An Inventory of Proposed and Enacted Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Policies at the State, Local, and Tribal Levels in the United States, 2014‒2023

Abstract

Objectives. To inventory and describe trends in proposal and enactment of US sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) policies at state, local, and Tribal levels, 2014–2023.

Methods. We systematically searched 6 policy databases in 2021 (updated May 2023) using SSB-related search terms, identifying additional policies through snowball and online searches and a survey of food-policy experts. We reviewed 10 821 policies for inclusion and quantitatively coded included policies.

Results. The inventory included 400 (321 unique [i.e., excluding companion]) policies meeting criteria: 335 (256 unique) state-, 63 local-, and 2 Tribal-level policies. From 2014 to 2023, 11% of unique state-, 92% of local-, and 100% of Tribal-level proposed policies were enacted. Across jurisdictions, the most frequently proposed policies related to excise taxes, restaurant children’s meals, nutrition standards, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, while the largest proportions of enacted policies related to restaurant children’s meals, nutrition standards, education, and procurement. More policies were proposed and enacted in California and New York than other states, and in 2017 (proposed) and 2016 (enacted).

Conclusions. This comprehensive inventory of US SSB policies provides information to inform future SSB policy development and diffusion. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(12):1344–1353. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307855)

Reducing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is a public health priority.^1,2 SSBs are the leading source of dietary added sugars³ and increase the risk of cardiometabolic and dental diseases.^4,5 Policies are an important tool for reducing SSB marketing, availability, sales, and consumption. Policies like SSB excise taxes are recommended by public health organizations, such as the American Heart Association and World Health Organization.^1,2 SSB policies in the United States and abroad have reduced SSB purchases and consumption,^6,7 and multicomponent policy approaches are recommended to maximize reach and effectiveness (i.e., a policy requiring both SSB warning labels and restricting SSB advertising to children, as in Chile).^8,9 Excise tax policies, which are expected to reduce health care spending, are especially cost-effective,¹⁰ and in the United States, revenue generated from SSB taxes has supported health and equity programs (e.g., universal prekindergarten, safe drinking water availability).^11,12

Despite the utility of policy for addressing SSB consumption, there is a lack of research identifying and characterizing SSB-related policies. Previous studies have described policies in other areas (e.g., cardiometabolic health, portion sizes, ultraprocessed foods, and food service guidelines^13,14) or a subset of SSB-related policies (e.g., warning labels).^15,16 However, no comprehensive inventory of SSB policies exists. An inventory of proposed and enacted SSB-related policies could (1) serve as a resource to jurisdictions designing policies to meet their specific needs, (2) provide researchers with an understanding of the SSB policy landscape to facilitate evaluation of existing policies and stimulate the development and testing of novel policies, and (3) provide information for policymakers, practitioners, and advocates contemplating or actively seeking adoption of SSB policies. Therefore, our objective was to identify, inventory, and summarize high-level characteristics of proposed and enacted SSB policies at local, state, and Tribal levels in the United States from 2014 to May of 2023, and describe trends in proposal and enactment. We excluded the federal level because SSB policy activities have been concentrated at state and local levels.

METHODS

We searched for local- (city or county), state- (including Washington, DC), and Tribal-level policies, bills, resolutions, and ordinances and municipal codes (hereafter: “policies”) that were proposed or enacted and explicitly addressed reducing SSB consumption or availability (e.g., tax, advertising, warning label policies) or that indirectly addressed SSB consumption (e.g., by focusing on added sugars). Policies reintroduced in a new legislative session were counted as separate “unique policies.” State-level bicameral policies (companion bills in both legislative bodies) were individually coded but considered a single unique policy in analyses describing focus areas and trends. We limited our search to US policies proposed or enacted January 1, 2014, through May 31, 2023. January 1, 2014, was selected to coincide with the enactment year of the first SSB excise tax in Berkeley, California,¹⁵ and the Healthy Diné Nation Act, which established a 2% sales tax on “minimal-to-no-nutritional-value” foods and beverages, including SSBs.¹⁷

We excluded policies not directly applicable to our objective:

