Outcomes Following Taxation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Tatiana Andreyeva; Keith Marple; Samantha Marinello; Timothy E Moore; Lisa M Powell

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.15276

. 2022 Jun 1;5(6):e2215276. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.15276

Outcomes Following Taxation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Tatiana Andreyeva ^1,^✉, Keith Marple ², Samantha Marinello ³, Timothy E Moore ⁴, Lisa M Powell ³

¹Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health, University of Connecticut, Hartford

²The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts

³Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago

⁴Statistical Consulting Services, Center for Open Research Resources & Equipment, University of Connecticut, Storrs

Accepted for Publication: March 21, 2022.

Published: June 1, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.15276

^✉

Corresponding Author: Tatiana Andreyeva, PhD, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health, University of Connecticut, One Constitution Plaza, Hartford, CT 06103 (tatiana.andreyeva@uconn.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Andreyeva had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Andreyeva, Powell.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Andreyeva, Marple, Marinello, Powell.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Andreyeva, Moore, Powell.

Statistical analysis: Marple, Moore.

Obtained funding: Andreyeva.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Andreyeva.

Supervision: Andreyeva, Powell.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This research was funded by the World Health Organization.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the World Health Organization.

Additional Contributions: The authors thank Valori Ann Banfi, MSLS, University of Connecticut, for assistance with the search strategy and Jung Wun Lee, MS, University of Connecticut, for assistance with meta-analyses. We are also grateful to several authors of the articles in this review for their responses to data queries. The authors appreciate very helpful suggestions from 3 anonymous reviewers.

^✉

Corresponding author.

PMCID: PMC9161017 PMID: 35648398

Key Points

Question

What are the outcomes of implemented sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes around the world?

Findings

In this systematic review of 86 studies and a meta-analysis of 62 studies, implemented SSB taxes were associated with higher prices of targeted beverages (tax pass-through of 82%) and 15% lower SSB sales, with a price elasticity of demand of −1.59. No negative changes in employment were identified.

Meaning

These findings suggest that SSB taxes may work as intended in reducing demand for SSBs through higher prices, yet further research is needed to understand their associations with diet and health outcomes and heterogeneity of consumer responses.

This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the associations of implemented SSB taxes with prices, sales, consumption, diet, body weight, product changes, unintended consequences, health, and pregnancy outcomes.

Abstract

Importance

More than 45 countries and several local jurisdictions have implemented sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes to improve nutrition and population health, and evidence on their outcomes to date is essential to inform policy discussions. Responding to this need, the World Health Organization commissioned a systematic literature review on the outcomes of fiscal policies, including SSB taxes.

Objective

To assess the associations of implemented SSB taxes with prices, sales, consumption, diet, body weight, product changes, unintended consequences, health, and pregnancy outcomes.

Data Sources

Searches of 8 bibliographic databases (Business Source Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, EconLit, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus) were performed from database inception through June 1, 2020, with no language or setting restrictions. Grey literature was assessed using 14 sources and government websites.

Study Selection

The review included primary studies of implemented SSB taxes.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. For prices, sales and consumption, results were meta-analyzed using a 3-level random-effects model. Study quality was assessed at the outcome level.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Tax pass-through rate for prices, percentage reduction in SSB demand, and price elasticity of demand for sales and consumption. Heterogeneity was assessed using τ² and the I² statistic.

Results

A total of 86 articles were eligible, with 62 studies contributing to the meta-analysis. The overall tax pass-through rate was 82% (95% CI, 66% to 98%; P < .001, I² = 99%), suggesting tax undershifting. The demand for SSBs was highly sensitive to tax-induced price increases, with the price elasticity of demand of −1.59 (95% CI, −2.11 to −1.08; P < .001; I² = 100%) and a mean reduction in SSB sales of 15% (95% CI, −20% to −9%; P < .001; I² = 100%). There was no evidence of substitution to untaxed beverages, and changes in SSB consumption were not significant. The narrative synthesis found reformulation and reduced sugar content of taxed beverages for tiered taxes, cross-border shopping in most studies of local-level taxes, and no negative changes in employment. Data on the heterogeneity of SSB tax outcomes across subpopulations were limited.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of implemented SSB taxes worldwide, SSB taxes were associated with higher prices and lower sales of taxed beverages.

Introduction

Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes are proposed as a policy tool to address the increasing prevalence of poor diet, obesity, and related economic and social costs.^1,2 Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) account for 71% of deaths globally, of which an estimated 40% could be attributed to dietary factors.^3,4 Recently, concerns about diet-related NCDs grew further because of their association with more severe clinical outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death.^5,6 There are well-documented negative health consequences of excessive SSB consumption in children and adults, including weight gain and increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, dental caries, and osteoporosis.^7,8,9

To improve nutrition and health and to raise revenue, various types of SSB taxes have been implemented in more than 45 countries, including numerous subnational local jurisdictions.¹⁰ Evidence on their effects is growing as multiple evaluations are undertaken to provide policy makers with comprehensive real-time data. Prior systematic reviews^{11,12,13,14,15,16,17} suggested that price interventions and fiscal policies targeting SSBs and other unhealthy products could influence consumer choices and reduce demand. Much of this earlier literature was based on price data and simulation studies owing to the lack of real-world SSB taxes at the time.¹⁰ There is now a critical need for the synthesis of literature on the outcomes of recently implemented SSB taxes to inform decision-making about the use of fiscal policy to create incentives for improving diet and health.

This study offers a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on implemented SSB taxes to provide comprehensive guidance on the outcomes associated with SSB taxation worldwide. It is part of a broader systematic review on the outcomes of fiscal and pricing policies on foods and nonalcoholic beverages commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO). The review is intended to inform guidelines that will support WHO Member States in developing and implementing fiscal and pricing policies to promote healthy diets. This review is also expected to be of interest to policy makers in subnational jurisdictions and expand our understanding of effective policy approaches to improving public health.

Methods

Search Strategy

This systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42019139426) adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines¹⁸ and included peer-reviewed and grey literature from all countries and published in all languages from database inception through June 1, 2020. The review was guided by the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome framework set by the WHO Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group (NUGAG) Subgroup on Policy Actions, including critical outcomes, defined as price changes, taxed and untaxed beverage sales (including both store volume sold and household purchases), consumption (taxed SSBs and untaxed substitute beverages), and diet. Outcomes deemed by the NUGAG experts as important included product change (eg, reformulation), unintended consequences (eg, jobs, cross-border shopping), body weight status, diet-related NCDs, undernutrition, and pregnancy outcomes.

Peer-reviewed literature searches were performed in 8 bibliographic electronic databases, including Business Source Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL Literature Plus with Full Text, EconLit, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus. Fourteen sources of grey literature were used: Directory of Open Access Journals, EconPapers, EPPI-Centre Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews, EPPI-Centre Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions, Google Scholar, HealthEvidence.org, Health Services Research Projects in Process, National Bureau of Economic Research, PDQ-Evidence for Informed Health Policymaking, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database, Social Science Research Network eLibrary, WHO Global Index Medicus, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and WorldWideScience. Websites of relevant agencies and references from systematic reviews and papers selected for data extraction were checked. A University of Connecticut librarian assisted in developing the search strategy, which is presented with search results in eAppendix 1 in the Supplement.

Eligibility Criteria

The review assessed population-level current or past fiscal (eg, taxes) and pricing policies (eg, minimum prices) on SSBs. In this context, SSBs refer to a broad set of nonalcoholic sugar-sweetened beverages (ie, beverages with added free sugars), which varied across policies and studies. Additionally, some SSB taxes were also applied to beverages sweetened with noncaloric sweeteners. The SSB tax type and size also varied across policies. Tax implementation was compared to not implementing a tax. We hypothesized that SSB taxes are associated with higher prices of taxed beverages, lower SSB sales and consumption, higher sales and consumption of untaxed beverages, and no changes in employment.

The review assessed the general population of children and adults (ages ≥18 years) across all countries and settings. Only primary studies or reports were considered, excluding opinion editorials, commentaries and reviews, modeling or simulation studies, and laboratory-based studies. Studies were included if they used one of the following research designs: randomized trials, interrupted time series designs, controlled and uncontrolled before and after studies, quasi-experimental designs, cross-sectional analyses using propensity score matching, difference-in-differences methods and fixed-effect analysis, longitudinal analyses using fixed effects, and ecological analysis. Studies were excluded if they did not include outcomes identified by the NUGAG committee.

Data Collection and Extraction

At least 2 reviewers (T.A., K.M., and S.M.) independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed the full text of eligible articles, completed data extraction, and evaluated study quality. Any disagreement was resolved through consensus and discussion with another author (L.M.P.).

Quality of Study Assessment

As all studies were nonexperimental, their quality was assessed using a new tool adapted from a prior systematic review and meta-analysis of sugary drink taxes¹⁵ and informed by the Cochrane ROBINS-I risk of bias tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions.¹⁹ A new study quality tool (eTable 1 in the Supplement) was developed to capture multiple components of SSB tax evaluations focusing on the study design, validity of measures, sample representativeness and size, and adequate control for confounders. Assessment was done at the outcome rather than study level, as some papers included multiple study designs and data sets across outcomes in their analysis. Using 7 questions to assess the methodological rigor and data limitations, we assigned a score of low, medium, or high quality to each outcome in every reviewed paper.

Effect Size Extraction

For each article, 1 main effect size per outcome was selected, except when a study assessed more than 1 policy or used multiple data sets per outcome. Estimated changes across the entire posttax period were selected when available; alternatively, we used the latest reported posttax period. Where possible, estimated relative changes were extracted; when only absolute changes were reported, they were converted into relative changes by dividing both the estimated change and confidence intervals by baseline estimates. Volumetric measures were selected over measures of frequency or expenditure.

Where results of multiple models were presented, results were selected from the study authors’ preferred model; otherwise, the most fully controlled models were chosen. For substitution, the reported results were extracted for untaxed beverages or bottled water. If a study only provided estimates stratified by store, the store-level estimates were extracted and a meta-analysis was conducted to obtain a single estimate and confidence interval from the stratified estimates.

