• Users Online: 55
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 65-72

Taxation for reducing purchase and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages: A systematic review


Community Nutrition Department, Student Research Committee, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Date of Submission31-Dec-2018
Date of Decision24-Feb-2019
Date of Acceptance17-Mar-2019
Date of Web Publication29-May-2019

Correspondence Address:
Mina Babashahi
PhD Candidate of Food and Nutrition Policy, Student Research Committee, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/iahs.iahs_62_18

Get Permissions

  Abstract 


Aims: Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are common in worldwide and lead to a dramatic rise in mortality. Excess consumption of sugar due to dietary changes can lead to arising calorie intake that contributes to weight gain, adiposity, and NCDs. Taxes, subsidies, and other economic executive policy have a key role in discouraging the consumption of unhealthy food. This study was aimed at a systematic review of recent research evidence about the tax impacts on the purchase and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). Materials and Methods: Five databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, CENTERAL, and EMBASE, were systematically searched from 2000 to May 2017. Results: Seven studies were included in this review. In six of the seven experimental studies reviewed demonstrated that consumers can be responsive to changes in food and drink prices. Taxing SSBs effectively could decrease food purchases, increasing SSBs price, and reducing consumption. Reducing the consumption of these beverages results in reduced overweight, obesity, and body mass index among populations. Conclusion: The current evidence base appears to converge and suggests that the fiscal strategy is likely to reduce purchases of high sugar products at least in the short term and likely can lead to decreasing calorie intake.

Keywords: Soda, soft drink, sugar-sweetened beverages, tax


How to cite this article:
Sobhani SR, Babashahi M. Taxation for reducing purchase and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages: A systematic review. Int Arch Health Sci 2019;6:65-72

How to cite this URL:
Sobhani SR, Babashahi M. Taxation for reducing purchase and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages: A systematic review. Int Arch Health Sci [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 19];6:65-72. Available from: http://www.iahs.kaums.ac.ir/text.asp?2019/6/2/65/259334




  Introduction Top


Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are common in worldwide and lead to a dramatic rise in mortality.[1],[2],[3] Globally, the reports show that NCDs are responsible for >38 million deaths per year and 16 million premature mortality as well.[4] For these reasons, the reduction of NCDs is a sustainable goal for consideration of the Global Action Plan.[1],[2],[5] Because of staggering complications of NCDs, health-care policymakers pay attention to confronting and preventive action globally.[6] Obesity is one of the most serious risk factors for NCDs and is a significant health problem for disability and premature death. Furthermore, previous surveys showed that obesity leads to a deterioration quality of life in the people.[7] In this context, literatures show that obesity can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes type 2, sleep apnea, and lead to decreasing life expectancy around 7 years.[8],[9]

Global statistics show that >1.9 billion adults in the range of 18 years and older (39% of the total adult population aged 18 years and over) are placed in the overweight and obesity categories. Of these, over 650 million (13% of the total adult population aged 18 years and over) are in the obese category.[10] Overweight and obesity are the sixth most substantial known risk factors of disease in the world.[11]

Genetic factors, inadequate daily activity, and increasing the consumption of unhealthy food (e.g., fast food) are the primary causes of overweight and obesity.[3],[12],[13],[14],[15] Socioeconomic status and sociopolitical changes may effect on the incidence and prevalence of overweight and obesity by changing these factors.[16],[17],[18],[19]

Dramatically, increment of NCDs and obesity and their complication in the worldwide should be alerted to practitioners and health politicians for the prevention of associated health risks.[10],[20],[21],[22]

Excess consumption of sugar due to dietary changes can lead to arising calories intake that contributes to weight gain and adiposity.[23] Evidence shows that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is a risk factor for heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.[25],[26],[27]

