sugary beverages

More soda tax success: Study finds Mexico’s tax reduced sugary beverage buys two years in a row

kkrisberg — Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:25:34 +0000

More soda tax success: Study finds Mexico’s tax reduced sugary beverage buys two years in a row

Another day, another study that shows soda taxes work to reduce the consumption of beverages associated with costly chronic diseases in children and adults.

This time it’s a study on Mexico’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax, which went into effect at the start of 2014 and tacked on 1 peso per liter of sugary drink. Published this month in the journal Health Affairs, the study found that purchases of sugary drinks subject to the new tax went down more than 5 percent in 2014 and nearly 10 percent in 2015. At the same time, purchases of untaxed drinks went up by slightly more than 2 percent. The study notes that prevalence of overweight and obesity reached 70 percent among Mexico’s adults and 30 percent among the country’s children as of 2012. In addition, sugar-sweetened beverages account for 70 percent of added sugars in the typical Mexican diet, making sugary beverages a “logical target for lowering the intake of added sugars,” the study stated.

To conduct the study, researchers used data on monthly household store purchases from the Nielsen’s Mexico Consumer Panel Services between January 2012 and December 2015. They found that purchases of taxed beverages declined by an average of 5.5 percent in 2014 and 9.7 percent in 2015, resulting in an overall average decline of 7.6 percent. Purchases of taxed sugary drinks went down at all socioeconomic levels, though such reductions were largest among the lowest-income households.

Researchers noted that the larger purchasing decline in the second year after the tax was enacted “suggests that in the case of these beverages, the long-term impact of a price change may also be larger than the short-term effect.” They went on to say that such results contradict statements from the beverage industry that the effects of a soda tax tend to wane after the first year of implementation. Researchers also noted that declines in sugary beverage consumption could have positive impacts on people’s health as well as on health care expenditures in Mexico. Study authors M. Arantxa Cochero, Juan Rivera-Dommarco, Barry Popkin and Shu Wen Ng write:

Given the sustained effect of the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages over a two-year period and findings that responses to prices of cigarettes (price-elasticities) increase monotonically with prices, the impact of the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Mexico could be increased by raising the tax to at least 2 pesos per liter (resulting in a 20 percent increase in price). At the global level, findings on the sustained impact over two years of taxes on the beverages in Mexico may encourage other countries to use fiscal policies to reduce the consumption of unhealthy beverages along with other interventions to reduce the burden of chronic diseases.

Of course, this study isn’t the only one to show the positive impacts of sugary beverage taxes. This study on Berkeley’s soda tax found a whopping 21 percent decrease in sugary beverage consumption. At Harvard, researchers predicted that Philadelphia’s sugary beverage tax, which went into effect this year, could prevent 36,000 cases of obesity over 10 years, prevent more than 2,000 cases of diabetes in the first year after the tax reaches its full effect, and save $200 million in health care costs over a decade. (On a side note, Pepsi recently announced it was laying off workers at its Philadelphia-area plants due to the new soda tax. However, a spokesperson for the city called the action a “new low,” citing the company’s $6 billion in profits last year. In addition, the mayor’s office recently announced that the city is on track to meet soda tax-related revenues, which are being invested in education and anti-poverty programs.)

Last year, voters approved soda taxes in Oakland, San Francisco and Albany, California, and in Boulder, Colorado. In San Francisco alone, officials predict the soda tax will generate $7.5 million in fiscal year 2017-2018 and $15 million in fiscal year 2018-2019. In Boulder, the approved ballot initiative requires the city to release an annual report showing how soda tax revenues are used — the revenues are intended to support healthier school food initiatives as well as programs aimed at preventing diabetes and other costly chronic diseases.

Research shows that sugary drink consumption is associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The American Diabetes Association estimates that the cost of diabetes in the U.S. went from $174 billion in 2007 to $245 billion in 2012 — that’s a 41 percent increase in just five years.

