Current:Home > MyCities with soda taxes saw sales of sugary drinks fall as prices rose, study finds-LoTradeCoin
Cities with soda taxes saw sales of sugary drinks fall as prices rose, study finds
View Date:2024-12-24 02:17:38
Sales of sugary drinks fell dramatically across five U.S. cities, after they implemented taxes targeting those drinks – and those changes were sustained over time. That's according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Health Forum.
Researchers say the findings provide more evidence that these controversial taxes really do work. A claim the beverage industry disputes.
The cities studied were: Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., and Boulder, Colo. Taxes ranged from 1 to 2 cents per ounce. For a 2-liter bottle of soda, that comes out to between 67 cents to $1.30 extra in taxes.
While prior studies have looked at the impact of soda taxes, they usually studied one city at a time. This new study looked at the composite effect of the taxes in multiple cities to get an idea of what might happen if these taxes were more widespread – or scaled to a state or national level, says Scott Kaplan, an economics professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and the study's lead author.
Kaplan and his colleagues found that, on average, prices for sugar-sweetened drinks went up by 33.1% and purchases went down by basically the same amount – 33%.
"In other words, for every 1% increase in price, we find that purchases fall by about 1%," says Kaplan.
So when people had to pay more for sugary drinks, they reduced their purchases – and the effect was large and sustained.
But are people simply buying their sugary drinks elsewhere where it's cheaper?
Kaplan notes, prior research findings on that question have been contradictory. Some studies that focused on Philadelphia's sugary drink tax have found that, while sales of sugary drinks dropped significantly in the city, they actually went up in surrounding areas – indicating people were traveling to avoid the taxes. Other studies have found no such changes. In the new study, Kaplan and his colleagues didn't find evidence that consumers were traveling to make cross-border purchases.
Jennifer Pomeranz, an associate professor at the School of Global Public Health at New York University, says taxes that target sugary drinks are good public health policy because these drinks have no nutritional value, but they are linked with diet-related diseases.
As Kaplan notes, "sugar sweetened beverages make up a quarter of all the added sugar we see in the average adult American diet. And that's a really big amount."
Too much added sugar is linked to a host of poor health outcomes, including diabetes, obesity and heart disease. Sugary drink taxes are designed to discourage purchases to curb consumption.
In 2019, both the American Heart Association and the American Academy of Pediatricians officially endorsed soda taxes as a good way to reduce the risks of childhood obesity. And just last month, the World Health Organization called on countries to increase taxes on sugary drinks as a way to promote healthier diets.
While the U.S. saw a handful of major cities pass these taxes starting about a decade ago, the soda industry poured millions of dollars into fighting those efforts. In some states, opponents passed laws that basically stripped localities of the power to be able to pass soda taxes, and the movement basically stalled, says Pomeranz. The new findings are "great," she says of the new study. "I am thinking it could renew interest."
In a statement to NPR, the American Beverage Association said that the industry's strategy of offering consumers more choices with less sugar is working, noting that nearly 60 percent of beverages sold today have zero sugar.
"The calories that people get from beverages has decreased to its lowest level in decades," the ABA said. The industry group said that sugary drink taxes are unproductive and hurt consumers.
This story was edited by Jane Greenhalgh
veryGood! (2964)
Related
- Anti-abortion advocates press Trump for more restrictions as abortion pill sales spike
- Damon Quisenberry: Pioneering a New Era in Financial Education
- 49ers DE Nick Bosa says MAGA hat stunt was 'well worth' likely fine
- Can legislation combat the surge of non-consensual deepfake porn? | The Excerpt
- Voyager 2 is the only craft to visit Uranus. Its findings may have misled us for 40 years.
- The 'Survivor' 47 auction returns, but a player goes home. Who was voted out this week?
- NYC parents charged in death of 4-year-old boy who prosecutors say was starved to death
- GOP flips 2 US House seats in Pennsylvania, as Republican Scott Perry wins again
- ‘COP Fatigue’: Experts Warn That Size and Spectacle of Global Climate Summit Is Hindering Progress
- Opinion: TV news is awash in election post-mortems. I wonder if we'll survive
Ranking
- COINIXIAI Introduce
- Giuliani to appear in a NYC court after missing a deadline to surrender assets
- Jon Stewart finds bright side, Fox News calls Trump a 'phoenix': TV reacts to election
- AI ProfitPulse: Ushering in a New Era of Investment
- Bev Priestman fired as Canada women’s soccer coach after review of Olympic drone scandal
- 'They are family': California girl wins $300,000 settlement after pet goat seized, killed
- A green giant: This year’s 74-foot Rockefeller Christmas tree is en route from Massachusetts
- Don’t wait for a holiday surge. Now is a good time to get your flu and COVID-19 vaccines
Recommendation
-
The Surreal Life’s Kim Zolciak Fuels Dating Rumors With Costar Chet Hanks After Kroy Biermann Split
-
'The View' co-hosts react to Donald Trump win: How to watch ABC daytime show
-
'The View' co-hosts react to Donald Trump win: How to watch ABC daytime show
-
Florida’s iconic Key deer face an uncertain future as seas rise
-
What Just Happened to the Idea of Progress?
-
Judge blocks Pentagon chief’s voiding of plea deals for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others in 9/11 case
-
Christina Applegate's fiery response to Trump supporters and where we go from here
-
USDA sets rule prohibiting processing fees on school lunches for low-income families