Sugary drink tax
|An aspect of fiscal policy|
A sugary drink tax or soda tax is a tax or surcharge designed to reduce consumption of drinks with added sugar. Drinks covered under a soda tax often include carbonated soft drinks, sports drinks and energy drinks.
The tax is a matter of public debate in many countries and beverage producers like Coca-Cola often oppose it. Advocates such as national medical associations and the World Health Organization promote the tax as an example of Pigovian taxation, aimed to discourage unhealthy diets and offset the growing economic costs of obesity.
- 1 Background
- 2 Countries
- 2.1 Australia
- 2.2 Colombia
- 2.3 Denmark
- 2.4 France
- 2.5 Hungary
- 2.6 Ireland
- 2.7 Mexico
- 2.8 Norway
- 2.9 Philippines
- 2.10 South Africa
- 2.11 United Arab Emirates
- 2.12 United Kingdom
- 2.13 United States
- 2.13.1 American localities with a soda tax
- 2.13.2 Scientific studies
- 2.13.3 Proposals
- 2.13.4 Public support
- 2.13.5 Lobbying
- 2.13.6 Arguments against the sugary drinks tax
- 2.14 Various island nations and territories
- 3 See also
- 4 References
- 5 External links
Type II diabetes is a growing health concern in many developed and developing countries around the world, with 1.6 million deaths directly due to this disease in 2015 alone. Unlike sugar from food, the sugar from drinks enters the body so quickly that it can overload the pancreas and the liver, leading to diabetes and heart disease over time. A 2010 study said that consuming one to two sugary drinks a day increases your risk of developing diabetes by 26%.
Heart disease is responsible for 31% of all global deaths and although one sugary drink has minimal effects on the heart, consuming sugary drinks daily are associated with long term consequences. A study found that men, for every added serving per day of sugar-sweetened beverages, each serving was associated with a 19% increased risk of developing heart disease. Another study also found increased risks for heart disease in women who drank sugary drinks daily.
Obesity is also a global public and health policy concern, with the percentage of overweight and obese people in many developed and middle income countries rising rapidly. Consumption of added sugar in sugar-sweetened beverages has been positively correlated with high calorie intake, and through it, with excess weight and obesity. The addition of one sugar-sweetened beverage per day to the normal US diet can amount to 15 pounds of weight gain over the course of 1 year. Added sugar is a common feature of many processed and convenience foods such as breakfast cereals, chocolate, ice cream, cookies, yogurts and drinks produced by retailers. The ubiquity of sugar-sweetened beverages and their appeal to younger consumers has made their consumption a subject of particular concern by public health professionals. In both the United States and the United Kingdom, sugar sweetened drinks are the top calorie source in teenager's diets.
Trends indicate that traditional soda consumption is declining in many developed economies, but growing rapidly in middle income economies such as Vietnam and India. In the United States, the single biggest market for carbonated soft drinks, consumers annual average per capita purchase of soda was 154 liters.
Denmark began taxing soft drinks and juices in the 1930s. More recently, Finland reintroduced an earlier soft drink tax in 2011, while Hungary taxes sugary drinks as part of its 2011 public health product tax, which covers all food products with unhealthy levels of sugar. France introduced a targeted sugar tax on soft drinks in 2012. At a national level similar measures have also been announced in Mexico in 2013 and in the United Kingdom in 2016. In November 2014, Berkeley, California was the first city in the U.S. to pass a targeted tax on surgary drinks.
Proponents of soda taxes cite the success of tobacco taxes worldwide when explaining why they think a soda tax will work to lower soda consumption. Where the main concern with tobacco is cancer, the main concerns with soda are diabetes and obesity. The tactics used to oppose soda taxes by soda companies mimic those of tobacco companies, including funding research that downplays the health risks of its products.
Economics and economic theory of the tax
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that a targeted tax on sugar in soda could generate $14.9 billion in the first year alone. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that three-cent-per-ounce tax would generate over $24 billion over four years. Some tax measures call for using the revenue collected to pay for relevant health needs: improving diet, increasing physical activity, obesity prevention, nutrition education, advancing healthcare reform, etc. Another area to which the revenue raised by a soda tax might go, as suggested by Mike Rayner of the United Kingdom, is to subsidize healthier foods like fruits and vegetables.
The imposition of a sugar tax means that sellers of sugary drinks would have to increase the price of their goods by an amount P2 from the original price X, and then take on the rest of the tax themselves (P1) in the form of lower profit per unit sold. The tax burden on consumers (P2) makes it more expensive for consumers to buy sugary drinks and hence a higher proportion of their incomes would have to be spent to buy the same amount of sugary drinks. This decreases the equilibrium quantity of sugary drinks that will be sold. Whether the sugary drinks tax is imposed on the seller or consumer, in both cases the tax burden is shared between both.
The way that the tax burden is divided upon the consumer and seller depends on the price elasticity for sugary drinks. The tax burden will fall more on sellers when the price elasticity of demand is greater than the price elasticity of supply while on buyers when the price elasticity of supply is greater than the price elasticity of demand. The price elasticity for sugary drinks is different from country to country. For instance, the price elasticity of demand for sugary drinks was found to be -1.37 in Chile while -1.16 in Mexico. Hence if both of those results were realistic and the price elasticity of supply would be the same for both, the tax burden on consumers would be higher in Mexico than in Chile.
The reason for implementing a sugar tax in microeconomic terms
The reasons for a sugar tax are the negative externalities of consuming sugar. As over-consumption of sugar causes health problems (external costs) such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases, and lost productivity, the third party impacted by this is the ‘public health system’ that will need to deal with those issues. More demand for health services leads to higher costs for health care and hence this increased stress on the public health system is a negative consumption externality of sugar consumption.
In economics terms, the marginal social benefit (MSB) of sugar consumption is less than the marginal private benefit (MB). This can also be illustrated in the following equation. MSB = MB – Marginal External Cost (MXC). This is the case due to the fact that consumers think only of the benefit of sugar consumption to them (MB) and not the negative externalities to third parties (MXC) and so want to consume at the unregulated market equilibrium to maximize their utility. This means that there is overconsumption of sugar and a welfare loss is created.
The sugary drinks tax, a Pigovian tax, is a way to correct the negative externality by regulating the consumption of sugary drinks. Without a sugary drink tax, taxpayer money is used to pay for higher health care costs incurred from high consumption of sugar. Although this solution corrects the negative consumption externality, taxpayers that consume sugary drinks moderately and hence do not contribute to higher health care costs, still need to pay for this negative externality. Hence a sugary drinks tax may be a more appropriate solution as tax revenue that is collected from the sugar tax can be used to create childhood nutrition programs or obesity-prevention programs. This is a solution that could also correct the negative externality of sugar consumption as well as is a way to make the parties that cause the negative externality pay their fair share.
The Australian Beverages Council announced in June 2018 that the industry would cut sugar content by 10% by 2020, and by another 10% by 2025. This was seen as an attempt to stave off a sugar tax. There were no plans to reduce the sugar content in the high sugar drinks. The plan is primarily to increase consumption of low-sugar or no-sugar drinks. sales of Coca-Cola Amatil's fizzy drinks have fallen 8.1% by volume from 2016 to 2018. The Australian Medical Association continued to press for a sugar tax.