• 1.federal policies, US territory, or non-US policies;
• 2.institutional (e.g., hospitals, universities) “policies” or guidelines not enacted by government;
• 3.school nutrition standards policies (e.g., National School Breakfast or Lunch Programs, school wellness policies [excluded because of extensive existing research^18–20]);
• 4.policies related only to increasing drinking water access without mentioning reducing SSB availability or consumption;
• 5.beverage tax policies without a main focus on sweetened beverages (e.g., taxing all beverages, bottle deposit fee);
• 6.policies intended to repeal, oppose, or preempt SSB policies (e.g., California’s local SSB tax preemption);
• 7.“skeleton” policies (policies submitted in outline form with the intention to add specific language later); and
• 8.policies otherwise not relevant. Appendix A, Table A (available as a supplement to the online version of this article at https://ajph.org) provides examples of excluded policies.

Databases and Search Strategy

We conducted systematic searches, using predefined search terms related to SSBs, in 6 databases (Appendix A, Table B): American Legal Publishing Code Library (American Legal Publishing Code Library, Cincinnati, OH), Ballotpedia (Lucy Burns Institute, Middleton, WI), Healthy Food Policy Project (Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law School, Royalton, VT), Municode Code Library (CivicPlus, Manhattan, KS), Nexis Uni (LexisNexis, New York, NY), and Westlaw (Thomson Reuters, Toronto, Canada). Manual searches of relevant Web sites, “snowball” searches (identifying policies in publication reference lists), and policies known by the research team were also included. Following removal of duplicates, 4815 local, state, and Tribal policies were independently screened for relevance by 2 coauthors (J. N. D. and S. G.), with uncertainties resolved through discussion (Appendix A, Figure A). We conducted initial searches in June 2021; we conducted updated searches in American Legal Publishing Code Library, Ballotpedia, Healthy Food Policy Project, Municode, Nexis Uni, and Westlaw databases in May 2023 to identify additional policies since June 2021.

Local and Tribal Policy Survey

To identify local and Tribal policies missed by our searches because of the lack of comprehensive local and Tribal policy databases, we purposively surveyed organizations known to the study team to have expertise in local or Tribal food policy: 5 nongovernmental organizations and 4 university centers (3 with Tribal policy expertise). From June through September 2023, 8 individuals in 6 organizations completed the survey: 2 university centers with Tribal policy expertise and 3 national nongovernmental organizations and 1 university center focused on food policy generally. The survey (Supplemental Material in Appendix A) provided participants with a list of identified local- and Tribal-level policies and asked them to identify any additional policies. Of 19 policies submitted, 8 nonduplicate relevant policies were added to the sample (Appendix A, Figure A).

Data Coding and Analysis

Key policy characteristics coded were policy focus area(s), jurisdictional level (local [i.e., city or county], state, Tribal territory), reference number (e.g., SB 123), policy title, year introduced, year enacted (if applicable), current status (e.g., proposed only or enacted), companion policy if relevant, and a Web link to the policy. In June 2024, we checked for status updates of local policies proposed since 2021 because consideration of local policies is not limited to a single legislation session. The 14 non‒mutually exclusive SSB policy focus areas (Appendix A, Table C) were

• 1.education and outreach,
• 2.excise tax,
• 3.healthy checkout,
• 4.healthy procurement,
• 5.healthy retail,
• 6.marketing and advertising,
• 7.nutrition standards (subfocus areas: before- and after-school programs, child care, day camps, healthy meetings, hospitals, vending machines on state, city, or county property),
• 8.portion size,
• 9.research and evaluation,
• 10.restaurant children’s meals,
• 11.sales tax,
• 12.Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
• 13.warning labels, and
• 14.water.

We coded a single policy with multiple focus areas (e.g., excise tax and warning labels) for each focus area, with the primary focus area being the one listed first in the policy. Likewise, we coded secondary, tertiary, etc., focus areas based on the next subsequent area listed. Policy characteristics were coded by one coauthor (J. N. D.) and verified by a second coauthor (S. G.). We coded proposed, enacted, and companion policies. If there were multiple versions of a policy within a single session (e.g., amendments), we coded the last version.