For a copy of the new study on Mexico’s soda tax, visit Health Affairs.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for 15 years.

kkrisberg Fri, 03/10/2017 - 10:25

That's excellent news! In Seattle the mayor has proposed a $0.02/oz tax on sugar-sweetened bottled beverages (fizzy or flat).
There has been some concern expressed that the populations who buy more sugar-sweetened beverages, as opposed to diet beverages, are more likely to be people of color and have lower socieo-economic status, and therefore would be unfairly targeted by this tax. Personally I think diet soda should be taxed too and only unsweetened beverages excluded, but this is a simpler distinction to make.

It's great to see that these taxes are effective at reducing consumption as well as raising fund for prevention.

Parallel statistics for beer sales, por favor--

Study finds Berkeley soda tax led to a huge decrease in sugary drink consumption

kkrisberg — Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:42:38 +0000

Study finds Berkeley soda tax led to a huge decrease in sugary drink consumption

On the question of whether a soda tax can actually reduce the amount of sugary drinks people consume, a new study finds the resounding answer is “yes.”

In November 2014, Berkeley, California, voters passed the nation’s first tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in an effort to reduce their impact as a major contributor to chronic diseases such as obesity and type 2 diabetes. The small tax was just a penny-per-ounce on sodas, energy and sports drinks, fruit-flavored drinks, and sweetened water, coffee and teas. But according to researchers, that small tax is already having a big impact. In a study published earlier this week in the American Journal of Public Health, researchers found that just a few months after the tax went into effect, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption went down by a whopping 21 percent in Berkeley, while such consumption increased in comparison cities.

To conduct the study, researchers surveyed a total of nearly 3,000 residents across Berkeley, San Francisco and Oakland both before and after the soda tax was implemented. (San Francisco also attempted to pass a soda tax in 2014, but voters rejected the measure.) The surveys were focused in low-income and minority neighborhoods, where people are “more likely to consume (sugar-sweetened beverages) and suffer related consequences,” the study stated. Survey participants were asked how often they drank sugary drinks as well as how often they drank plain water from a bottle or tap.

Here’s what the study found: In low-income neighborhoods in Berkeley, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption plummeted 21 percent over a one-year period from before the tax to after the tax, while such consumption actually increased by 4 percent in comparison neighborhoods in Oakland and San Francisco. More specifically, soda drinking went down by 26 percent in Berkeley, while increasing by 10 percent in the comparison cities, and consumption of sports drinks went down by 36 percent in Berkeley, while increasing 21 percent in comparison cities. In addition, water consumption in Berkeley increased by 63 percent over the study period, but only by 19 percent in San Francisco and Oakland.

The study noted that the Berkeley result may not be entirely due to higher prices, but “could also reflect effects of the campaign surrounding the tax, which may have shifted social norms and thus reduced consumption.” Study authors Jennifer Falbe, Hannah Thompson, Christina Becker, Nadia Rojas, Charles McCulloch and Kristine Madsen write:

(A sugar-sweetened beverage) excise tax is one of the few public health interventions expected to reduce health disparities, save more money than it costs, and generate substantial revenues for public health programs. Already, Berkeley City Council has allocated $1.5 million to fund programs to reduce (sugar-sweetened beverage) consumption and address obesity for the 2016–2017 fiscal year. …If impacts in Berkeley persist, and evidence from other cities passing (sugar-sweetened beverage) taxes corroborate our findings, widespread adoption of (sugar-sweetened beverage) excise taxes could have considerable fiscal and public health benefits.

In June of this year, Philadelphia joined Berkeley in passing a soda tax. According to the Philadelphia City Council, the 1.5 cents-per-ounce tax on sodas and other sweetened beverages will raise $91 million over the next year to fund quality pre-kindergarten expansion, community schools, parks and recreations centers, and help pad Philly’s General Fund.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that U.S. medical costs related to obesity reached $147 billion in 2008, while the bill for medical care and lost wages and work associated with diabetes is $245 billion.