A 2016 proposal for a 20% sugary drink tax, campaigned by Educar Consumidores, was turned down by the Colombian legislature despite popular support for it. Soda is often less expensive than bottled water in Colombia.
Denmark instituted a soft drink tax in the 1930s (it amounted to 1.64 Danish krone per liter), but announced in 2013 that they were going to abolish it along with an equally unpopular fat tax, with the goal of creating jobs and helping the local economy. Critics claimed that the taxes were notably ineffective; to avoid the fat and sugar taxes, local retailers had complained that Danes simply went to Sweden and Germany, where prices were lower to buy butter, ice cream and soda. Denmark repealed the fat tax in January 2013 and repealed the tax on soft drinks in 2014.
France first introduced a targeted tax on sugary drinks at a national level in 2012; following introduction, soft drinks are estimated to be up to 3.5% more expensive. Analysis by the market research firm Canadean found that sales of soft drinks declined in the year following the introduction of the tax, following several years of annual growth. However, the tax applies to both drinks with added sugars and drinks with artificial sweeteners, possibly limiting its effects on the healthfulness of soda products.
A 2016 study by Mazzochi has shown that the sugary drinks tax saw a 19 euro-cent per liter increase in price of non-pure fruit juices, a 16 euro-cent per liter increase for diet sodas and little impact on regular soft drinks prices. The study also estimated that the quantity consumed of the taxed drinks has decreased by 9 centiliters per week per person after the tax has been implemented.
Hungary's tax, which came into effect in September 2011, is a 4-cent tax on foods and drinks that contain large quantities of sugar and salt, such as soft drinks, confectionery, salty snacks, condiments, and fruit jams. In 2016, the tax has resulted in a 22% reduction in energy drink consumption and 19% of people reduced their intake of sugary soft drinks.
Soda tax introduced on May 1st 2018. The tax will see 30 cent per litre added to the price of popular sweetened drinks containing more than 8g of sugar per 100ml.
In September 2013, Mexico's president Enrique Peña Nieto, on his fiscal bill package, proposed a 10% tax on all soft drinks, especially carbonated drinks, with the intention of reducing the number of patients with diabetes and other cardiovascular diseases in Mexico, which has one of the world's highest rates of obesity. According to Mexican government data, in 2011, the treatment for each patient with diabetes cost the Mexican public health care system (the largest of Latin America) around 708 USD per year, with a total cost of 778,427,475 USD in 2010, and with each patient paying only 30 MXN (around 2.31 USD).
In September 2013, soda companies launched a media campaign to discourage the Mexican Chamber of Deputies and Senate from approving the 10% soda tax. They argued that such measure would not help reduce the obesity in Mexico and would leave hundreds of Mexicans working in the sugar cane industry jobless. They also publicly accused New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg of orchestrating the controversial bill from overseas. In late October 2013, the Mexican Senate approved a 1 MXN per litre tax (around 0.08 USD) on sodas, along with a 5% tax on junk food.
Research has shown that Mexico's sugary drinks tax reduced soft drink consumption. According to a 2016 study published in BMJ, annual sales of sodas in Mexico declined 6% in 2014 after the introduction of the soda tax. Monthly sales figures for December 2014 were down 12% on the previous two years. Households with the fewest resources had an average reduction in purchases of 9% in 2014, increasing to 17% by December. Furthermore, purchases of water and non-taxed beverages increased by about 4% on average. Whether the imposition of the tax and the resulting 6% decline in sales of soft drinks will have any measurable impact on long-term obesity or diabetes trends in Mexico has yet to be determined. The authors of the study urged the Mexican authorities to double the tax to further reduce consumption.
A 2016 study published in PLoS Medicine suggested that a 10% excise tax on soda "could prevent 189,300 new cases of Type 2 diabetes, 20,400 strokes and heart attacks, and 18,900 deaths among adults 35 to 94 years old" over a ten-year period. The study also included that "the reductions in diabetes alone could yield savings in projected healthcare costs of $983 million."
A 2017 study in the Journal of Nutrition found a 6.3% reduction in soft drink consumption, with the greatest reductions "among lower-income households, residents living in urban areas, and households with children. We also found a 16.2% increase in water purchases that was higher in low- and middle-income households, in urban areas, and among households with adults only."
Norway has had a generalized sugar tax measure on refined sugar products since 1922, introduced to boost state income rather than reducing sugar consumption. Non-alcoholic beverages have since been separated from the general tax, and in 2017, the tax for sugary drinks was set to 3.34 kroner per litre.
In January 2018, the Norwegian government increased the sugar tax level by 83% for general sugar-containing ready-to-eat products, and 42% for beverages. The sugar tax per litre was bumped up to 4.75 kroner, and applies to beverages which are either naturally or artificially sweetened.
In the taxation reform law dubbed as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Law (TRAIN) signed by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in December 2017. It includes taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks which will be implemented the following year, as an effort to increase revenue and to fight obesity. Drinks with caloric and non-caloric sweeteners will be taxed ₱6.00 per liter, while those using high-fructose corn syrup, a cheap sugar substitute, will be taxed at ₱12 per liter.
Exempted from the sugar tax are all kinds of milk, whether powdered or in liquid form, ground and 3-in-1 coffee packs, and 100-percent natural fruit and vegetable juices, meal replacements and medically indicated drinks, as well as beverages sweetened with stevia or coco sugar. These drinks, especially 3-in-1 coffee drinks which are popular especially among lower-income families, are to be taxed as initially proposed by the House of Representatives version of the bill, but were exempted in the Senate version.
South Africa proposed a sugar-sweetened beverages tax in the 2016 South African national government budget. South Africa introduced a sugar tax on 1 April 2018. The levy was fixed at 2.1 cents per gram of sugar, for each gram above 4g per 100ml of sweetened beverage. The levy excludes fruit juices.
United Arab Emirates
On October 2017, the United Arab Emirates introduced a 50% tax on soft drinks and a 100% tax on energy drinks, to curb unhealthy consumption of sugary drinks that can lead to diabetes; it also added a 100% tax on cigarettes.
In the 2016 United Kingdom budget, the UK Government announced the introduction of a sugar tax, officially named the "Soft Drinks Industry Levy". The tax came into effect on 6 April 2018. Beverage manufacturers are taxed according to the volume of sugar-sweetened beverages they produce or import. The tax is imposed at the point of production or importation, in two bands. Drinks with total sugar content above 5g per 100 millilitres are taxed at 18p per litre and drinks above 8g per 100 millilitres at 24p per litre. The measure is estimated to generate an additional £1 billion a year in tax revenue which will be spent on funding for sport in UK schools.
It was proposed that pure fruit juices, milk-based drinks and the smallest producers would not be taxed. For other beverages there was an expectation that some manufacturers would reduce sugar content in order to avoid the taxation. Indeed, manufacturer A.G. Barr significantly cut sugar content in their primary product Irn-Bru in advance of the tax.