The previous studies have shown that one of the factors in food selection is product price, which considers by food/nutrition policymaker for interventions aimed at changing population-level dietary consumption.[24] Taxes, subsidies, and other economic executive policy have a key role for discouraging the consumption of unhealthy food, which is contained harmful nutrients such as sugar, salt, and saturated fat and encouraging the consumption of healthy foods such as vegetables and fruits.[25] Taxes can be employed as a sales tax (applied at point of purchase as a proportion of the value of the good) or an excise tax (typically per unit and applied on the sale or production for sale of the good), on a specific nutrient, a combination of nutrients or on a category of food or drink such as SSBs.[26] A tax on SSBs can have an impact on the consumption of its and follow by a decrease in the prevalence of overweight and obesity.[27] SSBs taxes as one part of a comprehensive approach for the prevention of overweight and obesity[28],[29] can have extensive potential health and social benefits.[27],[30]

This study was aimed at a systematic review of recent research evidence about the tax impacts on the purchase and consumption of SSBs. This study included everyone who is consumer/purchaser of high sugar beverage in the community setting.


  Materials and Methods Top


In order to reproducibility of systematic review present study, its methods and results are reported according to the PRISMA guideline.[31] Five databases, including PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, CENTERAL, and EMBASE were systematically searched from 2000 to May 2017. Articles in English were considered. Broad search terms were used in the database searches to ensure that all potentially relevant articles entered the screening process. Each database was searched using database-specific indexing terms [Table 1]. After removing duplicates, choosing studies that assessed the effect of the taxation for reducing the purchase and consumption of SSBs conducted. As shown in [Figure 1], the selection of related studies conducted by reading titles, abstract, and full text independently by SRS and MB. By considering inclusion and exclusion criteria, related studies were selected. Modeling studies were included because of their high prevalence in this field and the likelihood that such evidence heavily influences policy-making in this area. Studies without English full text were removed. The reference lists of selected studies were searched to find any studies that not included in the electronic search. This process adds no more new studies.
Table 1: Search strategy

Click here to view
Figure 1: PRISMA diagram

Click here to view


For each study, the study's country, year, population information, study design and intervention, findings, and the key conclusion of the study are summarized in the data [Table 2].
Table 2: The quality criteria for included studies

Click here to view


Studies were included if they reported on the impact of a change in SSB price on consumption/purchase/sales of high sugar beverages, calorie intake, weight, body mass index, and consumption/purchase/sales by empirical data. Repeated measure panel design-several pretests and posttest of the same group or randomized controlled trials were included.

The study is based on empirical data, excluding reviews, commentaries, editorials, and modeling study. General food taxes were excluded, but if there are separated information, they were entered into this study. Furthermore, studies without English full text were excluded.

We assessed the quality of all studies using a checklist derived from one recent review of the impact of a tax on SSBs study.[32] The quality criteria assessed were as follows: (i) prospective study of observed behavior; (ii) evaluation of an actual tax (rather than a hypothetical tax); (iii) price linked directly to purchase within same population; (iv) consideration of product compensation (cross-price elasticity); (v) long-run input data across time with sufficient variation in prices used to estimate price elasticities (for experimental studies this included data collected over a period of at least 1 month, for studies using existing data sets on SSB price this included data collected at intervals no <2 months apart for at least 12 months), (vi) valid and appropriate country-specific data, and (vii) reporting of uncertainty around price elasticity estimates. We report on all quality criteria for all studies and rate each study out of seven reflecting one point for each quality measure [Table 2].


  Results Top


As shown in the PRISMA diagram of the present study [Figure 1], from 2042 first search results which 1134 irrelevant of them were removed in screening steps, 137 full texts were assessed. Finally, seven studies were included in the review as shown in [Table 3].
Table 3: Data extraction table

Click here to view


In the study of Colchero et al., the impact of 1 peso/L tax on SSBs by the Mexican Congress as a part of the federal budget in September 2013 was examined.[33] These taxes became effective on January 1, 2014. The outcome measure was the volume of taxed and nontaxed beverages purchased. The authors conducted a counterfactual difference-in-difference analysis of pretax and posttax trends and found that, relative to counterfactual in 2014 (what would have happened if the taxes were not implemented), the purchase of taxed SSBs decreased by 6% on an average or 12 mL/capita/day. This decrease in the purchase of taxed beverages kept growing through the posttax period, reaching 12% by December 2014. Although all socioeconomic groups saw a significant decline in the purchase of taxed beverages, the effect was the greatest among the poorest households. Meanwhile, the purchase of untaxed beverages (e.g., plain bottled water) has been increased by an average of 4%. This study concluded that the tax on SSBs was associated with fewer purchases of taxed beverages and more purchases of untaxed beverages.