Missing Data

When uncertainty estimates or baseline data were not provided, study authors were contacted via email to request the missing data.

Statistical Analysis

The synthesis of results proceeded in 2 stages. When a meta-analytic approach was feasible, results were meta-analyzed based on studies with complete data. Studies with missing data and those without statistical testing were analyzed narratively. For outcomes with few available studies or high heterogeneity across measures, a narrative synthesis of all studies was provided. In a narrative synthesis, results were aggregated by the direction of estimated results (eg, increase or decrease) and statistical significance of the estimates.

In addition to examining effect size estimates of outcomes for changes in demand for sales and consumption, measures of price elasticity and cross-price elasticity of demand were meta-analyzed. Price elasticity of demand is measured as percentage change in demand (sales or consumption) over percentage change in price, and cross-price elasticity is percentage change in demand for substitute products over percentage change in price for another product (SSBs in this review). eAppendix 2 in the Supplement provides details on the computation of the price elasticity measures.

Given that high heterogeneity of results was expected and that studies were nested within taxing jurisdictions, Hartung-Knapp adjusted 3-level random-effects models were used to generate pooled effect estimates using restricted maximum likelihood for estimating τ² (eTable 4 in the Supplement).²⁰ The proportion of variation in observed effect sizes that is due to variance in true effects, ie, heterogeneity, was assessed using the I² statistic.²¹ In addition, 95% prediction intervals were estimated to provide a measure of the range of effect sizes expected from future studies, which accounts for both the variance in the estimated effect size and between-study heterogeneity (τ²).^22,23

For the meta-analyzed outcomes, publication bias was assessed using the Egger test.²⁴ Models were rerun excluding outliers and studies with the highest and lowest variance. Sensitivity analyses also included limiting the meta-analyses to high-quality studies. Meta-analyses were conducted in R version 4.1.0 (R Project for Statistical Computing),²⁵ using the meta package version 4.19,²⁶ with prediction intervals calculated using the metafor package.²⁷ Auxiliary functions from the dmetar package (version 0.09.000) were used.²⁸

Results

Study Selection and Characteristics

The search retrieved 39 927 unique titles for abstract and title screening, with 398 titles selected for full-text screening (Figure 1). We identified 86 articles^{29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114} that met all inclusion criteria: 61 peer-reviewed articles and 25 reports, dissertations, or working papers. No studies on pricing policies were identified.

Location, Setting, and Study Characteristics

Most studies assessed 1 tax policy for multiple outcomes (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Most studies (n = 44) were evaluations of national taxes, including 17 studies for Mexico,^{29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45} 7 for the UK,^{46,47,48,49,50,51,52} 4 for France,^53,54,55,56 3 for Chile,^57,58,59 3 for Denmark,^56,60,61 2 for Barbados,^62,63 2 for Portugal,^64,65 1 for Finland,⁵⁶ 1 for Hungary,⁵⁶ 1 for Saudi Arabia,⁶⁶ and 1 for South Africa.⁶⁷ There were 42 articles evaluating local, state-level, or regional SSB taxes, including 13 studies for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,^{68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80} 11 studies for Berkeley, California,^{81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91} 8 studies for state-level taxes in the United States,^{88,92,93,94,95,96,97,98} 4 studies for Oakland, California,^{99,100,101,102} 3 studies for Cook County, Illinois,^103,104,105 3 studies for Seattle, Washington,^106,107,108 3 studies for Catalonia, Spain,^109,110,111 1 study for San Francisco, California,¹⁰⁰ 1 for Boulder, Colorado,¹¹² 1 for Sheffield, United Kingdom,¹¹³ and 1 study for a UK restaurant chain.¹¹⁴

Most studies provided evidence for prices (n = 49),^{29,31,32,36,38,41,42,46,47,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,64,65,66,67,68,72,73,77,79,80,81,82,83,86,87,88,89,91,93,99,100,101,103,105,106,107,108,109,111,112} followed by SSB sales (n = 43),^{29,30,33,34,35,37,39,40,41,42,44,52,54,56,57,59,61,63,64,65,66,69,70,71,72,73,76,79,82,86,87,88,89,90,92,93,99,104,106,109,111,113,114} sales of substitution beverages (n = 33),^{29,33,34,35,37,39,40,42,44,52,54,56,57,59,61,63,66,69,70,71,72,73,76,88,89,90,99,104,106,109,111,113,114} unintended consequences (n = 15),^{43,50,51,70,71,72,73,76,78,79,89,99,102,104,106} SSB consumption (n = 13),^{45,70,74,75,84,85,89,94,95,97,99,107,110} and consumption of substitution beverages (n = 11).^{70,74,75,84,85,89,94,95,99,107,110} Few studies assessed product changes (n = 6),^{47,48,49,52,65,67} body mass index (BMI; n = 5),^{94,95,96,97,98} and dietary intake (n = 2).^94,95 No studies were identified on pregnancy, undernutrition, and diet-related NCDs. All studies used nonexperimental research designs.

Study Quality

The quality of studies was highly variable (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Studies measuring consumption (SSB or substitution) were generally of low quality (10 of 13 [77%] for SSB consumption; 9 of 11 [82%] for consumption of substitutes), while the majority of price and sales evaluations were rated as high quality. The available BMI and diet evaluations were deemed as medium quality.

Synthesis of Results

Sixty-two articles^{29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,46,47,53,54,55,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,66,67,68,69,70,72,73,74,75,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,99,100,101,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114} (72%) were included in at least 1 of the 7 meta-analyses conducted: (1) change in prices (tax pass-through), (2) percentage change in demand measured by SSB sales, (3) SSB sales (price elasticity), (4) sales of substitute products (cross-price elasticity), (5) percentage change in demand and/or SSB consumption, (6) SSB consumption (price elasticity), and (7) consumption of substitute products (cross-price elasticity). Results from the remaining 24 articles^{41,42,43,44,45,48,49,50,51,52,56,65,71,76,77,78,79,93,94,95,96,97,98,102} were synthesized narratively. For the meta-analyzed outcomes, 15 studies^{41,42,44,45,52,56,65,71,76,77,79,93,94,95,97} were excluded from the meta-analysis because of missing data. A narrative synthesis was conducted for BMI, diet quality, product change, and unintended consequences.

Results From Meta-analyses

Summary results from all meta-analyses are presented in Table 1. Price outcomes had the largest body of evidence, with 46 estimates from 41 articles^{29,31,32,36,38,46,47,53,54,55,57,58,59,60,61,62,64,66,67,68,72,73,80,81,82,83,86,87,88,89,91,99,100,101,103,105,106,107,108,109,112} for 18 tax policies. There was evidence of a significant increase in prices of taxed beverages and high heterogeneity. Overall tax pass-through (the extent to which taxes were passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices) of the evaluated SSB taxes was estimated at 82% (95% CI, 66%-98%; P < .001; prediction interval, 9%-156%; I² = 99.2%; 95% CI, 99.1%-99.3%; P < .001) (Figure 2). That is, a 10%-equivalent SSB tax was estimated to increase consumer prices of taxed beverages by 8.2%, suggesting an incomplete pass-through and tax undershifting.

Table 1. Meta-analysis of Outcomes Following SSB Taxes.

Outcome	No.			3-Level random-effects model
Outcome	Estimates	Articles	Tax policies	Pooled estimate (95% CI)	P value	Prediction interval	Q for heterogeneity	P value	Heterogeneity I² (95% CI),	Publication bias
Price: tax pass-through, %	46	41	18	82.2 (66.2 to 98.3)	<.001	8.6 to 155.9	5635	<.001	99.2 (99.1 to 99.3)	None
SSB sales: % demand change	35	33	16	−14.6 (−20.4 to −8.8)	<.001	−37.6 to 8.4	709 742	<.001	100 (NA)	None
SSB sales: price elasticity	35	33	16	−1.59 (−2.11 to −1.08)	<.001	−3.94 to 0.75	122 929	<.001	100 (NA)	None
Sales, substitution beverages: cross-price elasticity	25	24	14	0.42 (−0.52 to 1.35)	.37	−3.69 to 4.52	1056	<.001	97.7 (97.3 to 98.1)	Yes
SSB consumption: % demand change	12	9	5	−18.1 (−37.6 to 1.5)	.07	−60.8 to 24.6	23	.02	52.9 (9.4 to 75.6)	Yes
SSB consumption: price elasticity	12	9	5	−3.78 (−8.86 to 1.30)	.13	−15.78 to 8.22	60	<.001	81.6 (68.9 to 89.1)	None
Consumptionof substitution beverages: cross-price elasticity	12	9	5	0.54 (−0.60 to 1.68)	.32	−1.70 to 2.79	21	.03	47.6 (0 to 73.1)	None

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; SSB, sugar-sweetened beverages.

Meta-analyzed results for SSB sales were based on 35 estimates from 33 studies^{29,30,33,34,35,37,39,40,54,57,59,61,63,64,66,69,70,72,73,82,86,87,88,89,90,92,99,104,106,109,111,113,114} for 16 tax policies. The meta-analyzed estimate for price elasticity for SSB sales was −1.59 (95% CI, −2.11 to −1.08; P < .001; prediction interval, −3.94 to 0.75; I² = 100%) (Figure 3). Across all studies and tax policies, there was a significant reduction in SSB sales of 15% (95% CI, −20% to −9%; P < .001; prediction interval, −38% to 8%; I² = 100%) (eFigure 1 in the Supplement). There was no evidence of significant substitution to sales of untaxed beverages (eFigure 2 in the Supplement).

The meta-analyzed estimates for SSB demand measured by consumption were not statistically significant. Consumption of taxed beverages in 9 studies^{70,74,75,84,85,89,99,107,110} (12 estimates) for 5 tax policies was estimated to have a price elasticity of −3.78 (95% CI, −8.86 to 1.30; P = .13) (eFigure 3 in the Supplement) and an estimated decline in demand of 18% (95% CI: −38 to 1%; P = .07) (eFigure 4 in the Supplement). Additionally, there was no significant change in the consumption of untaxed beverages in 9 studies^{70,74,75,84,85,89,99,107,110} (eFigure 5 in the Supplement).

