In January, researchers found that price increases for sugary sodas, coffee, tea, energy drinks and fruit drinks led to reduced purchases of these beverages. Specifically, increasing the prices of these beverages by an average of 31% led consumers to reduce purchases by one-third.
the study, Published in JAMA Health Forumexamined per-ounce taxes by zip code in Boulder, Colorado; Oakland, California; Philadelphia; Seattle; and San Francisco. Nine jurisdictions in the United States have some form of consumer tax on sugary beverages. Beverages are taxed in a variety of ways, including excise taxes, sales taxes, and import and export taxes. Excise taxes, the most common type of tax imposed on sugary beverages, are levied on sellers, who then pass on the cost of the tax (usually a flat rate per ounce) to consumers. Some U.S. cities impose sales taxes at the register on sugary beverages, usually at rates between 1 and 2 percent. Import and export taxes are levied on certain ingredients, such as sugar, before the beverage is processed.
“We found that every 1 percent increase in price was associated with a 1 percent decrease in purchases of these products,” said study author Scott Kaplan, an assistant professor of economics at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. CNN“Consumer purchasing volume declined immediately after the tax was introduced and continued to decline over the next three years of the study period.”
Kaplan explained that the study “only looked at sugary drinks sold in retail and convenience stores. Samples included mass merchandisers, supermarkets, convenience stores and drug stores.” Statistics from the study so far show that Philadelphia has been the most successful in reducing consumer consumption of sugary drinks compared to other cities surveyed. This is because Philadelphia’s tax is “more broad-based, including both regular and artificially sweetened beverages,” Kaplan explained.
The findings suggest viable, more rigorous solutions that could reduce the risk of several chronic diseases linked to sugary beverage consumption, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity and stroke. Sugary and artificially sweetened beverages have also been found to increase the risk of premature death, which is why taxation, especially on a large scale, perhaps through a federal tax, is so important.
Taxes on sugary drinks have also proven effective in the UK. The study was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health Three years after the national ban was introduced, the amount of sugar children consume from soft drinks has been halved. “Sugar tax” A sugar tax was imposed on soft drinks in 2016. The researchers looked at responses from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey from 2008 to 2019. 7,999 responses were from adults and 7,656 from children. The researchers found that in the year after the sugar tax was introduced, children’s daily sugar intake fell by about 4.8 grams compared to 10.9 grams for adults.
Taxes on sugary drinks have been so successful that experts say taxing other high-sugar foods and drinks is a “no brainer”. Eddie Crouch, chairman of the British Dental Association, said: He told the Guardian He said the sugar tax was delivering “tangible results”.
“Any government interested in prevention would be well served to extend the scope to things like cereals,” he added. “There’s no need to increase the cost of living. If voluntary food reformulation fails, taxation will force the food industry to do the right thing.”
Lead author of the study, Dr Nina Rogers from the University of Cambridge’s School of Clinical Medicine, echoed similar sentiments, telling the outlet: “The new UK government may want to consider extending this tax to other (currently exempt) sugary drinks and even some foods.”
Despite ongoing calls for increased taxation of unhealthy foods, the UK and the US have yet to tax ultra-processed foods (UPFs), the biggest threat to consumer health. In the US, 73% of food on grocery store shelves is ultra-processed. UPFs are commercially manufactured foods that have been so heavily processed that they no longer resemble raw ingredients. UPFs are typically high in refined sugars, salt, artificial colours, emulsifiers and sweeteners. Breakfast cereals, packaged snacks, soft drinks, candy and flavoured yogurt are just a few common examples.
Want more great food articles and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter, The Bite.
Carlos Monteiro, the Brazilian epidemiologist who coined the term ultra-processed foods, has been one of the loudest voices calling for stricter regulation of the sale of UPFs. Ahead of the annual International Conference on Obesity, Monteiro called for UPFs to carry cigarette-like warnings. ParentsHe added that UPF should also be banned and taxed in schools and health facilities.
Last year, Colombia became one of the first countries in the world to tax UPF through a new “junk food law,” with the tax rate set at 10 percent but rising to 15 percent this year and set to reach 20 percent in 2025.
It remains a mystery whether and when a UPF tax will be implemented in the U.S. Research into UPF is still ongoing, with more studies seeking to better understand how such foods affect human health. Companies that manufacture UPF also argue that taxing such products will only hurt their business and consumers in the long run.
When it comes to sugary drinks, many states have already passed bills banning local taxes on such products. Four States Arizona, California, Michigan and Washington have enacted laws that would prioritize local taxes on sugary drinks, and many other states are considering implementing similar legislation.