Notable research on effect of excess sugar in modern diets in the United Kingdom includes the work of Professor John Yudkin with his book called, "Pure, White and Deadly: The Problem of Sugar" first published in 1972. With regard to a proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, a study published in the British Medical Journal on 31 October 2013, postulated that a 20% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would reduce obesity in the United Kingdom rates by about 1.3%, and concluded that taxing sugar-sweetened beverages was "a promising population measure to target population obesity, particularly among younger adults."
The tax has been criticised on several grounds, including its likely efficacy and its narrow base. UK Member of Parliament Will Quince as, "patronising, regressive and the nanny state at its worst." In addition a study by the University of Glasgow, which sampled 132,000 adults, found that focusing on sugar in isolation misleads consumers as reducing fat intake is also crucial to reducing obesity.
From an opposing tandpoint, Professor Robert Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, has argued that the UK tax measure may not go far enough and that, "juice should be taxed the same way as soda because from a metabolic standpoint juice is the same as soda." Campaigners have since called for the soft drinks tax to be extended to include confectionery and sweets to help tackle childhood obesity.
The United States does not have a nationwide soda tax, but a few of its cities have passed their own tax and the U.S. has seen a growing debate around taxing soda in various cities, states and even in Congress in recent years. A few states impose excise taxes on bottled soft drinks or on wholesalers, manufacturers, or distributors of soft drinks.
Medical costs related to obesity in the United States alone were estimated to be $147 billion a year in 2009. In the same year, the American Heart Association reported that the soft drinks and sugar sweetened beverages are the largest contributors of added sugars in Americans' diets. Added sugars are sugars and syrups added to foods during processing or preparation and sugars and syrups added after preparation. Excessive intake of added sugars, as opposed to naturally occurring sugars, is implicated in the rise in obesity.
American localities with a soda tax
Philadelphia and Berkeley are the first two cities to pass a tax on sugary drinks in the U.S. Berkeley's tax of 1 cent/oz of sugary drink has seen a decline in soda consumption by more than 20 percent. Philadelphia's tax of 1.5 cents/oz took effect on January 1, 2017.
The Measure D soda tax was approved by 76% of Berkeley voters on 4 November 2014, and took effect on 1 January 2015 as the first such tax in the United States. The measure imposes a tax of one cent per ounce on the distributors of specified sugar-sweetened beverages such as soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened ice teas but excluding milk-based beverages, meal replacement drink, diet sodas, fruit juice, and alcohol. The revenue generated will enter the general fund of the City of Berkeley. A similar measure in neighboring San Francisco received 54% of the vote, but fell short of the supermajority required to pass. In August 2015, researchers found that average prices for beverages covered under the law rose by less than half of the tax amount. For Coke and Pepsi, 22 percent of the tax was passed on to consumers, with the balance paid by vendors. UC Berkeley researchers found a higher pass-through rate for the tax: 47% of the tax was passed-through to higher prices of sugar-sweetened beverages overall with 69% being passed-through to higher soda prices. In August 2016, a UC Berkeley study showed a 21% drop in the drinking of soda and sugary beverages in low-income neighborhoods in its city.
A study from 2016 compared the changing intake of sugar sweetened beverages and water in Berkeley versus San Francisco and Oakland (which did not have a sugary drink tax passed) before and after Berkeley passed its sugary drink tax. This analysis showed a 26% decrease of soda consumption in Berkeley and 10% increase in San Francisco and Oakland while water intake increased by 63% in Berkeley and 19% in the two neighboring cities. A 2017 before and after study has concluded that one year after the tax was introduced in Berkeley, sugary drink sales decreased by 9.6% when compared to a scenario where the tax was not in place. This same study was also able to show that overall consumer spending did not increase, contradicting the argument of opponents of the Sugary Drink Tax. Another 2017 study results were that purchases of healthier drinks went up and sales of sugary drinks went down, without overall grocery bills increasing or the local food sector losing money.
Democratic Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney proposed a citywide soda tax that would raise the price of soda at three cents per ounce. At the time, it was the biggest soda tax proposal in the United States. Kenney promoted using tax revenue to fund universal pre-K, jobs, and development projects, which he predicted would raise $400 million over five years, all the while reducing sugar intake by decreasing the demand for sugary beverages. Kenney's soda tax proposal was brought to the national spotlight and divided key members of the Democratic Party. Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders argued in an op-ed that the tax would hurt the poor. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, said that she was "very supportive" of the idea. The American Beverage Association (ABA), funded by soda companies and distributors, ran local television, radio, and newspaper advertisements against the idea, claiming that the tax would disproportionately hurt the poor. The ABA spent $10.6 million in 2016 in its effort against the tax. The American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and other medical and public health groups support the tax.
The Philadelphia City Council approved a 1.5-cents-per-ounce tax on 16 June 2016. As part of the compromise legislation that passed, the tax is also imposed on artificially sweetened beverages, such as diet soda. The law became effective on 1 January 2017. It was reported after two months of the tax that Philadelphia supermarkets and beverage distributors are planning layoffs because sugary beverage sales are down between 30 and 50 percent.
After the tax took effect, Kenney said it was "wrong" and "misleading" for businesses to pass the tax on to their customers in the form of higher soda prices. In February 2017, soda manufacturers and retailers announced sales declines of 30-50% in Philadelphia and announced job cuts and layoffs. Kenny characterized the layoffs as evidence of greed among manufacturers. In the first four months of the soda tax $25.6 million was collected, which is lower than predicted. The revenue is intended to pay for a pre-K program (49% of tax revenue), government employee benefits and city programs (20%), and rebuilding city parks and recreation centers. A recent study from 2017 found that Philadelphia's tax has decreased sugary beverage consumption in impoverished youth by 1.3 drinks/week. Langellier et al. also found that when paired with the pre-K program, attendance increases significantly, a finding that is likely to have longer term positive effects than a sugary drink tax alone.
In March 2017, Pepsi laid off between 80 and 100 employees at two distribution plants in Philadelphia and one plant in nearby Wilmington, Delaware. The company blamed the layoffs on the tax, an assertion rejected by the city government.
In September 2016, the American Beverage Association, Philadelphia business owners, and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the soda tax, alleging that the tax violated the "Tax Uniformity Clause" of the state constitution. The legal challenge was dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas in December 2016, and in June 2017 the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (in a 5-2 decision) affirmed that ruling. The ABA is appealing the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
San Francisco, California
A one-cent-per-ounce soda tax (Prop V) passed with over 61% of the vote on 8 November 2016 and applies to distributors of sugary beverages on 1 January 2018. Exemptions for the tax include infant formulas, milk products, supplements, drinks used for medical reasons, and 100% fruit and vegetable juices. The soda industry spent almost $20 million in its unsuccessful push to defeat the soda tax initiative, a record-breaking amount for a San Francisco ballot initiative.