Sensitivity and Subgroup Analysis

Results of the overall meta-analyses were consistent across several sensitivity checks, including removal of outlier studies and limiting the analyses to high-quality studies (eTable 3 in the Supplement). In no cases did removal of outliers or subanalysis of high-quality studies lead to a substantive change in the magnitude or statistical significance of the pooled results. Heterogeneity remained substantial even after outlier studies were removed (I² > 75%). For example, removing 13 outliers from the price meta-analysis did not change the estimated result (pass-through of 84% vs overall 82%; P < .001), but reduced heterogeneity (Q from 5635 to 225; I² from 99% to 86%). The subset of studies ranked as high quality (n = 32) was estimated to have an almost identical pass-through of 79% (P < .001). Consistent results also were seen for the price elasticity of demand based on SSB sales: −1.57 (P < .001) when excluding outliers and −1.39 (P < .001) in the subgroup of high quality studies.

Publication Bias

There was no evidence of publication bias for studies assessing SSB prices and sales. Publication bias was detected by the Egger test for sales of substitution beverages and SSB consumption; their funnel plots are presented in eFigure 6 in the Supplement.

Narrative Synthesis

Studies with missing data for the meta-analyzed outcomes suggested similar results, including higher prices of taxed beverages and reduced sales (Table 2).

Table 2. Summary of Narrative Synthesis Results for SSB Tax Outcomes.

Outcome	No. of studies	Tax policy	Tax jurisdiction/location	Direction and statistical significance of estimated outcome(s)	Primary measures
Meta-analyzed outcomes from studies in narrative analysis only
Prices: tax pass-through	5	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Mexico, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	Increase, no statistical testing (Andalón and Gibson,⁴¹ 2017; Bonilla-Chacin et al,⁴² 2016; ECSIPC,⁵⁶ 2014; Coary and Baskin,⁷⁷ 2018; Oxford Economics,⁷⁹ 2017)	Price change of taxed beverages
	2	Tiered volume-based excise tax	Portugal and Catalonia, Spain	Increase, no statistical testing (Goiana-da-Silva et al,⁶⁵ 2020; Vall Castelló and Lopez Casasnovas,¹¹¹ 2020)	Price change of taxed beverages
	1	Sales tax	United States	No significant change (Colantuoni and Rojas,⁹³ 2015). Increase, significant (Colantuoni and Rojas,⁹³ 2015)	Price change of taxed beverages (soft drinks)
Sales of taxed beverages	7	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Mexico, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	Decrease, no statistical testing (Andalón and Gibson,⁴¹ 2017; Bonilla-Chacin et al,⁴² 2016; ECSIPC,⁵⁶ 2014; Pizzutti,⁷¹ 2019; Oxford Economics⁷⁹ 2017). Decrease, significant (Pedraza et al,⁴⁴ 2018; Baskin and Coary,⁷⁶ 2019)	Change in volume sold of taxed beverages, change in sales for taxed beverages
	2	Tiered volume-based excise tax	Portugal and United Kingdom	Decrease, significant (Goiana-da-Silva et al,⁶⁵ 2020). Decrease, no statistical testing (Public Health England,⁵² 2019)	Change in volume sold of taxed beverages
	1	Sales tax	United States	No significant change (Colantuoni and Rojas,⁹³ 2015)	Change in volume sold of soft drinks
Sales of substitution beverages	7	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Denmark; Mexico; Saudi Arabia; Berkeley, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	No significant change (Aguilar et al,²⁹ 2019; Baskin and Coary,⁷⁶ 2019). No change, no statistical testing (ECSIPC,⁵⁶ 2014; Alsukait et al,⁶⁶ 2020). Increase, significant (Taylor et al,⁹⁰ 2019). Increase, no statistical testing (Pizzutti,⁷¹ 2019). Mixed results (Pedraza et al,⁴⁴ 2018)	Change in volume sold of untaxed beverages, change in sales for untaxed beverages
Sales of substitution beverages	1	Tiered volume-based excise tax	United Kingdom	Increase, no statistical testing (Public Health England,⁵² 2019)	Change in volume sold of taxed beverages
Consumption of taxed beverages	3	Sales tax	United States	No significant change (Fletcher et al,⁹⁴ 2015; Fletcher et al,⁹⁷ 2010). Decrease, significant (Fletcher et al,⁹⁵ 2010)	Change in volume consumed (soft drinks)
Consumption of taxed beverages	1	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Mexico	Decrease, significant (Sánchez-Romero et al,⁴⁵ 2020)	Probability of consumption levels
Consumption, substitution beverages	2	Sales tax	United States	Increase, significant (Fletcher et al,⁹⁴ 2015). Mixed results (Fletcher et al,⁹⁵ 2010)	Change in intake of untaxed beverages
Outcomes not included in meta-analyses, narrative synthesis only
Cross-border shopping	7	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Cook County, Illinois; Oakland, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington	Increase (Cawley et al,⁷⁰ 2019; Seiler et al,⁷³ 2019; Powell et al,¹⁰⁴ 2020). Increase, no statistical testing (Pizzutti,⁷¹ 2019; Oxford Economics,⁷⁹ 2017). Mixed results (Cawley et al,⁹⁹ 2020). No significant change (Powell and Leider,¹⁰⁶ 2020)	Increased taxed beverage sales in nearby tax-free areas
Retailer sales revenue	4	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Berkeley, California, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	Decrease, significant (Baskin and Coary,⁷⁶ 2019). Mixed results (Roberto et al,⁷² 2019). Increase, no statistical testing (Silver et al,⁸⁹ 2017). Decrease, no statistical testing Oxford Economics,⁷⁹ 2017)	Reduced total sales in taxed jurisdictions
Employment	2	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Mexico and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	No significant change (Guerrero-Lopez et al,⁴³ 2017; Lawman et al,⁷⁸ 2019). Decrease, significant (Guerrero-Lopez et al,⁴³ 2017)	Unemployment; employment in beverage manufacturing
Other	2	Tiered volume-based excise tax	United Kingdom	No significant change (Law et al,⁵⁰ 2020; Law et al,⁵¹ 2020)	Turnover (soft drink manufacturing), market return
Other	1	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Oakland, California	No significant change (Zenk et al,¹⁰² 2020)	Store advertising
Product change or reformulation	6	Tiered volume-based excise tax	Portugal and United Kingdom	Decrease, no statistical testing (Chu et al,⁴⁸ 2020; Hashem et al,⁴⁹ 2019; Public Health England,⁵² 2019; Goiana-da-Silva,⁶⁵ 2020). Decrease, significant (Scarborough et al,⁴⁷ 2020)	Sugar content, beverage energy content and density
Product change or reformulation	6	Tiered sugar-based excise tax	South Africa	Decrease, no statistical testing (Stacey et al,⁶⁷ 2019)	Sugar content, beverage energy content and density
Body weight	5	Sales tax	United States	No significant change (Fletcher et al,⁹⁴ 2015; Fletcher et al,⁹⁵ 2010; Fletcher et al,⁹⁷ 2010; Pak,⁹⁸ 2013). Decrease, significant (Fletcher et al,⁹⁶ 2010)	Body mass index, overweight, obesity
Dietary intake/quality	2	Sales tax	United States	No significant change (Fletcher et al,⁹⁵ 2010). Increase, significant (Fletcher et al,⁹⁴ 2015)	Nutrient intake, total calories

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ECSIPC, European Competitiveness and Sustainable Industrial Policy Consortium; SSB, sugar-sweetened beverages.

Unintended consequences had studies in several areas: cross-border shopping (ie, increased sales of taxed beverages in areas adjacent to taxing jurisdictions); retailer revenue; employment and unemployment; and other factors (market return, turnover for beverage manufacturers, exterior and interior store advertising for SSBs). For local US taxes, most studies on cross-border shopping pointed to a significant increase^70,73,104 or an increase that was not statistically tested.^71,79 However, there were studies with statistically significant findings only for certain measures of cross-border shopping⁹⁹ or none at all.¹⁰⁶ Several studies also showed a reduction in total grocery sales for all⁷⁶ or some retailers.⁷² Evaluations of national taxes did not assess cross-border shopping or retailer revenue outcomes. Unemployment changes due to SSB taxes were identified as null in a Philadelphia-based study⁷⁸ and a Mexico-based study found no change in manufacturing jobs and lower national unemployment rates.⁴³ There were no significant posttax changes for the other factors, including store SSB advertising and price promotions,¹⁰² market return,⁵¹ and turnover for UK soft drink manufacturers.⁵⁰

BMI outcomes were assessed for US-based sales taxes only, with no association identified in 4 studies^94,95,97,98 and a negative association in 1 study.⁹⁶ Similarly, diet changes were assessed for small US sales taxes, with no change in total calorie intake in 1 study⁹⁵ and increased intake in another.⁹⁴ No evidence was available yet for BMI and dietary outcomes based on recent excise taxes in either the US or globally.

All 6 studies^{47,48,49,52,65,67} on product changes in the case of tiered taxes found evidence of beverage reformulation and reduction in sugar content. One study⁴⁷ provided statistical testing to show beverage reformulation following the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy and found a significant reduction in the share of beverages exceeding the lower levy threshold for sugar.

Results From Subpopulation Analyses

Only a fraction of studies included subpopulation comparisons, particularly for outcomes other than sales. Evaluations of US-based local taxes had very limited data across population groups. We completed a subgroup analysis by income or socioeconomic status (SES) only; comparisons by other sociodemographic characteristics were rare. The definition of SES varied across studies.