Analyses were descriptive, including policy frequency and percentage enacted by jurisdictional level, focus area, state, and year. In analyses describing the frequency of policy focus areas, a single policy with multiple focus areas contributed to each focus area. A policy that was reintroduced in a new legislative session was counted as a separate, unique policy. In analyses of policy frequency by year, the policy year was the year each policy was introduced for proposed-only policies. For enacted policies, the policy year was the year of enactment; the reason we used enactment year is because, for all state policies, the enactment year is the same as the year introduced, and for local enacted policies with retrievable data on year introduced (36%), 71% had the same introduction and enactment year. We conducted coding in Excel (version 2306, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA), analysis with Stata (version 18, StataCorp College Station, TX), and mapping with Tableau (version 2023.3, Salesforce, San Francisco, CA).

RESULTS

In total, we included 400 proposed SSB policies (including companion) between January 1, 2014, and May 31, 2023, in the inventory: 63 local-, 335 state-, and 2 Tribal-level policies. The 335 state-level proposed policies included 79 companion policies. After excluding companion policies, there were 256 unique state-level proposed policies, for a total of 321 unique local, state, and Tribal proposed policies. At the local level, 58 (92%) of the 63 proposed policies were enacted versus 28 (11%) of the 256 state-level proposed policies. The 2 Tribal policies were enacted. Hereafter, we present results by unique policy only (i.e., companion policies are described as 1 unique policy). Characteristics of all policies (e.g., focus area, status) and their Web links are included in Appendix B (available as a supplement to the online version of this article at https://ajph.org).

Policy Focus Area

Figure 1 shows the frequency of unique proposed policies in each focus area overall by jurisdictional level and status. Across all levels of proposed policies (n = 321), the 5 most frequent focus areas were excise taxes (n = 80; 25% of proposed policies), restaurant children’s meals (n = 79; 25%), nutrition standards (n = 48; 15%), SNAP (n = 29; 9%), and warning labels (n = 28; 9%). Of the 88 enacted policies across levels, the 5 most frequently enacted focus areas were restaurant children’s meals (n = 31; 35%), nutrition standards (n = 27; 31%), education and outreach (n = 12; 14%), healthy procurement (n = 11; 13%), and excise taxes (n = 7; 8%). Across levels, focus areas with the highest probability of enactment were healthy retail (100% of only 2 proposed policies), education and outreach (92% of 13), healthy checkout (67% of 3), nutrition standards (56% of 48), and healthy procurement (46% of 24). The focus areas least likely to be enacted were SNAP (0% of 29 proposed policies), portion size (0% of 3), marketing and advertising (7% of 15), excise taxes (9% of 80), and warning labels (11% of 28). Of the enacted nutrition standards policies, 17 (65%) were for beverages sold in vending machines on public property. Twenty-six proposed policies (16 state, 9 local, 1 Tribal) had 2 or more focus areas; of these, 11 (44%) were enacted, 9 of which were local-level policies (Appendix B).

FIGURE 1—

Frequency of Proposed and Enacted Unique Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Policies at the State, Local, and Tribal Levels: United States, 2014–2023

Note. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SSB = sugar-sweetened beverage. Heat map shading was done separately by column. Darker shading indicates higher percentages within each column.

^aThe figure contains all unique policies, meaning that bicameral legislation (same policies introduced in both legislative bodies in the same session) were counted as 1 “unique” policy. “Proposed” indicates all policies that were proposed; “enacted” indicates all policies that were enacted and includes 3 local-level policies that were enacted and then repealed (2015, Davis, CA, Ordinance 2451 restaurant children’s meals policy; 2017 Cook County, IL, Ordinance 16-5931 sales tax policy; 2016 San Francisco, CA, Article 42 warning label policy).

^bBecause focus areas are not mutually exclusive (i.e., 26 policies had multiple focus areas), the denominator for percentages of total proposed and enacted policies is the total number of total proposed or enacted SSB policies in the first row.

^cPercentage of the total number of proposed policies that were enacted.