In 2014, the first referendum on a soda tax, Proposition E, was voted down by San Francisco; the 2014 referendum received the support of 55 percent of voters, short of the two-thirds required for a referendum directing money to a specific item (the referendum proposed directing the revenue raised to children's physical education and nutrition programs, and in San Francisco such earmarking requires a two-thirds vote to pass). In that referendum campaign, the soda industry spent about $10 million in opposition to the proposed tax.
A one-cent-per-ounce soda tax (Measure HH) passed with over 60% of the vote on 8 November 2016. The tax went into effect on 1 July 2017.
A two-cents-per-ounce soda tax (Measure 2H) passed with 54% of the vote on 8 November 2016. The tax took effect on July 1, 2017, and revenue will be spent on health promotion, general wellness programs and chronic disease prevention that improve health equity, and other health programs especially for residents with low income and those most affected by chronic disease linked to sugary drink consumption. The tax is exempted at the University of Colorado, Boulder, campus as school officials survey what types of drinks students wish to have. The University was not aware it would be involved in the soda tax, and would have to pay as much as $1 million a year to purchase it.
Cook County, Illinois
A one-cent-per-ounce soda tax passed on November 10, 2016, by a 9-8 vote, with Cook County Board of Commissioners President Toni Preckwinkle breaking the 8-8 tie. Cook County includes Chicago and has a population of nearly 5.2 million. This was the most populous jurisdiction with a soda tax in the U.S. The campaign to introduce the tax was heavily funded by Mike Bloomberg.
On June 30, 2017, a Cook County judge granted a temporary restraining order filed by the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and several Cook County-based grocers that prohibited the tax from being put into effect until at least July 12. The tax eventually went into effect on August 2. Due to a conflict with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, this soda tax did not apply to any soda purchases made with food stamps, which were used by over 870,000 people. Controversially, the tax affected diet drinks but not sugar-packed fruit juices.
On October 10, 2017, the Board of Commissioners voted to repeal the tax in a 15-1 vote. The tax stayed in effect up until December 1. The tax was highly unpopular and seen mainly as an attempt to plug the county’s $1.8 billion budget deficit, rather than a public health measure.
The Coalition for Healthy Kids and Education is currently campaigning to get a soda tax on the May 2018 ballot. Their aim is to implement a 1.15 cents per ounce tax on sugary drinks. There are 18,000 signatures required by December 15, 2017 in order for the tax to be voted on in May.
On June 5, 2017, Seattle's City Council voted 7-1 to pass a 1.75 cents per ounce tax on sugary drinks; the tax does not include diet soda drinks or fruit drinks and it started on January 1, 2018. After the tax was implemented, people were surprised that the tax made a case (24 cans) of Coke become $7.35 more expensive when compared to a case of Diet Coke or Coke Zero. The $15 million Seattle assumes will be collected from the tax will be used for programs that give access to more fruits and vegetables for low-income families, adding education programs and studying the tax on how it impacts behavior. Seattle collected $4 million in the first four months of the tax.
Coca-Cola has been under fire since 2015 when emails revealed that funding for scientific studies sought to influence research to be more favorable to soda. Research funded by soda companies are 34 times more likely to find soda has no significant health impacts on obesity or diabetes.
Taxing soda can lead to a reduction in overall consumption, according to a scientific study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in March 2010. The study found that a 10 percent tax on soda led to a 7 percent reduction in calories from soft drinks. These researchers believe that an 18 percent tax on these foods could cut daily intake by 56 calories per person, resulting in a weight loss of 5 pounds (2 kg) per person per year. The study followed 5,115 young adults ages 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006.
Research from Duke University and the National University of Singapore released in December 2010 tested larger taxes and determined that a 20 percent and 40 percent taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages would largely not affect calorie intake because people switch to untaxed, but equally caloric, beverages. Kelly Brownell, a proponent of soda taxes, reacted by stating that “[t]he fact is that nobody has been able to see how people will really respond under these conditions.” Similarly, a 2010 study concluded that while people would drink less soda as a result of a soda tax, they would also compensate for this reduction by switching to other high-calorie beverages. In response to these arguments, the American Public Health Association released a statement in 2012 in which they argued that "Even if individuals switch to 100% juice or chocolate milk, this would be an improvement, as those beverages contribute some nutrients to the diet."
A 2011 study in the journal Preventive Medicine concluded that "a modest tax on sugar-sweetened beverages could both raise significant revenues and improve public health by reducing obesity". It has been used by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale to estimate revenue from a soda tax, depending on the state, year and tax rate.
A 2012 study by Y. Claire Wang, also in the journal Health Affairs, estimates that a penny per ounce tax on sugared beverages could prevent 2.4 million cases of diabetes per year, 8,000 strokes, and 26,000 premature deaths over 10 years.
In 2012, just before the city of Richmond began voting on a soda tax, a study was presented at a conference held by the American Public Health Association regarding the potential effects of such a tax in California. The study concluded that, given that soda's price elasticity is such that taxing it would reduce consumption by 10–20 percent, that this reduction "...is projected to reduce diabetes incidence by 2.9–5.6% and CHD by 0.6–1.2%."
A 2013 study in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics concluded that a 0.5-cent-per-ounce tax on soft drinks would reduce consumption, but "increase sodium and fat intakes as a result of product substitution," in line with the Duke University study mentioned above.
A 2014 study published in the American Journal of Public Health concluded that Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) don’t have a negative impact on employment. Even though job losses in the taxed industry occurred, they were offset by new employment in other sectors of the economy.
A 2016 modelling study estimated that a 20% tax on SSBs would decrease the consumption of SSBs in Australia by 12.6%. The tax could decline the prevalence of obesity in the Australian population, which could lead to gains in health-adjusted life years. The results showed an increase of 7.6 days in full health for a 20-24-year-old male and a 3.7 day increase in longevity for their female peers.
There have been a number of proposed taxes on sugary beverages, including:
- In 1914, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson proposed a special revenue tax on soft drinks, beer and patent medicine after the outbreak of World War I caused a decline in imports and a corresponding decline in credit created by import tariffs. This proposed taxation measure was not however linked to the anticipated health outcomes of reduced sugar sweetened beverage consumption.
- In 1994, one of the first instances where the idea of a targeted tax on sugar sweetened drinks with a link to anticipated beneficial health outcomes, was proposed by Kelly D. Brownell, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
- In a 2009 "Perspective" piece in the New England Journal of Medicine, Kelly D. Brownell, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, and Thomas R. Frieden, Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, argue for taxing sugary beverages. The authors propose that sugary beverages may be the single largest cause of the obesity epidemic. They state that an excise tax of one cent per ounce would reduce consumption by more than 10%.
- Maryland and Virginia are two of 33 states that levy sales taxes on soda. Maryland taxes soda at a rate of 6%, while Virginia’s rate is 1.5%. Virginia is also one of six states that impose a state excise tax on soda in addition to a sales tax.
- In 2009, the Obama Administration explored levying an excise tax on sweetened beverages as part of health care reform efforts, but the proposal was abandoned after heavy lobbying by the beverage industry.