Overall, results on subpopulation differences were mixed across countries. Not all studies formally tested group differences. For sales, the evidence from Mexico was consistent in identifying higher reductions in SSB sales for low-income or low-SES households.^{34,35,37,39,42,44} Findings in other countries were less consistent. For example, 1 Philadelphia-based study showed no difference in SSB sales by income, race, or ethnicity,⁷⁰ while another study from this city found a lower reduction in SSB sales in low-income residential areas.⁷³ Four studies reported greater declines in SSB sales for higher income groups or areas, including in Chile^57,59 and Catalonia, Spain.^109,111 A UK-based evaluation showed that the reduction in sugar purchased per household from taxed beverages was the smallest in the lowest SES group (9% vs 24% overall).⁵²

Inconsistent findings were observed in the data on subgroup differences for beverage substitution. There was little by-group data on consumption of SSB substitutes, including findings of no variation by income in the consumption results in Philadelphia⁷⁰ and Mexico.⁴⁵ The Philadelphia study identified heterogeneity in posttax SSB consumption across other sociodemographic characteristics, including larger effect sizes and a statistically significant reduction for African American children.⁷⁰ Finally, 1 study on BMI and SSB taxes reported larger changes among female individuals, middle-aged and older individuals, and individuals with greater education, with varied findings across racial and ethnic groups.⁹⁶

Discussion

We have conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of worldwide published and grey literature on the outcomes associated with implemented fiscal and pricing policies on SSBs. The evidence suggests several important conclusions about the outcomes following implementation of SSB taxes and implications for improving nutrition and health.

Most SSB tax evaluations focused on posttax changes in prices and sales. There is conclusive evidence that SSB taxes are associated with higher prices of taxed beverages and lower sales, suggesting that consumers respond to economic interventions. Across all studies and SSB tax policies worldwide, we found an 82% tax pass-through rate and highly sensitive demand for SSBs, with an estimated price elasticity of −1.59 for SSB sales. Given that many SSB taxes to date have been relatively small (ie, raising prices by ≤10%) with an incomplete pass-through, the average reduction in sales of taxed beverages was approximately 15%. The findings for prices and sales come from overwhelmingly high-quality studies, and the findings from the meta-analysis were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. Studies of beverage sales found no evidence, on average, of substitution to untaxed beverages.

Whereas study quality was generally high for price and sales evaluations, consumption assessments were often deemed as low quality. Large representative studies to identify changes in SSB consumption for both children and adults are currently lacking. Meta-analyzed estimates of tax-related changes in consumption were not statistically significant, potentially due to a small number of studies with limited statistical power. Just as for sales, there was no evidence of substitution toward untaxed beverages based on consumption studies.

The data are currently not granular enough to enable analyses of tax outcomes for population subgroups. Most studies provide aggregate results for the general population, with only a small subset of research reporting data for subpopulations, usually by SES or household income. This is likely due to the frequent reliance of tax evaluations on retailer-based scanner data aggregated at the store level. Some national tax evaluations have used household consumer panels where income and limited sociodemographic variables are available. As only a fraction of studies included subgroup analyses, it is unlikely that income and/or SES differences account for much of the heterogeneity in the overall results. Future research should focus on understanding heterogeneity of policy response across subpopulations, including racial and ethnic differences and the equity impacts of SSB taxes.

Tiered taxes were associated with beverage reformulation and reduced sugar content of taxed beverages. Unintended consequences were detected only in the case of local SSB taxes in the United States, where, in some cases, there was evidence of cross-border shopping and reduced revenue among local retailers. Literature on employment and SSB taxes is still limited, but so far there is no evidence of a negative association between SSB taxes and jobs. Longer-term studies are needed to assess how changes in SSB taxes are associated with dietary intake, BMI, and health outcomes. Prior studies on BMI and SSB taxes were limited to research on low state sales taxes, which are unlikely to adequately represent potential changes in BMI outcomes of recent excise SSB taxes. Most SSB taxes are recent phenomena, and not enough time has passed to allow for such evaluations. Research on the long-term outcomes of implemented excise SSB taxes will be necessary. It is also important to acknowledge that the effectiveness of SSB taxes could change over time, and future research should compare immediate vs longer-term outcomes.

Results from this review align with evidence on the outcomes of fiscal policies to reduce consumption of other so-called sin products, including tobacco and alcohol. Governments around the world have increasingly used excise taxes on these products to discourage consumption and reduce adverse health consequences, with documented success.¹¹⁵ Additionally, similar to our results on employment, tobacco and alcohol taxes were shown to have no negative overall impact on employment.¹¹⁵

Limitations

This study has limitations. Multiple outcomes could not be meta-analyzed due to a low number of available studies. The selection of outcomes was predetermined by the NUGAG committee, and therefore, the review did not include outcomes of potential interest, such as tax revenue. For several key outcomes, particularly SSB prices and sales, the heterogeneity was very high, likely reflecting the variation in the study design, quality, and data sources. We have attempted to account for the variation in the tax designs by estimating 3-level random effects models with tax jurisdiction as 1 level (clustering). In our assessment of heterogeneity caused by tax jurisdiction and between-study variation (eTable 4 in the Supplement), we found that outcomes vary in the magnitude of heterogeneity contributed by tax jurisdiction (eg, price elasticity for consumption shows large heterogeneity [high τ²] associated with tax jurisdiction). This is likely caused by the large differences in effect sizes seen between studies from different regions (eFigure 3 in the Supplement). The high I² values identified in this study suggest that most of the variability across studies is because of heterogeneity rather than sampling error.²¹ More country- and jurisdiction-specific studies are needed to capture regional variability in effects to provide a fuller picture of the outcomes of SSB taxation across the globe. Additionally, stratifying by type of store or type of study design was not feasible given the low number of studies in each subgroup.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis of implemented SSB taxes worldwide found evidence that consumers respond to economic interventions; the review showed that SSB taxes were associated with higher prices of taxed beverages and lower sales. Further research on SSB taxes is needed to understand associations with diet and health outcomes and to assess heterogeneity of consumer responses to improve policy reach and effectiveness.

Supplement.

eAppendix 1. Search Terms and Search Results

eAppendix 2. Computation of Price Elasticity of Demand and Cross-Price Elasticity of Demand Measures

eTable 1. Quality Assessment of Fiscal Policy Studies

eTable 2. Characteristics of Studies

eTable 3. Summary of Sensitivity and Sub-group Meta-Analyses

eTable 4. Sources of Heterogeneity (τ²) for 3-Level Random-Effects Models

eFigure 1. Meta-analysis of SSB Sales Following SSB Taxes: Percentage Change in Demand for Taxed Beverages

eFigure 2. Meta-analysis of Substitution Beverage Sales Following SSB Taxes: Cross-Price Elasticity

eFigure 3. Meta-analysis of SSB Consumption Following SSB Taxes: Price Elasticity of Demand for Taxed Beverages

eFigure 4. Meta-analysis of SSB Consumption Following SSB Taxes: Percentage Change in Demand for Taxed Beverages

eFigure 5. Meta-analysis of Consumption of Substitution Beverages Following SSB Taxes: Cross-Price Elasticity