In another study for investigation of this tax (1 peso/L tax on SSBs in Mexico), Colchero et al., estimate changes in sales of SSBs and plain water by using sales data from the Monthly Surveys of the Manufacturing Industry from January 2007 to December 2015.[34] They found a decrease of 7.3% in per capita sales of SSB and an increase of 5.2% of per capita sales of plain water in 2014–2015 compared to the pretax period (2007–2013).

In the study of Falbe et al., the impact of the excise tax on SSB consumption in Berkeley, California, which became the first US jurisdiction to implement such a tax ($0.01/oz) was evaluated.[35] A repeated cross-sectional design was used to examine changes in pre- to post-tax beverage consumption in low-income neighborhoods in Berkeley versus in the comparison cities of Oakland and San Francisco, California. Consumption of SSBs decreased 21% in Berkeley and increased 4% in comparison cities (P = 0.046). Water consumption increased more in Berkeley (+63%) than in comparison cities (+19%; P < 0.01). All in all, Berkeley's excise tax reduced SSB consumption in low-income neighborhoods.

In the study of Colantuoni and Rojas, the effect of two tax events: a 5.5% sales tax on soft drinks imposed by the state of Maine in 1991 and a 5% sales tax on soft drinks levied in Ohio in 2003 was investigated by using sales data collected by scanner devices in the two states, where soda taxes where enacted as well as on neighboring states.[36] Results suggest that sales tax had a statistically significant impact on the consumption of soft drinks.

In the study of Epstein et al., using a within-subjects design, selected low-nutrient-dense foods (e.g., sweetened beverages, candy, and salty snacks) were taxed, and fruits and vegetables and bottled water were subsidized by 12.5% or 25% in comparison to a usual price condition for 199 female shoppers in an experimental store.[37] Results showed taxes reduced calories purchased of taxed foods and subsidies increased calories purchased of subsidized foods. However, no overall effect was observed on the total calories purchased. These results suggest that taxes and subsidies can influence energy purchased for products taxed or subsidized, but not total energy purchased.

Silver et al. examined the association of the first penny per ounce SSB excise tax in the United States, in Berkeley, California, with beverage prices, sales, store revenue/consumer spending, and usual beverage intake by comparison of pretaxation (before January 1, 2015) and first-year posttaxation (March 1, 2015–February 29, 2016). One year following implementation of the nation's first large SSB tax, prices of SSBs increased in many, but not all, settings, SSB sales declined, and sales of untaxed beverages (especially water) and overall study beverages rose in Berkeley; overall consumer spending per transaction in the stores studied did not rise.[38] Posttax self-reported SSB intake did not change significantly compared to baseline. Significant declines in SSB sales, even in this relatively affluent community, accompanied by revenue used for prevention suggest promise for this policy.

Waterlander et al. examined the effects of a price increase on SSBs on beverage and snack purchases using a randomized controlled design within a three-dimensional web-based supermarket.[39] The trial contained two conditions: an experimental condition with a 19% tax on SSBs (to reflect an increase in Dutch value added tax (VAT) from 6% to 19%); and a control condition with regular prices, n = 102. Results showed that participants in the price increase condition purchased significantly fewer SSBs than the control group (B = −0.90; 95% confidence interval = −1.70–−0.10 L per household per week). There were no significant effects on purchases in other beverage or snack food categories. This means that the higher VAT rate was effective in reducing SSB purchases and had no negative side-effects.