To request a full copy of the new soda tax study, visit the American Journal of Public Health. For more on the Berkeley vs. Big Soda campaign, click here.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for nearly 15 years.

kkrisberg Wed, 08/24/2016 - 17:42

The more you know: Study finds calorie signs do influence sugary beverage purchases among youth

kkrisberg — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 15:31:09 +0000

The more you know: Study finds calorie signs do influence sugary beverage purchases among youth

In ongoing public health efforts to curb the obesity epidemic, better menu and nutrition labeling is often tapped as a low-cost way to help make the healthy choice, the easy choice. And while the evidence on the effectiveness of such interventions is still emerging, a recent study found that educating young people on the calories in sugar-sweetened beverages did make a positive difference.

Published in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health, the study focused on an experiment inside six corner stores located near middle and high schools within low-income, predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore. (According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, black youth experience significantly higher obesity rates than white children.) To gauge whether providing calorie information changed youth’s purchasing habits, researchers posted one of four randomly assigned, bright-colored signs on beverage cases. The signs read: “Did you know that a bottle of soda or fruit juice has about 250 calories?”; “Did you know that a bottle of soda or fruit juice has about 16 teaspoons of sugar?”; “Did you know that working off a bottle of soda or fruit juice takes about 50 minutes of running?”; and “Did you know that working off a bottle of soda or fruit juice takes about 5 miles of walking?” Altogether, researchers collected data on more than 4,500 purchases made by black adolescents.

The results are very promising. Compared to baseline data (i.e. beverage purchases before the signs were posted), providing any calorie information reduced the number of total beverage calories purchased, reduced the likelihood of adolescents buying sugar-sweetened beverages and reduced the chance of buying a sugar-sweetened beverage bigger than 16 ounces. Specifically, the study found that prior to the intervention, adolescent purchases averaged 149 calories; after the intervention, beverage purchases fell to an average of 121 calories. And what’s really interesting is that researchers found that differences in purchasing behavior continued weeks after the signs were removed. Authors Sara Bleich, Colleen Barry, Tiffany Gary-Webb and Bradley Herring write:

Understanding the potential for environmental interventions, which are increasingly seen as essential for obesity prevention, to motivate reductions in (sugar-sweetened beverage) consumption among groups at high risk of obesity is important. Clinical obesity interventions are not easily accessible to all adolescents, and most adolescents who begin obesity treatment do not complete it, with poor and minority youths at even higher risk for discontinuing treatment.

Regarding the different signs, researchers found that the sign about the miles of walking it takes to burn off a bottle of soda resulted in fewer calories purchased when compared with the sign about teaspoons of sugar and the sign about running. The study also found that after posting the informational signs, the frequency of soda and sports drink purchases were significantly lower. However, purchases of fruit drinks went up, though researchers said the difference was not statistically significantly. Overall, the frequency of not buying a beverage at all was much higher. Also, after the signs were posted in the corner stores, many more youth decided to buy a smaller bottle of sugar-sweetened beverage — before the intervention, 27 percent bought large-volume sodas versus 16 percent post-intervention.

Researchers also conducted exit interviews with a quarter of the sample study, finding that a majority understood the information presented and 40 percent said they changed their purchases after seeing the calorie signs.

“The results related to a reduced quantity of (sugar-sweetened beverage) purchases were consistent with our previous work and another recent study that suggested that presenting caloric information in the form of a physical activity equivalent might be more persuasive to consumers than absolute calories,” researchers wrote. “These findings were also consistent with research that suggested that calorie information reduces calorie ordering and consumption.”

To request a full copy of the study, visit the American Journal of Public Health.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

kkrisberg Tue, 12/09/2014 - 10:31

Two new studies find food policy interventions have support and impact

kkrisberg — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:08:14 +0000

Two new studies find food policy interventions have support and impact

Five million dollars. That’s how much the fast food industry spends every day to peddle largely unhealthy foods to children. And because studies have found that exposure to food marketing does indeed make kids want to eat more, advertising is often tapped as an obvious way to address child obesity. Fortunately, a new study finds that the public agrees.