At the state level among all proposed policies (n = 256), the 5 most frequent focus areas were excise taxes (n = 70; 27%), restaurant children’s meals (n = 52; 20%), SNAP (n = 29; 11%), nutrition standards (n = 26; 10%), and warning labels (n = 24; 9%). Among state enacted policies (n = 28), the 5 most frequent focus areas were education and outreach policies, which made up the bulk of enacted policies (n = 12; 43%), followed by nutrition standards (n = 5; 18%), restaurant children’s meals (n = 5; 18%), research and evaluation (n = 2; 7%), and water (n = 2; 7%). State education and outreach policies had the highest probability of enactment (92% of 13 policies), followed by research and evaluation (22% of 9), nutrition standards (19% of 26), water (17% of 12), and restaurant children’s meals (10% of 52). State-level excise tax, healthy checkout, portion size, SNAP, and warning labels had 0% probability of enactment.

Among local-level proposed policies (n = 63), the 5 most frequent focus areas were restaurant children’s meals (n = 26; 41%), nutrition standards (n = 21; 33%), excise taxes (n = 10; 16%), healthy procurement (n = 9; 14%), and warning labels (n = 4; 6%). Among local enacted policies (n = 58), the 5 most frequent focus areas were restaurant children’s meals (n = 26; 45%), nutrition standards (n = 21; 36%), healthy procurement (n = 9; 16%), excise taxes (n = 7; 12%), and warning labels (n = 3; 5%). Local policies in 5 focus areas had a 100% probability of enactment: healthy checkout (n = 2), healthy procurement (n = 9), healthy retail (n = 2), nutrition standards (n = 21), and restaurant children’s meals (n = 26). The probability of enactment for warning labels was 75% (of 4), 70% for excise taxes (of 10), and 50% for sales taxes (of 2). Of 26 local-level enacted restaurant children’s meals policies, 24 were healthy default beverage policies (Appendix B). Three enacted local-level policies were subsequently repealed: the 2015 Davis, California, restaurant children’s meal policy (now under California Senate Bill 1192 [Appendix B]); 2016 San Francisco, California, warning label policy; and 2017 Cook County, Illinois, sales tax policy.

The Tribal policies were the 2014 Navajo Nation sales tax policy and the 2016 Lower Sioux Indian Community nutrition standards policy, both enacted (Appendix B).

Trends in Proposed Policies Over Time

Trends in unique proposed policies by year (2014–2022) and focus area are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 (2023 was excluded because of the search cutoff date being May 31, 2023, and thus not capturing the full year). Across jurisdictions, the highest number of policies (n = 72) were proposed in 2017, consisting largely of tax (n = 21 excise and n = 3 sales) and restaurant children’s meal (n = 11) policies. The highest number of policies were enacted in 2016 (n = 17), consisting mostly of nutrition standards (n = 7) and tax (n = 4 excise; n = 1 sales) policies. The lowest number of policies were proposed in 2022 (n = 12), and lowest number enacted in 2019 and 2022 (n = 5 each). In 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of proposed policies (n = 26) decreased by 48% from 2019 (n = 50).

FIGURE 2—

Trends in Total Proposed Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Policies by Year and Focus Area: United States, 2014–2022

Note. Total represents all included unique proposed policies at the local, state, and Tribal levels (i.e., companion policies were counted as a single unique policy, and each focus area of policies with multiple focus areas was counted as a unique policy). Focus areas included in “Other” are education and outreach, healthy checkout, healthy retail, research and evaluation, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), size, and water policies. Policies from 2023 are not shown as our policy search concluded in May 2023. Vertical line indicates the year the COVID-19 pandemic began.

FIGURE 3—

Trends in Total Enacted Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Policies by Year and Focus Area: United States, 2014–2022

Note. Total represents all included unique enacted policies at the local, state, and Tribal levels (i.e., companion policies were counted as a single unique policy and each focus area of policies with multiple focus areas were counted as a unique policy). Focus areas included in “Other” are education and outreach, healthy checkout, healthy retail, research and evaluation, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), size, and water policies. Policies from 2023 are not shown as our policy search concluded in May 2023. Vertical line indicates the year the COVID-19 pandemic began.

At the state level, the highest number of policies (n = 60) were proposed in 2017, with the largest proportion being tax policies (n = 18 excise; n = 3 sales). The highest number of state-level policies were enacted in 2015 (n = 6: 2 education and outreach, 1 nutrition standards, 1 healthy procurement, 1 research and evaluation, 1 restaurant children’s meals; Appendix A, Figure B).