  Discussion Top


The present study that reviewed recent research evidence about the tax impacts on the purchase and consumption of SSBs indicated that tax can be effective in promoting desired dietary changes. The available evidence on sales data from countries that have implemented a tax on SSB also aligns with these findings to suggest that purchases have reduced since the tax was implemented. In six of the seven experimental studies reviewed demonstrated that consumers can be responsive to changes in food and drink prices.

Encourage the consumption of healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables and discourage the consumption of unhealthy nutrients such as salt, sugar, and saturated fat can be implemented with food and nutrition economic policies which employed in some countries. It should be noted that health outcomes associated with food consumption is nonlinear and is influenced by a set of decisive factors that interact at an individual, community, and population level.[40] On the other hand, human behavior is very different in choices of food and patterns of consumption, so for implementation a new tax on SSBs, all aspects should be well implemented should be carefully scrutinized and well-planned.

Multispectral strategies such as taxation of unhealthy foods and subsidy of healthy foods are the usual advocated policy for preventive health, promoting diets, and prevent NCDs which had a high cost in the healthcare system.[41] A public health priority to improve diet is decreasing SSB consumption and applying a tax on SSB can be effective with regard to their high-calorie and low-nutrient content and role in obesity, diabetes, and dental caries.

Rate optimal tax is an important consideration for SSB taxes. While some studies such as Waterlander et al. showed the link between existing soda sales taxes and weight outcomes is small.[39] However, other natural experiment studies have generally determined that soda sales taxes (ranging from 1% to 8%) are too low to effect in any population.[42],[43],[44] Experimental research that suggests the tax level should be at least 20%[39] or 25%[45] to be effective.

This suggests that taxing SSBs effectively could decrease their choice in food purchases and increasing SSBs price is a good idea for reducing consumption. Reducing the consumption of these beverages results in reduced overweight, obesity, and body mass index among populations.[46],[47] A minor decreasing in caloric intake will change the weight status of adults who are marginally overweight or obese and can decrease in point prevalence for overweight (−0.045) and obesity (−0.03), particularly in adults that have a high weekly and daily intake.[48],[49]

The complex nature of diet-related behavior and its association with health outcomes such as obesity should be carefully considered in terms of how a tax on high sugar foods and drinks is implemented.[41]

Modeling studies emphasize the large taxes have good potential and suggest a 20% increasing price or a penny per ounce tax on SSB.[49],[50],[51]

On the other hand, more moderate taxes might also have important positive effects. A review of the price elasticity of demand for major food categories showed that an 8%–10% reduction in purchases when the price of soft drinks would rise by only 10%.[52] Hence, consideration of price elasticity of SSBs demand is essential before formulating tax policies.

Consideration of the right communication to inform about taxation can be very important to reach to maximize the effects of this policy.[53] Furthermore, it is very important that studies monitor the long-term effects of fiscal strategies on public health.[38]

Substitution effect of SSBs tax is another important point that be considered when evaluating its effects. A modeling study showed taxation in SSBs has a positive effect on fruit juice, low-fat milk, coffee, and tea purchases.[54]

This study also has limitations. First, studies without English full text were excluded, and databases were systematically searched from 2000 to 2017. Due to these filters applied in the study selection, relevant studies might have been excluded. In addition, other factors such as the economic crisis, greater information or awareness of consumers, the influence of different customs in each country, or the effect of the season which can have the effect on SSB purchases, did not consider in the study.

Several problems encountered in the beverage industry-related increase of tax. The beverage industry undoubted opposes taxation of sugar drinks. Industry disagreement to these price initiatives generally focuses on political, rather than legal, arguments. Industry reasons, among other things, that taxes will have an unequal and unfair impression on low-income consumers, and may cause losing jobs of workers SBBs manufacture.[55] Industry also declares that it is unfair to only out the consumption of sugar drinks as a cause of the obesity prevalent and that fiscal policy will not yield significant health benefits.