- In 2010, New York State considered a soda tax, however opposition from the soda industry and economists made a strong antitax campaign, spending at least double of the tax supporters and the plan failed.
- In 2012, the City Council of Richmond, California placed the soda tax on the November 2012 ballot along with an advisory measure asking voters how they would like to spend the tax revenue. This proposal was rejected by the voters with 67% voting no and 33% voting yes.
- In the California State Legislature, soda tax proposals have been introduced several times, but have not passed. In 2013, California state senator Bill Monning proposed a soda tax, but the bill died in committee. In 2014, a 1-cent-per-ounce statewide soda tax was proposed in the legislature, but was defeated amid opposition by the California Beverage Association, a business lobbying group. In 2016, Assemblymen Richard Bloom and Jim Wood introduced a bill to create a "health impact fee" of 2-cent-per-ounce on sugary drinks, with the revenue collected from the tax to go toward programs for making drinking water safe, promoting oral health, and preventing obesity and diabetes. However, the proposal again faced strong opposition from industry groups, and the bill's proponents withdrew the proposal without a vote after it became clear that it lacked the votes to pass.
- In June 2013, the city of Telluride, Colorado proposed a penny-per-ounce soda tax; however, it was rejected in November, with 68% of voters voting against it.
- In July 2014, U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, proposed a national soda tax bill in the House of Representatives.
- In November 2014, voters in San Francisco and Berkeley, California voted on soda tax ballot measures. The measure was approved in Berkeley and received 55% of the vote in San Francisco, which was short of the needed 2/3 supermajority.
- In November 2016, Santa Fe began considering a tax on all sugar-sweetened beverages, including soda, sports drinks, and iced tea, to fund early childhood education. However, voters rejected the proposal in a May 2017 special election.
A 2016 poll by Morning Consult-Vox finds Americans split on their support of a soda tax. Attitudes seem to have shifted a lot since 2013 when a poll concluded that "respondents were opposed to government taxes on sugary drinks and candy by a more than 2-to-1 margin." In California, however, support for a tax has been high for a few years. According to a Field Poll conducted in 2012, "Nearly 3 out of 5 California voters would support a special fee on soft drinks to fight childhood obesity." Support for a soda tax in New York was higher when pollsters say the money will go towards health care. A Quinnipiac University poll released in April 2010 found that New Yorkers opposed a state tax on soda of one penny per ounce by a 35-point margin, but opposition dropped to a margin of one point when respondents were told the money would go towards health care. A Thompson Reuters poll released in the same month found that 51 percent of Americans opposed a soda tax, while 33 percent supported one.
Fighting the creation of soft drink taxes, the American Beverage Association, the largest U.S. trade organization for soft drink bottlers, has spent considerable money lobbying Congress. The Association's annual lobbying spending rose from about $391,000 to more than $690,000 from 2003 to 2008. And, in the 2010 election cycle, its lobbying grew to $8.67 million. These funds helped to pay for 25 lobbyists at seven different lobbying firms.
An industry group called "Americans Against Food Taxes," backed by juice maker Welch's, soft drink maker PepsiCo Inc, the American Beverage Association, the Corn Refiners Association, McDonald's Corporation and Burger King Holdings Inc used national advertising and conducted lobbying to oppose these taxes. The group has characterized the soda tax as a regressive tax, which would unfairly burden the poor
Arguments against the sugary drinks tax
- The criteria on what drinks are taxed may not include equally bad substitutes like fruit juice, energy-dense snacks and biscuits.
- The tax is regressive since consumers on lower incomes will be more negatively impacted by higher prices than consumers on higher incomes. This regressive effect of the sugary drinks tax can be counteracted if the collected tax revenue is used to subsidize healthier foods.
- Cross-border shopping can also be an easy way out for consumers to not pay the tax as they will buy sugary drinks from areas where they are not taxed.
Various island nations and territories
Barbados passed a soda tax in September 2015, applied as an excise of 10%.
Fiji has an import tax and an excise tax on soda.
French Polynesia implemented taxes on soft drinks in 2002.
Mauritius passed a soda tax in 2013.
Nauru implemented a soda tax in 2007.
Samoa passed a soda tax in 1984.
In March 2014, the government of the island of St Helena, a British Overseas Territory in the South Atlantic, announced that it would be introducing an additional import duty of 75 pence per litre on sugar-sweetened carbonated drinks with more than 15 grams of sugar per litre. The measure was introduced in May 2014 as part of a number of measures to tackle obesity on the island and the resulting high incidence of type 2 diabetes.
Tonga has a soda tax.
- Meat tax
- Fat tax
- Tobacco tax
- Pigovian tax
- Sin Tax
- Liquid Candy
- List of countries by Body Mass Index (BMI)
- Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule
- "Consumption of Sports Drinks by Kids and Adolescents" (PDF). Healthy Eating Research. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
- Tavernise, Sabrina (11 October 2016). "W.H.O. urges Tax on Sugary Drinks to Fight Obesity". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 November 2016.
- "Diabetes Fact Sheet". World Health Organisation. November 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
- "Sugar-Sweetened Beverages". SugarScience. University of California, San Francisco.
- Malik, Vasanti S.; Popkin, Barry M.; Bray, George A.; Després, Jean-Pierre; Willett, Walter C.; Hu, Frank B. (1 November 2010). "Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis". Diabetes Care. 33 (11): 2477–2483. doi:10.2337/dc10-1079. PMC 2963518. PMID 20693348.
- "Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs)". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2017-10-31.
- de Koning, Lawrence; Malik, Vasanti S.; Kellogg, Mark D.; Rimm, Eric B.; Willett, Walter C.; Hu, Frank B. (2012-04-10). "Sweetened beverage consumption, incident coronary heart disease, and biomarkers of risk in men". Circulation. 125 (14): 1735–1741, S1. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.067017. ISSN 1524-4539. PMC 3368965. PMID 22412070.
- Fung, Teresa T.; Malik, Vasanti; Rexrode, Kathryn M.; Manson, JoAnn E.; Willett, Walter C.; Hu, Frank B. (April 2009). "Sweetened beverage consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 89 (4): 1037–1042. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.27140. ISSN 1938-3207. PMC 2667454. PMID 19211821.
- "Obesity and overweight". World Health Organisation. June 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
- Lindsay H Allen; Andrew Prentice (28 December 2012). Encyclopedia of Human Nutrition 3E. Academic Press. pp. 231–233. ISBN 978-0-12-384885-7. Retrieved 4 April 2013.
- Malik, Vasanti S; Schulze, Matthias B; Hu, Frank B (August 2006). "Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 84 (2): 274–288. ISSN 0002-9165. PMC 3210834. PMID 16895873.
- Walton, Alice (15 May 2014). "All Sugared Up: The Best And Worst Breakfast Cereals For Kids". Forbes.
- Harford, Tim (16 March 2016). "The Budget's sugar tax is half-baked". Financial Times.
- "The Nutrition Source: Sugary Drinks". Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Harvard School of Public Health.
- Triggle, Nick (16 March 2016). "Sugar tax: How it will work?". BBC News Online. Retrieved 22 March 2016.
- Silver, Marc (19 June 2015). "Guess Which Country Has The Biggest Increase In Soda Drinking". National Public Radio.
- ECSIP (16 July 2014). Food taxes and their impact on competitiveness in the agri-food sector (Report). European Commission. pp. 27–30. Ref. Ares (2014) 2365745.
- Bittman, Mark (12 February 2010). "Is Soda the New Tobacco?". The New York Times.
- "Is Soda the New Tobacco?". Business Insider. 16 November 2015.
- Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, "Who would be affected by soda taxes?" The Fed Letter, No. 284 Mar 2011.
- Adamy, Janet (2009-05-12). "Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Healthcare". The Wall Street Journal.
- McColl, Karen (March 2009). "Fat Taxes and the Financial Crisis". The Lancet. 373 (9666): 797–798. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60463-3.
- Spaulding, William C. "Tax Incidence: How the Tax Burden is Shared Between Buyers and Sellers". thismatter.com.
- Guerrero-López, Carlos M., Mishel Unar-Munguía, and M. Arantxa Colchero. "Price Elasticity Of The Demand For Soft Drinks, Other Sugar-Sweetened Beverages And Energy Dense Food In Chile". BMC Public Health 17.1 (2017): n. pag. Web.
- Colchero, M.A. et al. "Price Elasticity Of The Demand For Sugar Sweetened Beverages And Soft Drinks In Mexico". Economics & Human Biology 19 (2015): 129-137. Web.
- Briggs, Adam (2016). "Sugar Tax Could Sweeten A Market Failure". Nature. 531 (7596): 551–551. doi:10.1038/531551a.
- Brownell, Kelly D.; et al. (2009). "The Public Health And Economic Benefits Of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages". New England Journal of Medicine. 361 (16): 1599–1605. doi:10.1056/nejmhpr0905723. PMC 3140416.
- Saez, Emmanuel. "Externalities: Problems and Solutions Chapter 5" (PDF). UC Berkeley.
- "Australian soft drink industry vows to slash use of sugar by 20 per cent". Sydney Morning Herald. 25 June 2018. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
- Jacobs, Andrew; Richtel, Matt (13 November 2017). "She Took On Colombia's Soda Industry. Then She Was Silenced". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 November 2017.
- Scott-Thomas, Caroline. "Denmark to scrap decades-old soft drink tax".
- Strom, Stephanie (12 November 2012). "'Fat Tax' in Denmark Is Repealed After Criticism". The New York Times.
- "[Controversial sugar levy: France introduces a cola tax]". Der Spiegel. 28 December 2011.
- "Coca-Cola part en guerre contre la "taxe sodas"", Le Monde, 2011, retrieved 2011-12-30
- Bouckley, Ben (24 April 2013). "Soft drinks stall in France as consumers trade down: Canadean". BeverageDaily.com. illiam Reed Business Media. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
- "Stopping slurping. Taxes on fizzy drinks seem to work as intended". The Economist. 28 November 2015. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
- Mario Mazzochi (University of Bologna), “The impact of the French soda tax on prices, purchases and tastes: an ex post evaluation”, Food Economics and Policy Seminar, TSE, April 28, 2017, 11:00–12:30, room MS 003.
- editor, Denis Campbell Health policy (2016-03-17). "Sugar tax: financially regressive but progressive for health?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2016-08-10.
- Rodríguez, Ruth (10 September 2013). "Experts applause ten percent on soda tax, (in Spanish)". El Universal. Retrieved 31 October 2013.
- "Fizzing with rage". The Economist. 19 October 2013. Retrieved 31 October 2013.
- Gutiérrez-Alcala, Roberto (25 July 2013). "Morbid Obesity grows in Mexico, (in Spanish)". El Universal. Retrieved 31 October 2013.
- BALANCE (13 June 2011). "Each patient with diabetes cost the Mexican Government 708 USD in 2011, (in Spanish)". CNNMéxico. CNNMéxico. Archived from the original on 31 October 2013. Retrieved 31 October 2013.
- Sánchez, Julián (12 September 2013). "Tycoons and Sugar Cane productors reject soda tax, (in Spanish)". El Universal. Retrieved 31 October 2013.
- Partlow, Joshua (26 October 2013). "Mexico's Soda companies fear junk-food tax". The Washington Post. Retrieved 31 October 2013.
- Figueroa-Alcantara, Héctor (28 October 2013). "Mexican Senate approves tax scheme for 2014, (in Spanish)". Excelsior. Retrieved 31 October 2013.
- Guthrie, Amy (7 January 2016). "Mexican Soda Tax Helps Curb Consumption, Study Shows". The Wall Street Journal.
- Melissa Healy. "Mexico's soda tax will save 18,900 lives and more than $983 million over 10 years, study says". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2016-11-04.
- Colchero, M. Arantxa; Molina, Mariana; Guerrero-López, Carlos M. (2017-06-14). "After Mexico Implemented a Tax, Purchases of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Decreased and of Water Increased: Difference by Place of Residence, Household Composition, and Income Level". The Journal of Nutrition. 147: jn251892. doi:10.3945/jn.117.251892. ISSN 0022-3166. PMC 5525113. PMID 28615377.
- Tisdall, Jonathan (26 June 2007). ""Chocolate tax" should go". Aftenposten. Archived from the original on 26 June 2007.
- "Avgiftssatser 2017" (in Norwegian). Government of Norway. 20 December 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
- Finansdepartementet (2017-10-12). "Avgiftssatser 2018". Regjeringen.no (in Norwegian). Retrieved 2018-02-19.
- ABS-CBN News (December 20, 2017). "TRAIN explained: How the sugar tax will impact consumers". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved 2017-12-21.
- "Coffee, juice, energy drinks to be taxed! 5 questions that you need to ask". The Philippine Star. 24 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-12-21.
- "Relax lang: Milk, 3-in-1 coffee excluded from Senate sugar tax bill – Angara". Politiko - politics.com.ph. 24 September 2017. Retrieved 2017-12-21.
- "2016 budget people's guide" (PDF). South African National treasury and Revenue Service. 2016-02-24. p. 4. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
Obesity is a worldwide concern. South Africa has the worst obesity ranking in sub-Saharan Africa. This has led to greater risk of heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Government proposes to introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages on 1 April 2017 to help reduce excessive sugar intake.
- UAE imposes 'sin' tax on soda, tobacco, and energy drinks Business Insider October 3, 2017
- Triggle, Nick (2018-04-06). "Soft drink sugar tax starts, but will it work?". BBC News. Retrieved 2018-04-10.
- Gander, Kashmira (17 March 2016). "Budget 2016: George Osborne announces sugar tax on soft drinks industry". The Independent.
- "New sugar tax confirmed in fight to combat rising obesity". 8 March 2017.
- Triggle, Nick (16 March 2016). "Sugar tax: How it will work?". BBC News.
- "Sugar tax: How it will work?". BBC News. 16 March 2016. Retrieved 18 April 2016.
- Leslie, Ian (7 April 2016). "The sugar conspiracy". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 November 2016.