The number of proposed and enacted local excise tax policies decreased after the enactment of state-level preemption laws prohibiting local SSB taxes in 2017 in Michigan, and 2018 in Arizona, California, and Washington.^21,22 Just 1 local excise tax policy (0 enacted) was proposed in 2019 to 2022 compared with 8 (7 enacted) in 2014 to 2018 (Appendix A, Figure C). However, state-level excise tax policies continued to be proposed (n = 52; 0 enacted) in 2017 to 2022 (Appendix A, Figure B).

Density of Proposed Policies by Jurisdiction

California had the highest density of unique policies with 51 proposed policies (state level: n = 24 with 9 [38%] enacted; local level: n = 27 with 26 [96%] enacted; Figure 4). New York State had the next highest policy density with 43 proposed policies (state level: n = 35 with 0 enacted; local level: n = 8 with 8 [100%] enacted). In California, most proposed policies were in 4 focus areas: excise tax (n = 11; 21%), restaurant children’s meals (n = 10; 20%), nutrition standards (n = 8; 16%), and warning labels (n = 5; 10%). In New York, most proposed policies were warning labels (n = 11; 26%), restaurant children’s meals (n = 10; 23%), nutrition standards (n = 7; 16%), and healthy procurement and excise tax (n = 6 each; 14% each; Appendix B).

FIGURE 4—

Density of All (a) Proposed and (b) Enacted Policies at State, Local, and Tribal Levels: United States, 2014–2023

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive inventory of US SSB policies, which includes policies proposed and enacted January 2014 to May 2023. There were 335 state-level (n = 256 unique), 63 local-level, and 2 Tribal-level policies. A higher proportion of local-level policies were enacted than state-level policies. Across levels, the most frequently proposed focus areas included excise taxes, restaurant children’s meals, nutrition standards, SNAP, and warning label policies. Among enacted policies, the most frequent focus areas were restaurant children’s meals, nutrition standards, education and outreach, healthy procurement, and excise taxes. However, excise taxes, healthy checkout, healthy retail, and warning label policies were enacted only at the local level, despite excise taxes being the most frequently proposed state-level policy. Education and outreach policies made up the largest share (43%) of enacted state-level policies but 0% of proposed and enacted local-level policies. More SSB policies were proposed and enacted in California and New York than in any other state, and policies were proposed more often in 2017 and enacted in 2016 than any other year.

Researchers, policymakers, advocates, and practitioners can use this inventory to understand the SSB policy landscape, conduct additional research on SSB policies, and inform public health advocacy efforts. The inventory includes direct Web links to policies, a policy’s proposal and enactment history, and characteristics (e.g., year, status), thus serving as a starting point for policy development and diffusion.

Our study builds upon previous research, including an inventory of US cardiometabolic health policies (2010–2017),¹³ a narrative review of select SSB policies,¹⁵ and other studies summarizing SSB legislation in specific areas (e.g., procurement,²³ excise taxes,¹¹ warning labels,¹⁶ and obesity prevention²⁴). Together, our inventory and the extant literature illustrate the potential of SSB policies to reach broad populations while illustrating barriers to adoption.

Trends observed, such as the decrease in policy proposal and enactment since 2019 (except proposal of local-level restaurant children’s meals), decrease in local SSB tax proposals, and high rate of enactment of restaurant children’s meal policies, should not be interpreted as an indication of policy effectiveness. In fact, some policies that were less likely to be proposed and enacted (e.g., excise taxes [in certain years], warning labels) are among the most (cost) effective.^9,10,25 These trends may reflect barriers like the chilling effect of industry-backed state laws that preempt local SSB taxes, industry-backed SSB tax repeal campaigns (1 of which was successful in Cook County, IL, in 2017), or industry lawsuits and subsequent court decisions (e.g., 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocking San Francisco’s SSB warning label policy). Thus, there may be an overall perceived difficulty (or ease) of policy enactment and perception about the availability of resources for policy advocacy and legal defense.