As part of the Los Angeles County Health Survey, researchers with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health asked nearly 1,000 adults four food policy questions: would they support a tax increase on sodas to discourage kids from drinking too many; should sugary cereal, candy, soda and fast food advertising aimed at kids be restricted; should there be a law prohibiting fast food restaurants within a quarter-mile of schools; and should convenience stores be legally prohibited from setting up shop within a quarter-mile of schools.

The results, which were published in the June 5 issue of Preventing Chronic Disease, found that marketing restrictions garnered the most support, followed by a soda tax and zoning restrictions. Specifically, 74 percent of respondents supported advertising restrictions, 60 percent supported the soda tax, and 44 percent and 37, respectively, supported zoning restrictions for fast food restaurants and convenience stores. While support for the tax and zoning policies varied among different demographic groups, the marketing restriction scored high levels of support across all groups.

As policy interventions go, the researchers noted that support for a soda tax, which lost at the ballot box in California in 2012, might not hold up in the face of industry opposition. Also, low support for zoning restrictions might make that policy intervention a difficult sell and would do little for communities in which fast food restaurants and schools are already situated near each other. Study authors Paul Simon, Choiyuk Chiang, Amy Lightstone and Margaret Shih write:

Although there are legal considerations in pursuing public policy that would regulate food and beverage marketing to children, our results suggest that such efforts would receive support. This support may help persuade private companies to self-regulate. There may also be opportunities to expand advertising restrictions in public schools and publicly regulated child care settings. For example, the White House and U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced proposed federal restrictions on unhealthy food and beverage advertising in public schools.

In related study news, researchers at Stanford University and the University of California-San Francisco found that prohibiting the use of food assistance dollars to buy sugar-sweetened beverages could significantly reduce obesity and type 2 diabetes among adults. To conduct the study, which was published this week in Health Affairs, researchers examined data on more than 19,000 people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. The study noted that low-income populations, including people in the SNAP program, experience higher rates of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Also, SNAP participants consume almost twice as many calories from sugary beverages as they do from fruits and veggies.

The study found that instituting a SNAP policy banning the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages would result in a 15.4 percent decline in calorie consumption linked to such beverages. (Note: This finding takes into account the possibility that SNAP participants might use non-SNAP dollars to buy sugary beverages instead.) Over 10 years, the lower calorie consumption would translate into a 2.4 percent decline in current obesity prevalence rates among SNAP participants, with the biggest effect among adults ages 18 to 65. In addition, researchers estimated that incidence of type 2 diabetes among SNAP enrollees would decline by 1.7 percent or about 240,000 people, with the biggest effect among adults. Authors Sanjay Basu, Hilary Kessler Seligman, Christopher Gardner and Jay Bhattacharya write:

Our study is also the first analysis, to our knowledge, to examine specifically how population-level health outcomes may be altered by fiscal policies directed through SNAP. This subject is of major national interest given that the program is taxpayer funded. The logic behind SNAP policy changes is that taxpayers are potentially subsidizing unhealthy food consumption and paying for its downstream health consequences.

In addition to examining a ban on sugary beverage purchases, the Health Affairs study also looked at whether incentivizing fruit and veggie consumption would impact obesity and diabetes prevalence. Specifically, would giving SNAP participants 30 cents back for every dollar they spend on fruits and vegetables make a difference? They estimated that while the subsidy policy wouldn’t have a significant impact on the two diseases, it could more than double the proportion of SNAP enrollees who meet federal fruit and vegetable consumption recommendations.

For copies of the two food policy studies, visit Preventing Chronic Disease and Health Affairs.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

kkrisberg Tue, 06/10/2014 - 10:08