eFigure 6. Publication Bias: Funnel Plots

Click here for additional data file.^{(3.1MB, pdf)}

References

1.Brownell KD, Farley T, Willett WC, et al. The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(16):1599-1605. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr0905723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.World Health Organization . Fiscal policies for diet and prevention of noncommunicable diseases: technical meeting report, 5-6 May 2015, Geneva, Switzerland. 2016. Accessed October 12, 2021. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/obesity/fiscal-policies-for-diet-and-the-prevention-of-noncommunicable-diseases-0.pdf?sfvrsn=84ee20c_2
3.World Health Organization . Global Health Observatory. Noncommunicable diseases: mortality. Accessed October 12, 2021. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/ncd-mortality
4.World Health Organization . Mortality and Burden of Disease Estimates for WHO Member States in 2004. World Health Organization; 2009. [Google Scholar]
5.Popkin BM, Du S, Green WD, et al. Individuals with obesity and COVID-19: a global perspective on the epidemiology and biological relationships. Obes Rev. 2020;21(11):e13128. doi: 10.1111/obr.13128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Kompaniyets L, Goodman AB, Belay B, et al. Body mass index and risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and death—United States, March-December 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(10):355-361. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7010e4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Malik VS, Pan A, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(4):1084-1102. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.058362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25):2392-2404. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1014296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Li H, Liang H, Yang H, et al. Association between intake of sweetened beverages with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Public Health (Oxf). Published online April 9, 2021. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.UNC Carolina Population Center, Global Food Research Program . Sugary drink taxes around the world. September 2021. Accessed March 12, 2022. https://www.globalfoodresearchprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SugaryDrink_tax_maps_PPTs_2021_September.pdf
11.Andreyeva T, Long MW, Brownell KD. The impact of food prices on consumption: a systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(2):216-222. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.151415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Khan T, Wada R, Chaloupka FJ. Assessing the potential effectiveness of food and beverage taxes and subsidies for improving public health: a systematic review of prices, demand and body weight outcomes. Obes Rev. 2013;14(2):110-128. doi: 10.1111/obr.12002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Nakhimovsky SS, Feigl AB, Avila C, O’Sullivan G, Macgregor-Skinner E, Spranca M. Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce overweight and obesity in middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163358. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Backholer K, Sarink D, Beauchamp A, et al. The impact of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages according to socio-economic position: a systematic review of the evidence. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(17):3070-3084. doi: 10.1017/S136898001600104X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Teng AM, Jones AC, Mizdrak A, Signal L, Genç M, Wilson N. Impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on purchases and dietary intake: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2019;20(9):1187-1204. doi: 10.1111/obr.12868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Afshin A, Peñalvo JL, Del Gobbo L, et al. The prospective impact of food pricing on improving dietary consumption: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0172277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Alagiyawanna A, Townsend N, Mytton O, Scarborough P, Roberts N, Rayner M. Studying the consumption and health outcomes of fiscal interventions (taxes and subsidies) on food and beverages in countries of different income classifications; a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:887. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2201-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Van den Noortgate W, López-López JA, Marín-Martínez F, Sánchez-Meca J. Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behav Res Methods. 2013;45(2):576-594. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Borenstein M, Higgins JPT, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta-analysis: I² is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):5-18. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):137-159. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22(4):153-160. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa T, Ebert DD. dmetar: Companion R package for the guide “Doing Meta-Analysis in R.” Accessed September 10, 2021. http://dmetar.protectlab.org
27.Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1-48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.R Core Team . R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.R-project.org
29.Aguilar A, Gutierrez E, Seira E. The effectiveness of sin food taxes: evidence from Mexico. SSRN. December 27, 2019. Accessed September 7, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3510243 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3510243 [DOI] [PubMed]
30.Arteaga JC, Flores D, Luna E. The effect of a soft-drink tax in Mexico: a time series approach. MPRA Paper No. 80831. August 16, 2017. Accessed September 7, 2021. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/80831/1/MPRA_paper_80831.pdf
31.Campos-Vázquez RM, Medina-Cortina EM. Pass-through and competition: the impact of soft drink taxes as seen through Mexican supermarkets. Lat Am Econ Rev. 2019;28:3. doi: 10.1186/s40503-019-0065-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32.Colchero MA, Salgado JC, Unar-Munguía M, Molina M, Ng S, Rivera-Dommarco JA. Changes in prices after an excise tax to sweetened sugar beverages was implemented in Mexico: evidence from urban areas. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Colchero MA, Guerrero-López CM, Molina M, Rivera JA. Beverages sales in Mexico before and after implementation of a sugar sweetened beverage tax. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Colchero MA, Popkin BM, Rivera JA, Ng SW. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ. 2016;352:h6704. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h6704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Colchero MA, Rivera-Dommarco J, Popkin BM, Ng SW. In Mexico, evidence of sustained consumer response two years after implementing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(3):564-571. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Colchero MA, Zavala JA, Batis C, Shamah-Levy T, Rivera-Dommarco JA. Changes in prices of taxed sugar-sweetened beverages and nonessential energy dense food in rural and semi-rural areas in Mexico. Article in Spanish. Salud Publica Mex. 2017;59(2):137-146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Colchero MA, Molina M, Guerrero-López CM. After Mexico implemented a tax, purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages decreased and water increased: difference by place of residence, household composition, and income level. J Nutr. 2017;147(8):1552-1557. doi: 10.3945/jn.117.251892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Grogger J. Soda taxes and the prices of sodas and other drinks: evidence from Mexico. Am J Agric Econ. 2017;99(2):481-498. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aax024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
39.Ng SW, Rivera JA, Popkin BM, Colchero MA. Did high sugar-sweetened beverage purchasers respond differently to the excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Mexico? Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(4):750-756. doi: 10.1017/S136898001800321X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Pedraza LS, Popkin BM, Batis C, et al. The caloric and sugar content of beverages purchased at different store-types changed after the sugary drinks taxation in Mexico. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):103. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0872-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Andalón M, Gibson J. The “soda tax” is unlikely to make Mexicans lighter: new evidence on biases in elasticities of demand for soda. IZA Discussion Paper No 10765. May 22, 2017. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2971381
42.Bonilla-Chacin ME, Iglesias R, Suaya A, Trezza C, Macías C. Learning from the Mexican experience with taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and energy-dense foods of low nutritional value. World Bank Group, Open Knowledge Repository (OKR). 2016. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24701
43.Guerrero-López CM, Molina M, Colchero MA. Employment changes associated with the introduction of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and nonessential energy-dense food in Mexico. Prev Med. 2017;105S:S43-S49. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Pedraza LS, Popkin BM, Salgado JC, Taillie LS. Mexican households’ purchases of foods and beverages vary by store-type, taxation status, and SES. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):1044. doi: 10.3390/nu10081044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Sánchez-Romero LM, Canto-Osorio F, González-Morales R, et al. 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. 2020;369:m1311. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Dubois P, Griffith R, O’Connell M. How well targeted are soda taxes? Am Econ Rev. 2020;110(11):3661-3704. doi: 10.1257/aer.20171898 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Scarborough P, Adhikari V, Harrington RA, et al. 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. 2020;17(2):e1003025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Chu BTY, Irigaray CP, Hillier SE, Clegg ME. The sugar content of children’s and lunchbox beverages sold in the UK before and after the soft drink industry levy. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020;74(4):598-603. doi: 10.1038/s41430-019-0489-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Hashem KM, He FJ, MacGregor GA. Labelling changes in response to a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(12):818-827. doi: 10.2471/BLT.19.234542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Law C, Cornelsen L, Adams J, et al. The impact of UK soft drinks industry levy on manufacturers’ domestic turnover. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;37:100866. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Law C, Cornelsen L, Adams J, et al. An analysis of the stock market reaction to the announcements of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;38:100834. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2019.100834 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Public Health England . Sugar reduction: report on progress between 2015 and 2018. September 2019. Accessed September 7, 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sugar-reduction-progress-between-2015-and-2018
53.Berardi N, Sevestre P, Tépaut M, Vigneron A. The impact of a ‘soda tax’ on prices: evidence from French micro data. Appl Econ. 2016;48(41):3976-3994. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2016.1150946 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
54.Capacci S, Allais O, Bonnet C, Mazzocchi M. The impact of the French soda tax on prices and purchases. an ex post evaluation. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0223196. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Etilé F, Lecocq S, Boizot-Szantai C. The incidence of soft-drink taxes on consumer prices and welfare: evidence from the French “soda tax.” HAL PSE Working Papers 01808198. June 2018. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/halpsewpa/halshs-01808198.htm
56.European Competitiveness and Sustainable Industrial Policy Consortium (ECSIPC) . Food taxes and their impact on competitiveness in the agri-food sector: final report. July 12, 2014. Accessed September 7, 2021. https://nutritionconnect.org/resource-center/food-taxes-and-their-impact-competitiveness
57.Caro JC, Corvalán C, Reyes M, Silva A, Popkin B, Taillie LS. Chile’s 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax and changes in prices and purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages: an observational study in an urban environment. PLoS Med. 2018;15(7):e1002597. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002597 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Cuadrado C, Dunstan J, Silva-Illanes N, Mirelman AJ, Nakamura R, Suhrcke M. Effects of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax on prices and affordability of soft drinks in Chile: a time series analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2020;245:112708. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Nakamura R, Mirelman AJ, Cuadrado C, Silva-Illanes N, Dunstan J, Suhrcke M. Evaluating the 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Chile: an observational study in urban areas. PLoS Med. 2018;15(7):e1002596. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Bergman UM, Hansen NL. Are excise taxes on beverages fully passed through to prices? the Danish evidence. Finanzarchiv. 2019;75(4):323-356. doi: 10.1628/fa-2019-0010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
61.Schmacker R, Smed S. Do prices and purchases respond similarly to soft drink tax increases and cuts? Econ Hum Biol. 2020;37:100864. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Alvarado M, Kostova D, Suhrcke M, et al. ; Barbados SSB Tax Evaluation Group . Trends in beverage prices following the introduction of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Barbados. Prev Med. 2017;105S:S23-S25. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Alvarado M, Unwin N, Sharp SJ, et al. Assessing the impact of the Barbados sugar-sweetened beverage tax on beverage sales: an observational study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0776-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Gonçalves J, Santos JPd. Brown sugar, how come you taste so good? the impact of a soda tax on prices and consumption. GEE Paper No. 124. August 2019. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://ideas.repec.org/p/mde/wpaper/00124.html [DOI] [PubMed]
65.Goiana-da-Silva F, Severo M, Cruz E Silva D, et al. Projected impact of the Portuguese sugar-sweetened beverage tax on obesity incidence across different age groups: a modelling study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(3):e1003036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Alsukait R, Wilde P, Bleich SN, Singh G, Folta SC. Evaluating Saudi Arabia’s 50% carbonated drink excise tax: changes in prices and volume sales. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;38:100868. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Stacey N, Mudara C, Ng SW, van Walbeek C, Hofman K, Edoka I. Sugar-based beverage taxes and beverage prices: evidence from South Africa’s Health Promotion Levy. Soc Sci Med. 2019;238:112465. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112465 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Cawley J, Willage B, Frisvold D. Pass-through of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages at the Philadelphia International Airport. JAMA. 2018;319(3):305-306. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.16903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69.Cawley J, Frisvold D, Jones D. The impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on purchases: evidence from four city-level taxes in the US. NBER Working Paper 26393, October 2019. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26393 [DOI] [PubMed]
70.Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on purchases and consumption by adults and children. J Health Econ. 2019;67:102225. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.102225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Pizzutti D. The Impact of a Soda Tax on Aggregate Consumer Behavior. Dissertation. Temple University Graduate School, 2019. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://scholarshare.temple.edu/handle/20.500.12613/2162
72.Roberto CA, Lawman HG, LeVasseur MT, et al. 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. 2019;321(18):1799-1810. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.4249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73.Seiler S, Tuchman A, Yao S. The impact of soda taxes: pass-through, tax avoidance, and nutritional effects. SSRN. October 26, 2019. Accessed September 12, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3302335
74.Zhong Y, Auchincloss AH, Lee BK, Kanter GP. The short-term impacts of the Philadelphia beverage tax on beverage consumption. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(1):26-34. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.02.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Zhong Y, Auchincloss AH, Lee BK, McKenna RM, Langellier BA. Sugar-sweetened and diet beverage consumption in Philadelphia one year after the beverage tax. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(4):1336. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Baskin E, Coary SP. Implications of the Philadelphia beverage tax on sales and beverage substitution for a major grocery retailer chain. J Int Food Agribus Mark. 2019;31(3):293-307. doi: 10.1080/08974438.2018.1520180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
77.Coary S, Baskin E. Sweetened beverages excise tax passthrough rates: a case study in Philadelphia. J Int Food Agribus Mark. 2018;30(4):382-391. doi: 10.1080/08974438.2018.1449696 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
78.Lawman HG, Bleich SN, Yan J, LeVasseur MT, Mitra N, Roberto CA. Unemployment claims in Philadelphia one year after implementation of the sweetened beverage tax. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0213218. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79.Oxford Economics. The economic impact of Philadelphia’s beverage tax. December 2017. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.ameribev.org/files/resources/oe-economic-impact-study.pdf
80.Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on prices and product availability. J Policy Anal Manage. 2020;39(3):605-628. doi: 10.1002/pam.22201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
81.Cawley J, Frisvold DE. The pass-through of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to retail prices: the case of Berkeley, California. J Policy Anal Manage. 2017;36(2):303-326. doi: 10.1002/pam.21960 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
82.Bollinger B, Sexton S. Local excise taxes, sticky prices, and spillovers: evidence from Berkeley’s soda tax. SSRN. January 12, 2018. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3087966
83.Falbe J, Rojas N, Grummon AH, Madsen KA. Higher retail prices of sugar-sweetened beverages 3 months after implementation of an excise tax in Berkeley, California. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(11):2194-2201. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302881 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84.Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):1865-1871. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85.Lee MM, Falbe J, Schillinger D, Basu S, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption 3 years after the Berkeley, California, sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(4):637-639. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.304971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86.Lozano-Rojas F. A matter of design in soda taxes: tax sugar instead of volume. SSRN. May 18, 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3225901
87.Mendez S. Brand power, pass-through, and consumption effects of municipal taxes: evidence from Berkeley, CA. SSRN. September 3, 2019. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3471376 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3471376 [DOI]
88.Rojas C, Wang E. Do taxes for soda and sugary drinks work? scanner data evidence from Berkeley, CA and Washington State. SSRN. October 2017. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3041989
89.Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, et al. 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. 2017;14(4):e1002283. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
90.Taylor RLC, Kaplan S, Villas-Boas SB, Jung K. Soda wars: the effect of a soda tax election on university beverage sales. Econ Inq. 2019;57(3):1480-1496. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12776 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
91.Zhang Y, Palma MA. Revisiting sugar taxes and sugary drink consumption: evidence from the random-coefficient demand model. J Agric Resour Econ. 2020;46(1):37-55. [Google Scholar]
92.Hoffer A, Sheehan K. Expenditure effects from the 2010 Washington soda tax. Rev Reg Stud. 2020;50(1):127-141. doi: 10.52324/001c.12608 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
93.Colantuoni F, Rojas C. The impact of soda sales taxes on consumption: evidence from scanner data. Contemp Econ Policy. 2015;33(4):714-734. doi: 10.1111/coep.12101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
94.Fletcher JM, Frisvold DE, Tefft N. Non-linear effects of soda taxes on consumption and weight outcomes. Health Econ. 2015;24(5):566-582. doi: 10.1002/hec.3045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95.Fletcher JM, Frisvold DE, Tefft N. The effects of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and weight outcomes. J Public Econ. 2010;94(11/12):967-974. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.09.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
96.Fletcher JM, Frisvold D, Tefft N. Can soft drink taxes reduce population weight? Contemp Econ Policy. 2010;28(1):23-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00182.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
97.Fletcher JM, Frisvold D, Tefft N. Taxing soft drinks and restricting access to vending machines to curb child obesity. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(5):1059-1066. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98.Pak T. The Unequal Distribution of Body Mass Index: Examining the Effect of State-Level Soft Drink Taxes on Obesity Inequality. Thesis. University of Georgia. May 2013. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/pak_tae-young_201305_ms.pdf
99.Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D. Oakland’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax: impacts on prices, purchases and consumption by adults and children. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;37:100865. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100865 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100.Falbe J, Lee MM, Kaplan S, Rojas NA, Ortega Hinojosa AM, Madsen KA. Higher sugar-sweetened beverage retail prices after excise taxes in Oakland and San Francisco. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(7):1017-1023. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101.Marinello S, Pipito AA, Leider J, Pugach O, Powell LM. The impact of the Oakland sugar-sweetened beverage tax on bottled soda and fountain drink prices in fast-food restaurants. Prev Med Rep. 2019;17:101034. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.101034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102.Zenk SN, Leider J, Pugach O, Pipito AA, Powell LM. Changes in beverage marketing at stores following the Oakland sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Am J Prev Med. 2020;58(5):648-656. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.12.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103.Leider J, Pipito AA, Powell LM. The impact of the Cook County, Illinois, sweetened beverage tax on prices, 2017. Illinois Prevention Research Center Brief No. 105. September 2018. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://p3rc.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/561/2019/12/Tax-Pass-Through_Cook-County-IL-Illinois-PRC-Brief-No.-105-Sept-2018-5.pdf
104.Powell LM, Leider J, Léger PT. The impact of a sweetened beverage tax on beverage volume sold in Cook County, Illinois, and its border area. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(6):390-397. doi: 10.7326/M19-2961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
105.Powell LM, Leider J, Léger PT. The impact of the Cook County, IL, sweetened beverage tax on beverage prices. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;37:100855. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100855 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
106.Powell LM, Leider J. The impact of Seattle’s sweetened beverage tax on beverage prices and volume sold. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;37:100856. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100856 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
107.Saelens BE, Rowland M, Qu P, et al. 12 Month report: store audits and child cohort: the evaluation of Seattle’s sweetened beverage tax. March 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/SBT_12MonthReport.pdf
108.Public Health Seattle and King County . 6 Month report: store audits: the evaluation of Seattle’s sweetened beverage tax. January 2019. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/6%20Month%20Store%20Audit%20Report%20.pdf
109.Mora T, Fichera E, Lopez-Valcarcel BG, Roche D. Do consumers respond to “sin taxes” heterogeneously? new evidence from the tax on sugary drinks using longitudinal scanner data. Working paper, 2018.
110.Royo-Bordonada MÁ, Fernández-Escobar C, Simón L, Sanz-Barbero B, Padilla J. Impact of an excise tax on the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in young people living in poorer neighbourhoods of Catalonia, Spain: a difference in differences study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1553. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7908-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
111.Vall Castelló J, Lopez Casasnovas G. Impact of SSB taxes on sales. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;36:100821. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2019.100821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
112.Cawley J, Crain C, Frisvold D, Jones D. The pass-through of the largest tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: the case of Boulder, Colorado. NBER Working Paper 25050. September 2018. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25050/w25050.pdf
113.Breeze P, Womack R, Pryce R, Brennan A, Goyder E. The impact of a local sugar sweetened beverage health promotion and price increase on sales in public leisure centre facilities. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0194637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114.Cornelsen L, Mytton OT, Adams J, et al. Change in non-alcoholic beverage sales following a 10-pence levy on sugar-sweetened beverages within a national chain of restaurants in the UK: interrupted time series analysis of a natural experiment. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71(11):1107-1112. doi: 10.1136/jech-2017-209947 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115.Chaloupka FJ, Powell LM, Warner KE. The use of excise taxes to reduce tobacco, alcohol, and sugary beverage consumption. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40:187-201. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement.