Trends we observed in the probability of enactment may be inversely related to policy effectiveness because of industry vehemently opposing policies perceived to negatively affect their bottom line.²⁶ It is particularly notable that only 1 local-level excise tax policy has been proposed since the 2018 preemption laws, given the effectiveness of taxation policies, and that it took, on average, 11 years to repeal tobacco preemption laws.²⁷ Other influencing factors may include competing priorities (e.g., pandemic), policy novelty, and the interest of funders, the public, community leaders, and policymakers. With the emergency phase of the pandemic concluded and the California preemption landscape evolving, renewed interest in SSB policies could occur. For example, the recent California court ruling that imposing penalties on localities that enact SSB taxes is unconstitutional²⁸ may lead to revitalized activity in SSB taxes.

As with tobacco-control policies, we observed that the local level served as a laboratory for testing policies, laying the groundwork for dissemination to state and federal levels.²⁹ For instance, novel and more effective SSB policies (e.g., excise taxes, warning labels, healthy checkout) were enacted only at the local level, while education and outreach policies were enacted only at the state level. Contributing factors may include that education policies have higher acceptance across the political spectrum and lower industry opposition, that states are more politically heterogeneous than cities, or that industry may have less influence over local legislators where accountability to and direct access from local constituents is higher.

Limitations and Strengths

An important limitation of the policy databases used to develop this inventory is the lack of information on Tribal policies. We identified only 2 Tribal policies that fit our inclusion criteria. One was the 2014 Healthy Diné Nation Act, renewed in 2020. In addition to taxing sales of minimal-to-no-nutritional-value foods and beverages, this policy waived a 5% sales tax on healthy foods, with revenue allocated to community wellness projects; as of 2019, 99% of the revenue had been disbursed to Diné Nation health projects.¹⁷ Since implementation, the availability and purchase of healthy food and beverages in the Diné Nation increased.³⁰ The second was the Lower Sioux Indian Community’s Honoring Little Crow with Healthy and Indigenous Foods Initiative (2016), which aimed to improve healthy food and beverage access at community vending machines and events. Other policies that did not meet inclusion criteria were the Osage Nation policy (2020) that established procurement standards for Osage Nation‒owned or operated property (excluded because the text did not address SSBs) and the Minneapolis American Indian Center healthy beverage policy that prohibited SSBs at Center-sponsored meetings and events (excluded as an institutional policy).

This inventory focused on US policies, but policy innovations globally can inform domestic policy, including front-of-package nutrient labels, which Chile combined with advertising restrictions, resulting in decreased SSB purchases.⁹ In 2020, 2 Mexican states banned sales of SSBs and junk food to minors, and in 2022,³¹ the United Kingdom implemented a policy restricting promotion and placement of SSBs and other foods high in saturated fat, sugar, and salt in prominent store locations like end-of-aisle and checkouts.³² In addition, there are novel SSB policies that have yet to be introduced, like minimum-pricing or proportional-pricing mandates for SSBs, strengthening standards for SNAP-authorized retailers around promotion and placement, implementing a standardized definition of a child-sized SSBs in restaurants, or restricting marketing of harmful foods and beverages in public spaces, government property (including public universities), and online platforms.^14,33,34

This study’s primary strength is that it created the only existing comprehensive database, to our knowledge, of US SSB policies over the last decade and across multiple jurisdictions. The included supplemental table (Appendix B) of policy characteristics and direct Web links can be used by multiple stakeholders to further study, develop, and diffuse policies.

Limitations include the exclusion of federal policies, found elsewhere.^8,13 We also excluded potentially relevant policies with vague language regarding SSBs (e.g., “healthy beverage” without defining “healthy”), which could make our policy count conservative. We did not include draft policies not (yet) formally proposed, (e.g., a local-level healthy checkout policy from Contra Costa County, CA). In addition, we are likely missing relevant local and Tribal policies, for which there is no comprehensive database, although our survey of experts helped identify missed policies. Lastly, the policy search was not updated past May 2023. Future research is needed to characterize the finer details of policies (e.g., tax rate, type of warning), including studying predictors of policy effectiveness and likelihood of enactment.

Public Health Implications

This study provides the first comprehensive inventory of US SSB policies at the state, local, and Tribal levels from 2014 to 2023, which may be useful for public health officials, policymakers, legal epidemiologists, practitioners, and advocates who are developing SSB policies and who wish to understand the current policy landscape.