- Briggs, A. D. M.; Mytton, O. T.; Kehlbacher, A.; Tiffin, R.; Rayner, M.; Scarborough, P. (2013). "Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: Econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study". BMJ. 347: f6189. doi:10.1136/bmj.f6189. PMC 3814405. PMID 24179043.
- Neville, Sarah (17 March 2016). "UK tax on sugary drinks is 'nannying' and 'impractical'". Financial Times.
- "University of Glasgow - University news - Focusing on sugar in the fight against global obesity could be misleading". www.gla.ac.uk. Retrieved 2016-08-10.
- Kaminska, Izabella (18 March 2016). "Robert Lustig: godfather of the sugar tax". Financial Times.
- Sugar tax must apply to sweets as well as drinks, say campaigners The Guardian
- Purdy, Chase (17 May 2016). "SODA SCUFFLE: The fight over taxing your sugary soda just kicked into high gear". Quartz. Retrieved 15 November 2016.
- Sorensen, Christian, Alec Mullee, and Harley Duncan (June 2017). "Soda Taxes: Old and New". The Tax Adviser. 48 (6): 410–414.
- American Heart Association, http://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=800 statement], 24 August 2009, Archived 28 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
- "First U.S. soda tax cuts consumption beyond expectations". Reuters. 28 October 2016. Retrieved 15 November 2016.
- "Berkeley 2014 elections tune in here for live coverage". Archived from the original on 7 November 2014. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
- "How Did Berkeley Pass A Soda Tax? Bloomberg's Cash Didn't Hurt". NPR. 5 November 2014.
- "City of Berkeley Sugary Beverages and Soda Tax Question, Measure D (November 2014)". ballotpedia.org.
- "City of San Francisco Sugary Drink Tax, Proposition E (November 2014)". Ballotpedia.
- Boscia, Ted (17 August 2015). "Study: Berkeley soda tax falls flat". Cornell Chronicle. Cornell University. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
- Falbe, J.; Rojas, N.; et al. (2015). "Higher Retail Prices of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages 3 Months After Implementation of an Excise Tax in Berkeley, California". Am J Public Health. 105 (11): 2194–2201. doi:10.2105/ajph.2015.302881. PMC 4605188.
- Anwar, Yasmin (23 August 2016). "Soda tax linked to drop in sugary beverage drinking in Berkeley". UC Berkeley.
- Falbe, Jennifer; Thompson, Hannah R.; Becker, Christina M.; Rojas, Nadia; McCulloch, Charles E.; Madsen, Kristine A. (2016-08-23). "Impact of the Berkeley Excise Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption". American Journal of Public Health. 106 (10): 1865–1871. doi:10.2105/ajph.2016.303362. ISSN 0090-0036.
- Silver, Lynn D.; Ng, Shu Wen; Ryan-Ibarra, Suzanne; Taillie, Lindsey Smith; Induni, Marta; Miles, Donna R.; Poti, Jennifer M.; Popkin, Barry M. (2017-04-18). "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 Medicine. 14 (4): e1002283. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283. ISSN 1549-1676.
- Silver, Lynn D.; Ng, Shu Wen; Ryan-Ibarra, Suzanne; Taillie, Lindsey Smith; Induni, Marta; Miles, Donna R.; Poti, Jennifer M.; Popkin, Barry M. (18 April 2017). "Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study". PLOS Medicine. 14 (4): e1002283. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283 – via PLoS Journals.
- "Kenney: Soda tax would fund $400M in projects". The Philadelphia Inquirer. 1 March 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
- "Bernie Sanders Op-Ed: A Soda Tax Would Hurt Philly's Poor". 24 April 2016.
- CNN, David Wright. "Clinton 'very supportive' of Philadelphia soda tax".
- "Soft drinks, hard lobbying". The Philadelphia Inquirer. 6 March 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
- Claire Sasko, American Beverage Association Files Soda-Tax Lawsuit, Philadelphia Magazine (September 14, 2016).
- Fifteen health organizations file in Philadelphia’s sugary drink tax, American Heart Association News (March 10, 2017).
- Nadolny, Tricia L. (16 June 2016). "Soda tax passes; Philadelphia is first big city in nation to enact one". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 17 June 2016.
- "Seattle's soda tax has two goals". King5. February 22, 2017. Retrieved February 23, 2017.
- Retailers Blame Soda Tax; Mayor Kenney Responds With Harsh Words, CBS News Philadelphia, January 10, 2017
- Julia Terruso (2017). "Soda companies, supermarkets report 30-50 pct. sales drop from soda tax" Philly.com, 21 Feb 2017.
- Philly: Soda tax revenue to fall short Philly.com, June 13, 2017
- "Soda Tax Revenues Lag from Higher Prices, Fewer Purchases, Tax Avoidance". August 3, 2017.
- Langellier, Brent A.; Lê-Scherban, Félice; Purtle, Jonathan (8/4/2017). "Funding quality pre-kindergarten slots with Philadelphia's new 'sugary drink tax': simulating effects of using an excise tax to address a social determinant of health". Public Health Nutrition. 20 (13): 2450–2458. doi:10.1017/S1368980017001756. ISSN 1368-9800. Check date values in:
- Pepsi to lay off 80 to 100, blames soda tax, The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1, 2017.
- Fabiola Cineas, Philly’s Soda Tax Is Back in Court Today, Philadelphia Magazine (April 5, 2017).
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upholds Philly soda tax Billypenn.com, Retrieved June 23, 2107.
- Julia Terruso, Beverage tax upheld by Commonwealth Court, The Philadelphia Inquirer June 14, 2017
- Esterl, Mike (9 November 2016). "Soda Taxes Approved in Four Cities, Vote Looms in Chicago's Cook County". The Wall Street Journal.
- "Sugary Drinks Tax Frequently Asked Questions". SF Treasurer. City and County of San Francisco. Retrieved 30 October 2017.
- Knight, Heather (25 October 2016). "Record spending by soda industry to defeat Prop V". San Francisco Chronicle.
- Heather Knight, Why Berkeley passed a soda tax and S.F. didn't, San Francisco Chronicle (7 November 2014).
- City of Albany. "Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax FAQs."
- "Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax". bouldercolorado.gov. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
- "NewsColorado News University of Colorado Boulder receives soda-tax exemption". The Denver Post. Retrieved 24 October 2017.
- Hal Dardick, Cook County soda pop tax approved with Preckwinkle breaking tie vote, Chicago Tribune (10 November 2016).
- V.v.B (13 October 2017). "Chicago's soda tax is repealed". The Economist.
- Channick, Becky Yerak, Robert. "Judge blocks Cook County soda pop tax". chicagotribune.com.
- Cook County: Soda tax no longer runs afoul of food stamp rules Chicago Tribune, August 17, 2017.
- Pathieu, Diane (2017-10-10). "Cook County officials vote 15-1 to repeal sugary drink tax". ABC7 Chicago. Retrieved 2017-10-11.
- Rafanelli, Rachael (September 16, 2017). "Soda tax in Multnomah County? Group working to get measure on 2018 ballot". KGW. Retrieved 30 October 2017.
- Seattle City Council says yes to soda tax Retrieved June 5, 2017
- Jan 5, 2018 Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax Retrieved January 23, 2018
- Seattle collects more than 4m from new tax on sugary beverages Retrieved May 16, 2018
- O’Connor, Anahad. "Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away From Bad Diets". The New York Times.
- "Does the soda industry manipulate research on sugary drinks' health effects?". Los Angeles Times.
- Reuters, Tax Soda, Pizza To Cut Obesity Researchers say, 8 March 2010
- "Unhealthy Foods Become Less Popular With Increasing Costs". American Medical Association. 8 March 2010. Archived from the original on 29 March 2010. Retrieved 18 January 2014.
- Health Affairs, Soda Taxes, Soft Drink Consumption, And Children's Body Mass Index 1 April 2010
- Associated Press Study: Small Soda Taxes Don’t Dent Obesity 1 April 2010, Archived 4 April 2010 at the Wayback Machine.
- Park, Alice (13 December 2010) "Study: Soda Taxes May Not Be Enough to Curb Obesity" TIME.
- Fletcher, Jason M. (December 2010). "The effects of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and weight outcomes". Journal of Public Economics. 94 (11–12): 967–974. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.09.005.
- "Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Policy Statement". APHA. 30 October 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
- Andreyeva, T.; Chaloupka, F. J.; Brownell, K. D. (2011). "Estimating the potential of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce consumption and generate revenue". Preventive Medicine. 52 (6): 413–416. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.03.013. PMID 21443899.
- Revenue Calculator for Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes Archived 7 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine.
- Allison Aubrey, "Could a Soda Tax Prevent 2,600 Deaths Per Year?" NPR.org, 12 January 2012
- Health benefits, particularly in high risk populations, projected from an excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages intake in California
- Zhen, Chen (July 2013). "Predicting the Effects of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes on Food and Beverage Demand in a Large Demand System". American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 95: 1–25. doi:10.1093/ajae/aat049. PMC 4022288.
- Lisa M. Powell, Roy Wada, Joseph J. Persky, Frank J. Chaloupka, “Employment Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes”, American Journal of Public Health 104, no. 4 (April 1, 2014): pp. 672-677.
- Veerman, JL; Sacks, G; Antonopoulos, N; Martin, J (2016). "The Impact of a Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages on Health and Health Care Costs: A Modelling Study". PLoS ONE. 11 (4): e0151460. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151460.
- "Wilson Proposes Soft Drink Tax," Hawaiian Gazette. 1 September 1914. Page 1. Retrieved 1 September 2014.
- Hartocollis, Anemona (2 July 2010). "Soda Tax in N.Y. a Victim of Industry Campaign". The New York Times.
- "Miscellaneous Taxes".
- Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger, "Beverage Industry Douses Tax on Soft Drinks." Los Angeles Times, 7 February 2010.
- Hartocollis, Anemona (July 2, 2010). "Failure of State Soda Tax Plan Reflects Power of an Antitax Message". The New York Times.
- "Richmond Municipal Code CHAPTER 7.08 SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGES" (PDF).
- Rogers, Robert (6 November 2012), "Voters resoundingly reject Richmond 'soda' tax", MercuryNews.com, retrieved 20 March 2017
- Rogers, Robert (7 November 2012). "Soda tax trounced in Richmond but may rise again on larger stages". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
- Jeremy B. White, California soda tax bill pulled without a vote, Sacramento Bee (April 12, 2016).
- "New California Soda-Tax Bill Under Consideration". The Huffington Post.
- "Bill Monning's Proposed Soda Tax Dies in Committee". Monterey County Weekly.
- Patrick McGreevy, More expensive soda? Lawmakers want to tax sugary drinks, Los Angeles Times (March 8, 2016).
- Brendsel, Dave (26 June 2013). "Telluride proposes soda tax". Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Retrieved 9 August 2013.
- Meyer, Jeremy (6 November 2013). "Quirky ballot issues: Durango stuffs bag fee, Telluride slams soda tax". The Denver Post. Retrieved 7 November 2013.
- Bittman, Mark (29 July 2014). "Introducing the National Soda Tax". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 September 2014.
- Bump, Philip (7 October 2014). "How a soda tax fight in San Francisco explains California politics". The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 October 2014.
- "City of Berkeley Sugary Beverages and Soda Tax Question, Measure D (November 2014)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
- "City of San Francisco Sugary Drink Tax, Proposition E (November 2014)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
- Mayor wants soda tax to support early childhood education Albuquerque Journal
- T.S. Last, Journal staff writer. "Updated: Soda tax goes flat in Santa Fe". www.abqjournal.com.
- "Poll: Americans split on soda taxes". 6 May 2016.
- "Most Americans Oppose Soda, Candy Taxes". US News & World Report.
- "Poll shows support for soda tax to fight obesity". SFGate.
- Drake, Bruce. "Tax Sugary Drinks? New Yorkers Say 'No' but Leave Some Wiggle Room" Politics Daily. 14 April 2010.
- Hensley, Scott (21 April 2010). "In Obesity Fight, A Third Of Americans Support Soda Tax". NPR.
- "Lobbying Spending Database-American Beverage Assn, 2009". Center for Responsive Politics.
- Tax Soft Drinks To Fight Obesity, US experts say Reuters, 16 September 2009.
- "Education, Not Taxes Americans Against Food Taxes, 2012
- Silano, Marco, and Carlo Agostoni. "To Tax Or Not To Tax Sugary Drinks? This Is The Question". Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (2017): 1. Web.
- Brownell, Kelly D.; Frieden, Thomas R. (2009). "Ounces Of Prevention — The Public Policy Case For Taxes On Sugared Beverages". New England Journal of Medicine. 360 (18): 1805–1808. doi:10.1056/nejmp0902392.
- "Tobacco War".
- Deane, Sandy (15 June 2015). "Tax on sweet drinks".
- Thow, Anne Marie; Quested, Christine; Juventin, Lisa; Kun, Russ; Khan, A. Nisha; Swinburn, Boyd (1 March 2011). "Taxing soft drinks in the Pacific: implementation lessons for improving health". Health Promot. Int. 26 (1): 55–64. doi:10.1093/heapro/daq057. PMID 20739326 – via heapro.oxfordjournals.org.
- Diep, Francie (13 October 2016). "A World Tour of Sugary Taxes".
- St Helena Government (21 March 2014). "Budget Speech 2014". Retrieved 26 March 2014.
- "Health-related Taxes on Food and Beverages" (PDF).
- Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University
- UNESDA Industry Opinion on a Soda Tax
- Ounces of Prevention – The Public Policy Case for Taxes on Sugared Beverages: "Perspective" piece in the New England Journal of Medicine, by Kelly Brownell and Tom Frieden
- Want a Healthier State? Save Gov. Paterson's Tax on Sugar Soda: Op-Ed in the New York Daily News, by Kelly Brownell
- Rudd Report on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: An Updated Policy Brief: by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale