Scientific-Report-of-the-2015-Dietary-Guidelines-Advisory-Committee.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  150. 148. 
    Vercammen KA, Koma JW, Bleich SN 2019. Trends in energy drink consumption among U.S. adolescents and adults, 2003–2016. Am. J. Prev. Med. 56:827–33
    [Google Scholar]
  151. 149. 
    Voices for Healthy Kids 2021. Stop sugary drinks from hooking our kids. Voices for Healthy Kids https://sugarydrinks.voicesforhealthykids.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  152. 150. 
    Vyth EL, Steenhuis I, Roodenburg AJ, Brug J, Seidell JC 2010. Front-of-pack nutrition label stimulates healthier product development: a quantitative analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 7:65
    [Google Scholar]
  153. 151. 
    Wartella EA, Lichtenstein AH, Boon CS 2010. Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Phase 1 Report Washington DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  154. 152. 
    Wash. State Dep. Health 2014. Healthy nutrition guidelines for institutions DOH 340–224 Wash. State Dep. Health Seattle: https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/340-224-InstitutionsImplementationGuide.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  155. 153. 
    Williams v. City of Pennsylvania J-31A-2018 (Pa. Jul. 18, 2018)
  156. 154. 
    Wootan MG. 2012. Children's meals in restaurants: families need more help to make healthy choices. Child. Obes. 8:31–33
    [Google Scholar]
  157. 155. 
    World Cancer Res. Fund Int 2020. N: Nutrition label standards and regulations on the use of claims and implied claims on food. NOURISHING Framework https://www.wcrf.org/int/policy/policy-databases/nourishing-framework
    [Google Scholar]
  158. 156. 
    Zagorsky JL, Smith PK. 2020. Who drinks soda pop? Economic status and adult consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. Econ. Hum. Biol. 38:100888
    [Google Scholar]
  159. 157. 
    Zatzick DF, Koepsell T, Rivara FP 2009. Using target population specification, effect size, and reach to estimate and compare the population impact of two PTSD preventive interventions. Psychiatry 72:346–59
    [Google Scholar]
  160. 158. 
    Zhong Y, Auchincloss HA, Lee KB, McKenna MR, Langellier AB 2020. Sugar-sweetened and diet beverage consumption in Philadelphia one year after the beverage tax. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:1336
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-103005
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-103005
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