  Conclusion Top


The current evidence base appears to converge and suggests that a fiscal strategy is likely to reduce purchases of high sugar products at least in the short term and likely can lead to decreasing calorie intake.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Alwan A. The world health assembly responds to the global challenge of noncommunicable diseases. East Mediterr Health J 2013;19:511-2.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
World Health Organization. Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013-2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Tee E. Obesity in Asia: Prevalence and issues in assessment methodologies. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2002;11:S694-701.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Sustainable Development Goals. New York, The United Nations. Available from: http://www.sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?Menu=1300. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 02].  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Peykari N, Hashemi H, Dinarvand R, Haji-Aghajani M, Malekzadeh R, Sadrolsadat A, et al. National action plan for non-communicable diseases prevention and control in Iran; a response to emerging epidemic. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2017;16:3.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Jafari-Adli S, Jouyandeh Z, Qorbani M, Soroush A, Larijani B, Hasani-Ranjbar S. Prevalence of obesity and overweight in adults and children in Iran; a systematic review. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2014;13:1-10.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C. Rising burden of obesity in asia. J Obes 2010;2010. pii: 868573.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Hasani-Ranjbar S, Jouyandeh Z, Abdollahi M. A systematic review of anti-obesity medicinal plants – An update. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2013;12:28.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
World Health Organization. Obesity and Overweight factsheet from the WHO. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Vander Hoorn S, Murray CJ; Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborating Group. Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet 2002;360:1347-60.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Lal A, Moodie M, Ashton T, Siahpush M, Swinburn B. Health care and lost productivity costs of overweight and obesity in New Zealand. Aust N Z J Public Health 2012;36:550-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Tavakkoly Bazzaz J, Shojapoor M, Nazem H, Amiri P, Fakhrzadeh H, Heshmat R, et al. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene polymorphism in diabetes and obesity. Mol Biol Rep 2010;37:105-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
McCarthy MI. Genomics, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2339-50.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Marinou K, Tousoulis D, Antonopoulos AS, Stefanadi E, Stefanadis C. Obesity and cardiovascular disease: From pathophysiology to risk stratification. Int J Cardiol 2010;138:3-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Carreira H, Pereira M, Azevedo A, Lunet N. Trends of BMI and prevalence of overweight and obesity in portugal (1995-2005): A systematic review. Public Health Nutr 2012;15:972-81.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Hasani-Ranjbar S, Nayebi N, Larijani B, Abdollahi M. A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines used in the treatment of obesity. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:3073-85.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Sobhani SR, Keshtkar A, Dorosty AR, Farhadnejad H, Pouraram H. The association between dietary pattern and weight status in school-aged children: A cross-sectional study. J Compr Ped 2017;8:e56063.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Eini-Zinab H, Sobhani S. Contemporary socioeconomic changes, food and nutrition systems, and sustainable diets. Iran J Nutr Sci Food Technol 2018;13:129-38.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Sobhani R, Dorosti AR, Keshtkar A, Ramazani AH, Pouraram H. Association of school children's overweight and obesity with maternal overweight and obesity in the rural areas. Sci J Kurdistan Univ Med Sci 2015;20:76-84.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Sobhani S, Pouraram H, Keshtkar A, Dorosti A. Major dietary patterns and their association with weight status in school age rural children of Bijar, Kordestan. Iran J Nutr Sci Food Technol 2016;11:35-46.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Sobhani S, Sheikhi M, Eini-Zinab H, Mohammadi-Nasrabadi F. Compliance of Iran's National Nutrition and Food Security Policy (2012-2020) with components of sustainable diets framework. Iran J Nutr Sci Food Technol 2018; 13:153-60.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Roberts KE, Ells LJ, McGowan VJ, Machaira T, Targett VC, Allen RE, et al. Arapid review examining purchasing changes resulting from fiscal measures targeted at high sugar foods and sugar-sweetened drinks. Nutr Diabetes 2017;7:302.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
