The Association Of A Sweetened Beverage Tax With Changes In Beverage Prices And Purchases At Independent Stores

Bleich, Sara N.; Lawman, Hannah G.; LeVasseur, Michael T.; Yan, Jiali; Mitra, Nandita; Lowery, Caitlin; Peterhans, Ana; Hua, Sophia V.; Gibson, Laura; Roberto, Christina A.

doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01058

Cited by 38 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cawley, Willage, and Frisvold (2018) estimate 55% pass‐through using hand‐collected data from stores in the airport terminals in Philadelphia. Bleich et al (2020) estimate pass‐through at 121% based on hand‐collected data from small, independent stores. Using scanner data, Roberto et al (2019) estimate pass‐through at 90%, whereas Seiler, Tuchman, and Yao (2020) estimate pass‐through at 97%.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

The Pass‐Through of a Tax on Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages in Boulder, Colorado

Cawley¹,

Frisvold²,

Jones³

et al. 2021

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper estimates the pass‐through of the largest tax on sugar‐sweetened beverages enacted in the U.S., which is two cents per ounce in Boulder, Colorado. A strength of the paper is that, to achieve as complete a perspective as possible, we estimate the pass‐through of the tax not only to beverage prices in retail stores but also to those in restaurants, and we examine data for the treatment community of Boulder and a comparison community of Fort Collins, Colorado, from four sources: (a) hand‐collected data on prices from stores; (b) Nielsen Retail Scanner Data of store prices; (c) hand‐collected data on prices in restaurants; and (d) web‐scraped data from online restaurant menus. Across the multiple datasets, we find consistent evidence that the tax was largely, but not completely, passed through to consumers. In both the hand‐collected store data and restaurant data, pass‐through is slightly less than 75%, whereas pass‐through is just over 50% using the scanner data; consumers bear most, but not all, of the largest tax on sugar‐sweetened beverages in the United States.

show abstract

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

The Pass‐Through of a Tax on Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages in Boulder, Colorado

Cawley¹,

Frisvold²,

Jones³

et al. 2021

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mounting research suggests that beverage taxes are consistently associated with increased prices, 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 and reductions in the volume of taxed beverages sold 13 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 with considerable variation by retailer type and tax jurisdiction. There is some evidence that beverage taxes are associated with reductions in self-reported consumptions of SSBs, although results are mixed and many studies are limited by small sample sizes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 One year after Philadelphia’s 1.5-cent-per-fluid-ounce tax on sugar- and artificially sweetened beverages, we found that small, independent stores passed-through 120% of the tax to prices and the fluid ounces of taxed beverages per purchase declined by 39%. 14 Tax effects at small, independent stores have been understudied, despite SSBs being among the most commonly purchased items at these stores 28 , 29 , 30 and the many shopping trips made to these stores in urban and low-income areas. 28 Small business owners are also key stakeholders in beverage tax policy discussions, underscoring the importance of understanding small store sales in response to a tax.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of a Sweetened Beverage Tax With Purchases of Beverages and High-Sugar Foods at Independent Stores in Philadelphia

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Points Question How has the 2017 Philadelphia beverage tax factored into longer-term changes in beverage prices and purchases in independent food retail stores based on observational data? Findings This cross-sectional study found that, 2 years after tax implementation, price audits of stores showed 137% of the tax was passed through to prices and bag checks indicated a 42% decline in volume of taxed beverages purchased in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore. Total calories purchased from beverages and high-sugar foods declined, suggesting food substitution did not offset beverage declines. Meaning These findings suggest a city-level beverage excise tax was associated with persistent declines in purchases of sweetened drinks and calories from sugar in independent stores.

show abstract

“…Mounting peer-reviewed empirical evidence in the United States, where all beverage taxes are volume based, suggests reductions in sales of taxed beverages from 21% 1 to 39%. 2 Beverage taxes also appear to reduce consumption of SSBs, although this research base is less established and results are mixed (selected studies are cited). 3 – 6 Outside of the United States, available evidence from the tiered tax in the United Kingdom indicates that it has led to lower sales of SSBs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in Philadelphia, where there is a tax of 1.5 cents per ounce on beverages sweetened with sugar or artificial sweeteners, results suggest that the beverage tax may help people with lower income or education levels more than those with higher levels. 2 Relatively larger effects of beverage taxes among low-income populations have also been seen in Mexico, where there is a national volume-based tax. If beverage taxes consistently produce greater SSB reductions among groups at higher risk for SSB consumption, these subpopulations may reap greater long-term health benefits and have fewer healthcare costs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%