eAppendix 1. Search Terms and Search Results

eAppendix 2. Computation of Price Elasticity of Demand and Cross-Price Elasticity of Demand Measures

eTable 1. Quality Assessment of Fiscal Policy Studies

eTable 2. Characteristics of Studies

eTable 3. Summary of Sensitivity and Sub-group Meta-Analyses

eTable 4. Sources of Heterogeneity (τ²) for 3-Level Random-Effects Models

eFigure 1. Meta-analysis of SSB Sales Following SSB Taxes: Percentage Change in Demand for Taxed Beverages

eFigure 2. Meta-analysis of Substitution Beverage Sales Following SSB Taxes: Cross-Price Elasticity

eFigure 3. Meta-analysis of SSB Consumption Following SSB Taxes: Price Elasticity of Demand for Taxed Beverages

eFigure 4. Meta-analysis of SSB Consumption Following SSB Taxes: Percentage Change in Demand for Taxed Beverages

eFigure 5. Meta-analysis of Consumption of Substitution Beverages Following SSB Taxes: Cross-Price Elasticity

eFigure 6. Publication Bias: Funnel Plots

Click here for additional data file.^{(3.1MB, pdf)}

[zoi220446r1] 1.Brownell KD, Farley T, Willett WC, et al. The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(16):1599-1605. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr0905723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r2] 2.World Health Organization . Fiscal policies for diet and prevention of noncommunicable diseases: technical meeting report, 5-6 May 2015, Geneva, Switzerland. 2016. Accessed October 12, 2021. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/obesity/fiscal-policies-for-diet-and-the-prevention-of-noncommunicable-diseases-0.pdf?sfvrsn=84ee20c_2

[zoi220446r3] 3.World Health Organization . Global Health Observatory. Noncommunicable diseases: mortality. Accessed October 12, 2021. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/ncd-mortality

[zoi220446r4] 4.World Health Organization . Mortality and Burden of Disease Estimates for WHO Member States in 2004. World Health Organization; 2009. [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r5] 5.Popkin BM, Du S, Green WD, et al. Individuals with obesity and COVID-19: a global perspective on the epidemiology and biological relationships. Obes Rev. 2020;21(11):e13128. doi: 10.1111/obr.13128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r6] 6.Kompaniyets L, Goodman AB, Belay B, et al. Body mass index and risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and death—United States, March-December 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(10):355-361. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7010e4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r7] 7.Malik VS, Pan A, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(4):1084-1102. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.058362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r8] 8.Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25):2392-2404. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1014296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r9] 9.Li H, Liang H, Yang H, et al. Association between intake of sweetened beverages with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Public Health (Oxf). Published online April 9, 2021. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r10] 10.UNC Carolina Population Center, Global Food Research Program . Sugary drink taxes around the world. September 2021. Accessed March 12, 2022. https://www.globalfoodresearchprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SugaryDrink_tax_maps_PPTs_2021_September.pdf