World Health Organization. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Cabrera Escobar MA, Veerman JL, Tollman SM, Bertram MY, Hofman KJ. Evidence that a tax on sugar sweetened beverages reduces the obesity rate: A meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2013;13:1072.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Mytton O. Time for a sugary drinks tax in the UK? J Public Health (Oxf) 2015;37:24-5.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Barroy H, Sparkes S. Assessing Fiscal Space for Health Expansion in Low-and-Middle Income Countries. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Wagenaar AC, Salois MJ, Komro KA. Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: A meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction 2009;104:179-90.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Hellowell M, Smith KE, Wright A. Hard to avoid but difficult to sustain: Scotland's innovative health tax on large retailers selling tobacco and alcohol. Milbank Q 2016;94:800-31.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Wright A, Smith KE, Hellowell M. Policy lessons from health taxes: A systematic review of empirical studies. BMC Public Health 2017;17:583.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Backholer K, Sarink D, Beauchamp A, Keating C, Loh V, Ball K, 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;19:3070-84.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
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.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
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:e0163463.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
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;106:1865-71.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Colantuoni F, Rojas C. The impact of soda sales taxes on consumption: Evidence from scanner data. Contemp Econ Policy 2015;33:714-34.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Epstein LH, Finkelstein E, Raynor H, Nederkoorn C, Fletcher KD, Jankowiak N, et al. Experimental analysis of the effect of taxes and subsides on calories purchased in an on-line supermarket. Appetite 2015;95:245-51.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, Taillie LS, Induni M, Miles DR, 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:e1002283.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Waterlander WE, Ni Mhurchu C, Steenhuis IH. Effects of a price increase on purchases of sugar sweetened beverages. Results from a randomized controlled trial. Appetite 2014;78:32-9.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Epstein LH, Jankowiak N, Nederkoorn C, Raynor HA, French SA, Finkelstein E, et al. Experimental research on the relation between food price changes and food-purchasing patterns: A targeted review. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:789-809.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Thow AM, Downs S, Jan S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of food taxes and subsidies to improve diets: Understanding the recent evidence. Nutr Rev 2014;72:551-65.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Fletcher JM, Frisvold D, Tefft N. Can soft drink taxes reduce population weight? Contemp Econ Policy 2010;28:23-35.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Kim D, Kawachi I. Food taxation and pricing strategies to “thin out” the obesity epidemic. Am J Prev Med 2006;30:430-7.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Mytton OT, Clarke D, Rayner M. Taxing unhealthy food and drinks to improve health. BMJ 2012;344:e2931.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Giesen JC, Havermans RC, Nederkoorn C, Jansen A. Impulsivity in the supermarket. Responses to calorie taxes and subsidies in healthy weight undergraduates. Appetite 2012;58:6-10.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Finkelstein EA, Zhen C, Bilger M, Nonnemaker J, Farooqui AM, Todd JE, et al. Implications of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax when substitutions to non-beverage items are considered. J Health Econ 2013;32:219-39.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Barquera S, Hernandez-Barrera L, Tolentino ML, Espinosa J, Ng SW, Rivera JA, et al. Energy intake from beverages is increasing among Mexican adolescents and adults. J Nutr 2008;138:2454-61.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Smith TA. Taxing Caloric Sweetened Beverages: Potential Effects on Beverage Consumption, Calorie Intake, and Obesity. Washington D.C: DIANE Publishing; 2010.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Fletcher JM, Frisvold DE, Tefft N. The effects of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and weight outcomes. J Public Econ 2010;94:967-74.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Andreyeva T, Chaloupka FJ, Brownell KD. Estimating the potential of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce consumption and generate revenue. Prev Med 2011;52:413-6.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Brownell KD, Frieden TR. Ounces of prevention – The public policy case for taxes on sugared beverages. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1805-8.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
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;100:216-22.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Lacanilao RD, Cash SB, Adamowicz WL. Heterogeneous consumer responses to snack food taxes and warning labels. J Consum Aff 2011;45:108-22.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Dharmasena S, Capps O Jr. Intended and unintended consequences of a proposed national tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to combat the U.S. obesity problem. Health Econ 2012;21:669-94.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Brownell KD, Farley T, Willett WC, Popkin BM, Chaloupka FJ, Thompson JW, et al. The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1599-605.  Back to cited text no. 55
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed199    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded76    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal