Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year after the Beverage Tax

Abstract

In January 2017, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) implemented an excise tax ($ 0.015/ounce) on sugar-sweetened and diet beverages. This study is a general population-based study to report on the longer-term impacts of the tax on within-person changes in consumption 12 months after implementation. A quasi-experimental difference-in-difference design was used to contrast Philadelphia vs. nearby comparison cities (Trenton, New Jersey; Camden, New Jersey; and Wilmington, Delaware) at baseline (December 2016–January 2017) vs. 12-month follow-up (December 2017–February 2018). A random-digit-dialing phone survey was administered to a population-based cohort. Analyses assessed changes in 30-day consumption frequency and ounces of sugar-sweetened and diet beverages (and a substitution beverage, bottled water) in the analytic sample (N = 515). After 12 months, relative to the comparison group, Philadelphians were slightly more likely to decrease their frequency of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (39.2% vs. 33.5%), and slightly less likely to increase their frequency of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (38.9% vs. 43.0%). The effects of the tax estimated in the adjusted difference-in-difference analysis were very small (for example, changes in monthly sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in Philadelphia relative to comparison cities was −3.03 times or −51.65 ounces) and confidence intervals were very wide. Results suggested that, one year after implementation, there was no major overall impact of the tax on general population-level consumption of sugar-sweetened or diet beverages, or bottled water. Future studies should test whether the tax’s effect differs in vulnerable sub-populations.

Secular Trends in Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption Among Adults, Teens, and Children: The California Health Interview Survey, 2011–2018

“…SSB excise taxes, effective in reducing consumption and significantly cost-saving over the life-course ( 10 – 13 ), have been implemented in 4 California cities: Berkeley (2015), San Francisco (2018), Oakland (2017), and Albany (2017). As additional strategies are proposed and implemented, continued surveillance of state-wide trends will strengthen the ability to assess their impact and identify areas for improvement.…”

Missed Opportunities: The Need to Promote Public Knowledge and Awareness of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes

“…SSB taxes, an increasingly popular prevention strategy, have been implemented by local governments in seven US jurisdictions and by 35 nation states around the world [ 4 , 5 ]. A growing body of evidence shows that SSB taxes reduce purchases of SSBs, thus achieving their intended purpose of “nudging” consumers away [ 6 , 7 ]. The demonstrated declines in purchasing are consistent with a priori estimates of price elasticity of demand, suggesting that consumers are responding to higher SSB prices [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].…”

Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

“…In Philadelphia, self-reported SSB consumption reduced by 40 percent and energy drinks by 64 percent, while water consumption increased 68 percent in the first two months post-tax (Zhong et al 2018). After one year, however, no significant impacts of the tax on consumption were observed (Zhong et al 2020).…”