[zoi220446r11] 11.Andreyeva T, Long MW, Brownell KD. The impact of food prices on consumption: a systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(2):216-222. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.151415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r12] 12.Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Khan T, Wada R, Chaloupka FJ. Assessing the potential effectiveness of food and beverage taxes and subsidies for improving public health: a systematic review of prices, demand and body weight outcomes. Obes Rev. 2013;14(2):110-128. doi: 10.1111/obr.12002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r13] 13.Nakhimovsky SS, Feigl AB, Avila C, O’Sullivan G, Macgregor-Skinner E, Spranca M. Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce overweight and obesity in middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163358. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r14] 14.Backholer K, Sarink D, Beauchamp A, et al. The impact of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages according to socio-economic position: a systematic review of the evidence. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(17):3070-3084. doi: 10.1017/S136898001600104X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r15] 15.Teng AM, Jones AC, Mizdrak A, Signal L, Genç M, Wilson N. Impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on purchases and dietary intake: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2019;20(9):1187-1204. doi: 10.1111/obr.12868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r16] 16.Afshin A, Peñalvo JL, Del Gobbo L, et al. The prospective impact of food pricing on improving dietary consumption: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0172277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r17] 17.Alagiyawanna A, Townsend N, Mytton O, Scarborough P, Roberts N, Rayner M. Studying the consumption and health outcomes of fiscal interventions (taxes and subsidies) on food and beverages in countries of different income classifications; a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:887. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2201-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r18] 18.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r19] 19.Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r20] 20.Van den Noortgate W, López-López JA, Marín-Martínez F, Sánchez-Meca J. Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behav Res Methods. 2013;45(2):576-594. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r21] 21.Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r22] 22.Borenstein M, Higgins JPT, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta-analysis: I² is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):5-18. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r23] 23.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):137-159. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r24] 24.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r25] 25.Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22(4):153-160. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r26] 26.Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa T, Ebert DD. dmetar: Companion R package for the guide “Doing Meta-Analysis in R.” Accessed September 10, 2021. http://dmetar.protectlab.org

[zoi220446r27] 27.Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1-48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r28] 28.R Core Team . R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.R-project.org

[zoi220446r29] 29.Aguilar A, Gutierrez E, Seira E. The effectiveness of sin food taxes: evidence from Mexico. SSRN. December 27, 2019. Accessed September 7, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3510243 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3510243 [DOI] [PubMed]

[zoi220446r30] 30.Arteaga JC, Flores D, Luna E. The effect of a soft-drink tax in Mexico: a time series approach. MPRA Paper No. 80831. August 16, 2017. Accessed September 7, 2021. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/80831/1/MPRA_paper_80831.pdf

[zoi220446r31] 31.Campos-Vázquez RM, Medina-Cortina EM. Pass-through and competition: the impact of soft drink taxes as seen through Mexican supermarkets. Lat Am Econ Rev. 2019;28:3. doi: 10.1186/s40503-019-0065-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r32] 32.Colchero MA, Salgado JC, Unar-Munguía M, Molina M, Ng S, Rivera-Dommarco JA. Changes in prices after an excise tax to sweetened sugar beverages was implemented in Mexico: evidence from urban areas. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r33] 33.Colchero MA, Guerrero-López CM, Molina M, Rivera JA. Beverages sales in Mexico before and after implementation of a sugar sweetened beverage tax. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r34] 34.Colchero MA, Popkin BM, Rivera JA, Ng SW. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ. 2016;352:h6704. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h6704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r35] 35.Colchero MA, Rivera-Dommarco J, Popkin BM, Ng SW. In Mexico, evidence of sustained consumer response two years after implementing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(3):564-571. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r36] 36.Colchero MA, Zavala JA, Batis C, Shamah-Levy T, Rivera-Dommarco JA. Changes in prices of taxed sugar-sweetened beverages and nonessential energy dense food in rural and semi-rural areas in Mexico. Article in Spanish. Salud Publica Mex. 2017;59(2):137-146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r37] 37.Colchero MA, Molina M, Guerrero-López CM. After Mexico implemented a tax, purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages decreased and water increased: difference by place of residence, household composition, and income level. J Nutr. 2017;147(8):1552-1557. doi: 10.3945/jn.117.251892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r38] 38.Grogger J. Soda taxes and the prices of sodas and other drinks: evidence from Mexico. Am J Agric Econ. 2017;99(2):481-498. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aax024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r39] 39.Ng SW, Rivera JA, Popkin BM, Colchero MA. Did high sugar-sweetened beverage purchasers respond differently to the excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Mexico? Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(4):750-756. doi: 10.1017/S136898001800321X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r40] 40.Pedraza LS, Popkin BM, Batis C, et al. The caloric and sugar content of beverages purchased at different store-types changed after the sugary drinks taxation in Mexico. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):103. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0872-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r41] 41.Andalón M, Gibson J. The “soda tax” is unlikely to make Mexicans lighter: new evidence on biases in elasticities of demand for soda. IZA Discussion Paper No 10765. May 22, 2017. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2971381

[zoi220446r42] 42.Bonilla-Chacin ME, Iglesias R, Suaya A, Trezza C, Macías C. Learning from the Mexican experience with taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and energy-dense foods of low nutritional value. World Bank Group, Open Knowledge Repository (OKR). 2016. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24701

[zoi220446r43] 43.Guerrero-López CM, Molina M, Colchero MA. Employment changes associated with the introduction of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and nonessential energy-dense food in Mexico. Prev Med. 2017;105S:S43-S49. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r44] 44.Pedraza LS, Popkin BM, Salgado JC, Taillie LS. Mexican households’ purchases of foods and beverages vary by store-type, taxation status, and SES. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):1044. doi: 10.3390/nu10081044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r45] 45.Sánchez-Romero LM, Canto-Osorio F, González-Morales R, et al. 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. 2020;369:m1311. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r46] 46.Dubois P, Griffith R, O’Connell M. How well targeted are soda taxes? Am Econ Rev. 2020;110(11):3661-3704. doi: 10.1257/aer.20171898 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r47] 47.Scarborough P, Adhikari V, Harrington RA, et al. 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. 2020;17(2):e1003025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r48] 48.Chu BTY, Irigaray CP, Hillier SE, Clegg ME. The sugar content of children’s and lunchbox beverages sold in the UK before and after the soft drink industry levy. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020;74(4):598-603. doi: 10.1038/s41430-019-0489-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r49] 49.Hashem KM, He FJ, MacGregor GA. Labelling changes in response to a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(12):818-827. doi: 10.2471/BLT.19.234542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r50] 50.Law C, Cornelsen L, Adams J, et al. The impact of UK soft drinks industry levy on manufacturers’ domestic turnover. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;37:100866. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r51] 51.Law C, Cornelsen L, Adams J, et al. An analysis of the stock market reaction to the announcements of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;38:100834. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2019.100834 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r52] 52.Public Health England . Sugar reduction: report on progress between 2015 and 2018. September 2019. Accessed September 7, 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sugar-reduction-progress-between-2015-and-2018

[zoi220446r53] 53.Berardi N, Sevestre P, Tépaut M, Vigneron A. The impact of a ‘soda tax’ on prices: evidence from French micro data. Appl Econ. 2016;48(41):3976-3994. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2016.1150946 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r54] 54.Capacci S, Allais O, Bonnet C, Mazzocchi M. The impact of the French soda tax on prices and purchases. an ex post evaluation. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0223196. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r55] 55.Etilé F, Lecocq S, Boizot-Szantai C. The incidence of soft-drink taxes on consumer prices and welfare: evidence from the French “soda tax.” HAL PSE Working Papers 01808198. June 2018. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/halpsewpa/halshs-01808198.htm

[zoi220446r56] 56.European Competitiveness and Sustainable Industrial Policy Consortium (ECSIPC) . Food taxes and their impact on competitiveness in the agri-food sector: final report. July 12, 2014. Accessed September 7, 2021. https://nutritionconnect.org/resource-center/food-taxes-and-their-impact-competitiveness

[zoi220446r57] 57.Caro JC, Corvalán C, Reyes M, Silva A, Popkin B, Taillie LS. Chile’s 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax and changes in prices and purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages: an observational study in an urban environment. PLoS Med. 2018;15(7):e1002597. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002597 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r58] 58.Cuadrado C, Dunstan J, Silva-Illanes N, Mirelman AJ, Nakamura R, Suhrcke M. Effects of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax on prices and affordability of soft drinks in Chile: a time series analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2020;245:112708. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r59] 59.Nakamura R, Mirelman AJ, Cuadrado C, Silva-Illanes N, Dunstan J, Suhrcke M. Evaluating the 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Chile: an observational study in urban areas. PLoS Med. 2018;15(7):e1002596. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r60] 60.Bergman UM, Hansen NL. Are excise taxes on beverages fully passed through to prices? the Danish evidence. Finanzarchiv. 2019;75(4):323-356. doi: 10.1628/fa-2019-0010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r61] 61.Schmacker R, Smed S. Do prices and purchases respond similarly to soft drink tax increases and cuts? Econ Hum Biol. 2020;37:100864. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r62] 62.Alvarado M, Kostova D, Suhrcke M, et al. ; Barbados SSB Tax Evaluation Group . Trends in beverage prices following the introduction of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Barbados. Prev Med. 2017;105S:S23-S25. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r63] 63.Alvarado M, Unwin N, Sharp SJ, et al. Assessing the impact of the Barbados sugar-sweetened beverage tax on beverage sales: an observational study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0776-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r64] 64.Gonçalves J, Santos JPd. Brown sugar, how come you taste so good? the impact of a soda tax on prices and consumption. GEE Paper No. 124. August 2019. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://ideas.repec.org/p/mde/wpaper/00124.html [DOI] [PubMed]

[zoi220446r65] 65.Goiana-da-Silva F, Severo M, Cruz E Silva D, et al. Projected impact of the Portuguese sugar-sweetened beverage tax on obesity incidence across different age groups: a modelling study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(3):e1003036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r66] 66.Alsukait R, Wilde P, Bleich SN, Singh G, Folta SC. Evaluating Saudi Arabia’s 50% carbonated drink excise tax: changes in prices and volume sales. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;38:100868. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r67] 67.Stacey N, Mudara C, Ng SW, van Walbeek C, Hofman K, Edoka I. Sugar-based beverage taxes and beverage prices: evidence from South Africa’s Health Promotion Levy. Soc Sci Med. 2019;238:112465. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112465 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r68] 68.Cawley J, Willage B, Frisvold D. Pass-through of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages at the Philadelphia International Airport. JAMA. 2018;319(3):305-306. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.16903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r69] 69.Cawley J, Frisvold D, Jones D. The impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on purchases: evidence from four city-level taxes in the US. NBER Working Paper 26393, October 2019. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26393 [DOI] [PubMed]

[zoi220446r70] 70.Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on purchases and consumption by adults and children. J Health Econ. 2019;67:102225. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.102225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r71] 71.Pizzutti D. The Impact of a Soda Tax on Aggregate Consumer Behavior. Dissertation. Temple University Graduate School, 2019. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://scholarshare.temple.edu/handle/20.500.12613/2162

[zoi220446r72] 72.Roberto CA, Lawman HG, LeVasseur MT, et al. 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. 2019;321(18):1799-1810. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.4249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r73] 73.Seiler S, Tuchman A, Yao S. The impact of soda taxes: pass-through, tax avoidance, and nutritional effects. SSRN. October 26, 2019. Accessed September 12, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3302335

[zoi220446r74] 74.Zhong Y, Auchincloss AH, Lee BK, Kanter GP. The short-term impacts of the Philadelphia beverage tax on beverage consumption. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(1):26-34. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.02.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r75] 75.Zhong Y, Auchincloss AH, Lee BK, McKenna RM, Langellier BA. Sugar-sweetened and diet beverage consumption in Philadelphia one year after the beverage tax. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(4):1336. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r76] 76.Baskin E, Coary SP. Implications of the Philadelphia beverage tax on sales and beverage substitution for a major grocery retailer chain. J Int Food Agribus Mark. 2019;31(3):293-307. doi: 10.1080/08974438.2018.1520180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r77] 77.Coary S, Baskin E. Sweetened beverages excise tax passthrough rates: a case study in Philadelphia. J Int Food Agribus Mark. 2018;30(4):382-391. doi: 10.1080/08974438.2018.1449696 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r78] 78.Lawman HG, Bleich SN, Yan J, LeVasseur MT, Mitra N, Roberto CA. Unemployment claims in Philadelphia one year after implementation of the sweetened beverage tax. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0213218. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r79] 79.Oxford Economics. The economic impact of Philadelphia’s beverage tax. December 2017. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.ameribev.org/files/resources/oe-economic-impact-study.pdf

[zoi220446r80] 80.Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on prices and product availability. J Policy Anal Manage. 2020;39(3):605-628. doi: 10.1002/pam.22201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r81] 81.Cawley J, Frisvold DE. The pass-through of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to retail prices: the case of Berkeley, California. J Policy Anal Manage. 2017;36(2):303-326. doi: 10.1002/pam.21960 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r82] 82.Bollinger B, Sexton S. Local excise taxes, sticky prices, and spillovers: evidence from Berkeley’s soda tax. SSRN. January 12, 2018. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3087966

[zoi220446r83] 83.Falbe J, Rojas N, Grummon AH, Madsen KA. Higher retail prices of sugar-sweetened beverages 3 months after implementation of an excise tax in Berkeley, California. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(11):2194-2201. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302881 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r84] 84.Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):1865-1871. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r85] 85.Lee MM, Falbe J, Schillinger D, Basu S, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption 3 years after the Berkeley, California, sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(4):637-639. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.304971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r86] 86.Lozano-Rojas F. A matter of design in soda taxes: tax sugar instead of volume. SSRN. May 18, 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3225901

[zoi220446r87] 87.Mendez S. Brand power, pass-through, and consumption effects of municipal taxes: evidence from Berkeley, CA. SSRN. September 3, 2019. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3471376 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3471376 [DOI]

[zoi220446r88] 88.Rojas C, Wang E. Do taxes for soda and sugary drinks work? scanner data evidence from Berkeley, CA and Washington State. SSRN. October 2017. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3041989

[zoi220446r89] 89.Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, et al. 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. 2017;14(4):e1002283. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r90] 90.Taylor RLC, Kaplan S, Villas-Boas SB, Jung K. Soda wars: the effect of a soda tax election on university beverage sales. Econ Inq. 2019;57(3):1480-1496. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12776 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r91] 91.Zhang Y, Palma MA. Revisiting sugar taxes and sugary drink consumption: evidence from the random-coefficient demand model. J Agric Resour Econ. 2020;46(1):37-55. [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r92] 92.Hoffer A, Sheehan K. Expenditure effects from the 2010 Washington soda tax. Rev Reg Stud. 2020;50(1):127-141. doi: 10.52324/001c.12608 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r93] 93.Colantuoni F, Rojas C. The impact of soda sales taxes on consumption: evidence from scanner data. Contemp Econ Policy. 2015;33(4):714-734. doi: 10.1111/coep.12101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r94] 94.Fletcher JM, Frisvold DE, Tefft N. Non-linear effects of soda taxes on consumption and weight outcomes. Health Econ. 2015;24(5):566-582. doi: 10.1002/hec.3045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r95] 95.Fletcher JM, Frisvold DE, Tefft N. The effects of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and weight outcomes. J Public Econ. 2010;94(11/12):967-974. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.09.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r96] 96.Fletcher JM, Frisvold D, Tefft N. Can soft drink taxes reduce population weight? Contemp Econ Policy. 2010;28(1):23-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00182.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r97] 97.Fletcher JM, Frisvold D, Tefft N. Taxing soft drinks and restricting access to vending machines to curb child obesity. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(5):1059-1066. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r98] 98.Pak T. The Unequal Distribution of Body Mass Index: Examining the Effect of State-Level Soft Drink Taxes on Obesity Inequality. Thesis. University of Georgia. May 2013. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/pak_tae-young_201305_ms.pdf

[zoi220446r99] 99.Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D. Oakland’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax: impacts on prices, purchases and consumption by adults and children. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;37:100865. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100865 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r100] 100.Falbe J, Lee MM, Kaplan S, Rojas NA, Ortega Hinojosa AM, Madsen KA. Higher sugar-sweetened beverage retail prices after excise taxes in Oakland and San Francisco. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(7):1017-1023. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r101] 101.Marinello S, Pipito AA, Leider J, Pugach O, Powell LM. The impact of the Oakland sugar-sweetened beverage tax on bottled soda and fountain drink prices in fast-food restaurants. Prev Med Rep. 2019;17:101034. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.101034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r102] 102.Zenk SN, Leider J, Pugach O, Pipito AA, Powell LM. Changes in beverage marketing at stores following the Oakland sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Am J Prev Med. 2020;58(5):648-656. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.12.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r103] 103.Leider J, Pipito AA, Powell LM. The impact of the Cook County, Illinois, sweetened beverage tax on prices, 2017. Illinois Prevention Research Center Brief No. 105. September 2018. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://p3rc.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/561/2019/12/Tax-Pass-Through_Cook-County-IL-Illinois-PRC-Brief-No.-105-Sept-2018-5.pdf

[zoi220446r104] 104.Powell LM, Leider J, Léger PT. The impact of a sweetened beverage tax on beverage volume sold in Cook County, Illinois, and its border area. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(6):390-397. doi: 10.7326/M19-2961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r105] 105.Powell LM, Leider J, Léger PT. The impact of the Cook County, IL, sweetened beverage tax on beverage prices. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;37:100855. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100855 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r106] 106.Powell LM, Leider J. The impact of Seattle’s sweetened beverage tax on beverage prices and volume sold. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;37:100856. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100856 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r107] 107.Saelens BE, Rowland M, Qu P, et al. 12 Month report: store audits and child cohort: the evaluation of Seattle’s sweetened beverage tax. March 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/SBT_12MonthReport.pdf

[zoi220446r108] 108.Public Health Seattle and King County . 6 Month report: store audits: the evaluation of Seattle’s sweetened beverage tax. January 2019. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/6%20Month%20Store%20Audit%20Report%20.pdf

[zoi220446r109] 109.Mora T, Fichera E, Lopez-Valcarcel BG, Roche D. Do consumers respond to “sin taxes” heterogeneously? new evidence from the tax on sugary drinks using longitudinal scanner data. Working paper, 2018.

[zoi220446r110] 110.Royo-Bordonada MÁ, Fernández-Escobar C, Simón L, Sanz-Barbero B, Padilla J. Impact of an excise tax on the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in young people living in poorer neighbourhoods of Catalonia, Spain: a difference in differences study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1553. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7908-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r111] 111.Vall Castelló J, Lopez Casasnovas G. Impact of SSB taxes on sales. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;36:100821. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2019.100821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r112] 112.Cawley J, Crain C, Frisvold D, Jones D. The pass-through of the largest tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: the case of Boulder, Colorado. NBER Working Paper 25050. September 2018. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25050/w25050.pdf

[zoi220446r113] 113.Breeze P, Womack R, Pryce R, Brennan A, Goyder E. The impact of a local sugar sweetened beverage health promotion and price increase on sales in public leisure centre facilities. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0194637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r114] 114.Cornelsen L, Mytton OT, Adams J, et al. Change in non-alcoholic beverage sales following a 10-pence levy on sugar-sweetened beverages within a national chain of restaurants in the UK: interrupted time series analysis of a natural experiment. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71(11):1107-1112. doi: 10.1136/jech-2017-209947 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[zoi220446r115] 115.Chaloupka FJ, Powell LM, Warner KE. The use of excise taxes to reduce tobacco, alcohol, and sugary beverage consumption. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40:187-201. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Outcomes Following Taxation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

Tatiana Andreyeva, PhD

Keith Marple, MS, MBA

Samantha Marinello, MS

Timothy E Moore, PhD

Lisa M Powell, PhD

Key Points

Question

Findings

Meaning

Abstract

Importance

Objective

Data Sources

Study Selection

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Main Outcomes and Measures

Results

Conclusions and Relevance

Introduction

Methods

Search Strategy

Eligibility Criteria

Data Collection and Extraction

Quality of Study Assessment

Effect Size Extraction

Missing Data

Statistical Analysis

Results

Study Selection and Characteristics

Figure 1. Study Flowchart.

Location, Setting, and Study Characteristics

Study Quality

Synthesis of Results

Results From Meta-analyses

Table 1. Meta-analysis of Outcomes Following SSB Taxes.

Figure 2. Meta-analysis of Price Outcomes Following Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: Tax Pass-Through.

Figure 3. Meta-analysis of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Sales Following Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: Price Elasticity of Demand for Taxed Beverages.

Sensitivity and Subgroup Analysis

Publication Bias

Narrative Synthesis

Table 2. Summary of Narrative Synthesis Results for SSB Tax Outcomes.

Results From Subpopulation Analyses

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

References

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases