Sugary drink tax#Seattle, Washington
{{short description|Tax or surcharge on soft drinks with high sugar content}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2016}}
{{Taxation}}
A sugary drink tax, soda tax, or sweetened beverage tax (SBT){{cite news |last1=Turner |first1=Nick |url=https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2018/09/seattles-sweetened-beverage-tax-producing-healthier-than-expected-returns/ |title=Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax producing healthier than expected returns |access-date=26 August 2020 |publisher=Capitol Hill Seattle Blog |archive-date=23 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200823113022/https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2018/09/seattles-sweetened-beverage-tax-producing-healthier-than-expected-returns/ |url-status=live }}{{cite web |title=Tax on Sweetened Beverages Reduced Sales Volume in Chicago |date=25 February 2020 |url=https://www.physiciansweekly.com/tax-on-sweetened-beverages-reduced-sales-volume-in-chicago/ |publisher=Physician's Weekly |access-date=26 August 2020 |archive-date=2 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220102083722/https://www.physiciansweekly.com/tax-on-sweetened-beverages-reduced-sales-volume-in-chicago/ |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=Macz |first1=Brandon |title=Mayor, councilmembers in food fight over sweetened beverage tax |url=https://queenannenews.com/MobileContent/News/Homepage-Rotating-Articles/Article/Mayor-councilmembers-in-food-fight-over-sweetened-beverage-tax/26/538/40294 |access-date=26 August 2020 |archive-date=2 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220102083723/https://queenannenews.com/MobileContent/News/Homepage-Rotating-Articles/Article/Mayor-councilmembers-in-food-fight-over-sweetened-beverage-tax/26/538/40294 |url-status=live }} is a tax or surcharge (food-related fiscal policy) designed to reduce consumption of sweetened beverages by making them more expensive to purchase. Drinks covered under a soda tax often include carbonated soft drinks, sports drinks and energy drinks.{{cite web|title= Consumption of Sports Drinks by Kids and Adolescents|url= http://healthyeatingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/HER-Sports-Drinks-Research-Review-6-2012.pdf|website= Healthy Eating Research|access-date= 18 March 2016|archive-date= 21 June 2019|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190621223007/http://healthyeatingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/HER-Sports-Drinks-Research-Review-6-2012.pdf|url-status= live}} Fruit juices without added sugar are usually excluded, despite similar sugar content, though there is some debate on including them.{{cite news|last1=Kaminska|first1=Izabella|title=Robert Lustig: godfather of the sugar tax|url=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/311a74ec-ed24-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc4a4.html?siteedition=intl|website=Financial Times|date=18 March 2016|access-date=25 March 2016|archive-date=19 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051740/https://www.ft.com/content/311a74ec-ed24-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc4a4?siteedition=intl|url-status=live}}
This policy intervention is an effort to decrease obesity and the health impacts related to being overweight. 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 a Pigouvian tax, aimed to discourage unhealthy diets and offset the growing economic costs of obesity.{{cite news |last1= Tavernise |first1= Sabrina |title= W.H.O. urges Tax on Sugary Drinks to Fight Obesity |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/health/sugar-drink-tax-world-health-organization.html?_r=0 |access-date= 8 November 2016 |website= The New York Times |date= 11 October 2016 |archive-date= 8 November 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20161108133757/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/health/sugar-drink-tax-world-health-organization.html?_r=0 |url-status= live }}
Design
Tax design approaches include direct taxes on the product and indirect taxes. Indirect taxes include import/export taxes on sugar or other ingredients before it has been processed and local/regional/international taxes.{{Cite journal |last1=Pfinder |first1=Manuela |last2=Heise |first2=Thomas L. |last3=Hilton Boon |first3=Michele |last4=Pega |first4=Frank |last5=Fenton |first5=Candida |last6=Griebler |first6=Ursula |last7=Gartlehner |first7=Gerald |last8=Sommer |first8=Isolde |last9=Katikireddi |first9=Srinivasa Vittal |last10=Lhachimi |first10=Stefan K. |date=April 2020 |title=Taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes |journal=The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=2020 |issue=4 |pages=CD012333 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD012333.pub2 |issn=1469-493X |pmc=7141932 |pmid=32270494}} Sales tax (indirect tax) is paid by the person consuming the item at the time of purchase and collected by the government from the seller. VAT (value added tax) is the most common type of tax and is also added on at the time of purchase, at an amount that is dependent on the value paid for the item. The amount of both VAT and sales tax are directly proportional to the amount of money paid for an item and do not consider the volume of food or drink. For this reason, a large (bulk) item would have less tax compared to a smaller cheaper item (i.e., there is less tax impact on larger packages of a food item).
Most taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are set volumetrically (i.e., with a constant rate per unit volume), and that "only three SSB taxes worldwide are proportional to sugar content."{{cite journal|author=Anna H. Grummon, Benjamin B. Lockwood, Dmitry Taubinsky & Hunt Allcott|url= |title=Designing better sugary drink taxes|journal=Science|date=September 2019|volume=365|issue=6457|pages=989–990|doi=10.1126/science.aav5199|pmid=31488678|pmc=7262950|bibcode=2019Sci...365..989G}} The study argued that such volumetric taxes "are poorly targeted to the actual health harms from SSBs," and suggested taxing the amount of sugar in beverages, rather than the volume of liquid accompanying the sugar. A design change such as this has been proposed to "boost a SSB tax's health benefits and overall economic gains by roughly 30%."
Increased taxes on sweetened products have been suggested to promote companies to re-formulate their product in order to keep consumer costs affordable by decreasing use of the taxed ingredient (i.e., sugar) in their product. Government revenues from these taxes sometimes are put towards improving public health services, however this is not always the case.
Some point to substitutes like fruit juice, energy-dense snacks and biscuits as ways a tax on processed sugar in drinks might be limited.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. Jurisdictions where cross-border shopping is convenient can also have the benefits of the tax reduced as some will buy sugary drinks from areas where they are not taxed.
= Regressive vs. Progressive tax =
The regressive component of the tax is that consumers on lower incomes would spend relatively more up-front due to higher prices than consumers on higher incomes.
The progressive components of the tax include both the health savings and benefits to those who are most price-sensitive and the potential for tax revenue to subsidize healthier foods or other priorities for low-income people.{{cite journal |last1=Brownell |first1=Kelly D. |last2=Frieden |first2=Thomas R. |year=2009 |title=Ounces Of Prevention — The Public Policy Case For Taxes On Sugared Beverages |journal=New England Journal of Medicine |volume=360 |issue=18 |pages=1805–1808 |doi=10.1056/nejmp0902392 |pmid=19357400 |doi-access=free}}
=Comparison to tobacco taxes=
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.{{cite news |last1=Bittman |first1=Mark |date=13 February 2010 |title=Soda: A Sin We Sip Instead of Smoke? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/weekinreview/14bittman.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170304221529/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/weekinreview/14bittman.html |archive-date=4 March 2017 |access-date=25 February 2017 |website=The New York Times}} 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.{{cite web |last1=Taylor |first1=Kate |last2=Brodwin |first2=Erin |date=16 November 2015 |title=There's a new Big Tobacco — and one industry is determined to silence its critics |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/big-soda-is-fighting-science-on-sugar-2015-11 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108142632/https://www.businessinsider.com/big-soda-is-fighting-science-on-sugar-2015-11 |archive-date=8 November 2020 |access-date=9 November 2016 |website=Business Insider}}
Impact
=Revenue=
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that a national targeted tax on sugar in soda could generate $14.9 billion in the first year alone.{{citation needed|date=March 2019}} The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that a nationwide three-cent-per-ounce tax would generate over $24 billion over four years.Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, [http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2011/cflmarch2011_284.pdf "Who would be affected by soda taxes?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121019000238/http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2011/cflmarch2011_284.pdf |date=19 October 2012 }} The Fed Letter, No. 284 Mar 2011. 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.{{cite news | title=Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Healthcare | url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124208505896608647 | date=2009-05-12 | work=The Wall Street Journal | first=Janet | last=Adamy | access-date=8 August 2017 | archive-date=23 August 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170823122022/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124208505896608647 | url-status=live }} 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.{{cite journal | url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60463-3/fulltext | title=Fat Taxes and the Financial Crisis | author=McColl, Karen | journal=The Lancet | date=March 2009 | volume=373 | issue=9666 | pages=797–798 | doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60463-3 | pmid=19278032 | s2cid=35651592 | access-date=6 August 2013 | archive-date=5 November 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105040734/http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60463-3/fulltext | url-status=live }}
=Consumption=
According to a 2019 review of research on sugar drink taxes, the taxes successfully reduced consumption of sugar drinks and reduced adverse health consequences due to the increased price of the drinks drinks causes the demand for them to drop.{{Cite journal|last1=Chaloupka|first1=Frank J.|last2=Powell|first2=Lisa M.|last3=Warner|first3=Kenneth E.|date=2019|title=The Use of Excise Taxes to Reduce Tobacco, Alcohol, and Sugary Beverage Consumption|journal=Annual Review of Public Health|volume=40|issue=1|pages=187–201|doi=10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043816|pmid=30601721|doi-access=free}} Another review of data up to 2019 found the health benefits as being of very low certainty in a one single study applied to Hungarian settings.
A 10% tax in Mexico enacted in January 2014 reduced consumption by 12% after one year, said one study that had not yet been peer-reviewed.{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/06/19/415741354/mexicos-sugary-drink-tax-makes-a-dent-in-consumption-study-claims|title=Mexico's Sugary Drink Tax Makes A Dent In Consumption, Study Claims|newspaper=NPR|date=19 June 2015|last1=Barclay|first1=Eliza|access-date=2 March 2019|archive-date=2 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190302090721/https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/06/19/415741354/mexicos-sugary-drink-tax-makes-a-dent-in-consumption-study-claims|url-status=live}}
A study (which has yet to be peer-reviewed) of the 1.5-cents-per-ounce tax in Philadelphia found actual sales of the affected beverages (which included diet beverages) dropped 46% in the city itself, but when accounting for people traveling to neighboring cities without a tax, overall purchases of the affected beverages dropped 20%.{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/02/21/696709717/u-s-soda-taxes-work-studies-suggest-but-maybe-not-as-well-as-hoped|title=U.S. Soda Taxes Work, Studies Suggest — But Maybe Not As Well As Hoped|website=NPR.org|access-date=2 March 2019|archive-date=1 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190301233327/https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/02/21/696709717/u-s-soda-taxes-work-studies-suggest-but-maybe-not-as-well-as-hoped|url-status=live}}
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 the sugary drink was found to be -1.37 in Chile while -1.16 in Mexico.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.
A 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research paper concluded that sugar drink taxes were "welfare enhancing, and indeed that the optimal nationwide SSB tax rate may be higher than the one cent per ounce rate most commonly used in U.S. cities."{{Cite web|last1=Allcott|first1=Hunt|last2=Lockwood|first2=Benjamin|last3=Taubinsky|first3=Dmitry|date=2019|title=Should We Tax Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? An Overview of Theory and Evidence|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w25842|doi=10.3386/w25842|s2cid=242309423|series=Working Paper Series |access-date=25 May 2019|archive-date=25 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525122335/https://www.nber.org/papers/w25842|url-status=live}} A 2019 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics estimated that the optimal sugar drink tax on the federal level in the U.S. would be between 1 and 2.1 cents per ounce, whereas the optimal tax on the city-level was 60% lower than that due to cross-border shopping.{{Cite journal|last1=Taubinsky|first1=Dmitry|last2=Lockwood|first2=Benjamin B.|last3=Allcott|first3=Hunt|title=Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics|volume=134|issue=3|pages=1557–1626|language=en|doi=10.1093/qje/qjz017|year=2019|s2cid=182563060}} A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from around the world found that sugary drink taxes resulted in higher prices of the targeted beverages and a 15% decrease in the sales of such products.{{Cite journal |last1=Andreyeva |first1=Tatiana |last2=Marple |first2=Keith |last3=Marinello |first3=Samantha |last4=Moore |first4=Timothy E. |last5=Powell |first5=Lisa M. |date=2022-06-01 |title=Outcomes Following Taxation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |journal=JAMA Network Open |language=en |volume=5 |issue=6 |pages=e2215276 |doi=10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.15276 |pmid=35648398 |pmc=9161017 |s2cid=249234637 |issn=2574-3805}}
=Externalities as a rationale for taxation=
The purchase of sugary drinks has significant negative externalities when over-consumption causes diseases like obesity and type 2 diabetes. Depending on the national health care system, a significant portion of these costs are paid by taxpayers or insurance rate-payers; lost productivity costs are paid to some degree by employers.{{cite journal | last1 = Briggs | first1 = Adam | year = 2016 | title = Sugar Tax Could Sweeten A Market Failure | journal = Nature | volume = 531 | issue = 7596| pages = 551 | doi=10.1038/531551a| pmid = 27029244 | bibcode = 2016Natur.531..551B | doi-access = free }}{{cite journal | last1 = Brownell | first1 = Kelly D. |display-authors=etal | year = 2009 | title = The Public Health And Economic Benefits Of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages | journal = New England Journal of Medicine | volume = 361 | issue = 16| pages = 1599–1605 | doi=10.1056/nejmhpr0905723| pmid = 19759377 | pmc = 3140416 }}
Society as a whole could be worse off if these costs are calculated to be greater than the benefit to the consumers of soda.{{cite web|last1=Saez|first1=Emmanuel|url=http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course131/externalities1_ch05.pdf|title=Externalities: Problems and Solutions Chapter 5|publisher=UC Berkeley|access-date=19 May 2017|archive-date=6 October 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191006152755/https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course131/externalities1_ch05.pdf|url-status=live}}
A Pigovian tax like a sugary drinks tax, factors these externalities into the price of the beverage. To some degree, this causes people who over-consume soda to pay for health care costs they are causing, which proponents argue is more fair. In theory, this tax could be set at such a level that reduces consumption until the collective private benefit balances the collective costs of poorer health, though this could be accomplished at a lower tax level by using the tax revenue to create childhood nutrition programs or obesity-prevention programs. This would lessen the tax burden on people who consume soda moderately enough not to cause health problems.
Legislation by country
=Australia=
The Australian Beverages Council has opposed taxes while the Australian Medical Association and Australian Greens{{Cite web | url=https://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/160622_Sugar%20Sweetened%20Beverages%20Tax.pdf | title=Taxing Sugary Drinks - Fighting childhood obesity | website=greens.org.au}} continued to press for a sugar tax.{{cite news |title=Australian soft drink industry vows to slash use of sugar by 20 per cent |url=https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-soft-drink-industry-vows-to-slash-use-of-sugar-by-20-per-cent-20180625-p4znkm.html |access-date=7 September 2018 |newspaper=Sydney Morning Herald |date=25 June 2018 |archive-date=8 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180908092749/https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-soft-drink-industry-vows-to-slash-use-of-sugar-by-20-per-cent-20180625-p4znkm.html |url-status=live }}{{Needs update|date=May 2024}}
=Bahrain=
= Barbados =
Barbados passed a soda tax in September 2015,{{cite web |last=Deane |first=Sandy |date=15 June 2015 |title=Tax on sweet drinks |url=http://www.barbadostoday.bb/2015/06/15/tax-on-sweet-drinks/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161109021735/http://www.barbadostoday.bb/2015/06/15/tax-on-sweet-drinks/ |archive-date=9 November 2016 |access-date=8 November 2016}} applied as an excise of 10%.
=Brunei=
US$0.29/liter tax since April 2017.{{cite news |last1=Jacobs |first1=Andrew |last2=Richtel |first2=Matt |date=13 November 2017 |title=She Took On Colombia's Soda Industry. Then She Was Silenced. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/health/colombia-soda-tax-obesity.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171114000609/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/health/colombia-soda-tax-obesity.html |archive-date=14 November 2017 |access-date=14 November 2017 |work=The New York Times}}
= Canada =
In 2020, the Province of British Columbia stopped exempting soda beverages from a 7% provincial sales tax for grocery items. Still fruit juices and non-sweetened carbonated beverages continue to be tax exempt. The measure was introduced based on health recommendations to address youth obesity.{{Cite news|last=CBC News|date=2020-02-18|title=Why B.C. is now taxing sugary, carbonated drinks|work=CBC|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/why-b-c-is-now-taxing-sugary-carbonated-drinks-1.5467775|access-date=2021-05-28|archive-date=9 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709210116/https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/why-b-c-is-now-taxing-sugary-carbonated-drinks-1.5467775|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|last=Government of British Columbia|date=February 2021|title=Notice to Sellers of Soda Beverages|url=https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/taxes/sales-taxes/publications/notice-2021-002-sellers-soda-beverages.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=28 May 2021|website=Government of British Columbia|archive-date=16 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210416013851/https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/taxes/sales-taxes/publications/notice-2021-002-sellers-soda-beverages.pdf}}
In May 2021, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador announced a 20 cent per litre tax for sugar sweetened beverages.{{Cite web|title=Promoting a Healthier Newfoundland and Labrador|url=https://www.gov.nl.ca/budget/2021/what-you-need-to-know/promoting-a-healthier-newfoundland-and-labrador/|access-date=2021-06-01|website=Budget 2021|language=en-CA|archive-date=31 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210531212404/https://www.gov.nl.ca/budget/2021/what-you-need-to-know/promoting-a-healthier-newfoundland-and-labrador/|url-status=live}} This tax was implemented on September 1, 2022.{{Cite news|title=Sugary drink tax coming next September, says finance minister|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/sugary-drink-tax-nl-1.6216480|date=2021-10-19|website=CBC|access-date=2022-05-07|archive-date=19 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211019153504/https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/sugary-drink-tax-nl-1.6216480|url-status=live}}
=Chile=
In 2014, a measure was passed to increase tax on sugary drinks, and reduce tax on low-sugar drinks. The tax rate was increased from 13% to 18%. A study with data from 2011-2015 found a highly significant decrease in the monthly purchased volume of the higher-taxed, sugary soft drinks by 21.6%. The direction of the reduction was robust to different empirical modelling approaches, but the statistical significance and the magnitude of the changes varied considerably. Furthermore, the authors found a barely significant decrease in the volume of all soft drinks (that is, the higher- and lower-taxed soft drinks).{{cite journal |author1=Ryota Nakamura |author2=Andrew J. Mirelman |author3=Cristóbal Cuadrado |author4=Nicolas Silva-Illanes |author5=Jocelyn Dunstan |author6=Marc Suhrcke |title=Evaluating the 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Chile: An observational study in urban areas |journal=PLOS Medicine |volume=15 |issue=7 |pages=e1002596 |date=3 July 2018 |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002596 |pmid=29969456 |pmc=6029775 |doi-access=free }}
= Denmark =
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 a fat tax, with the stated goal of creating jobs and helping the local economy.{{cite web |last1=Scott-Thomas |first1=Caroline |date=24 April 2013 |title=Denmark to scrap decades-old soft drink tax |url=http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Denmark-to-scrap-decades-old-soft-drink-tax |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131022042431/http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Denmark-to-scrap-decades-old-soft-drink-tax |archive-date=22 October 2013 |access-date=25 July 2013 |website=Foodnavigator.com}}{{cite news |last1=Strom |first1=Stephanie |date=12 November 2012 |title='Fat Tax' in Denmark Is Repealed After Criticism |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in-denmark-is-repealed-after-criticism.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170908155050/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in-denmark-is-repealed-after-criticism.html |archive-date=8 September 2017 |access-date=25 February 2017 |website=The New York Times}}
= Dominica =
Dominica has a sugar tax since 2015.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}
= Fiji =
Fiji has an import tax and an excise tax on soda.{{cite journal |last1=Thow |first1=Anne Marie |last2=Quested |first2=Christine |last3=Juventin |first3=Lisa |last4=Kun |first4=Russ |last5=Khan |first5=A. Nisha |last6=Swinburn |first6=Boyd |date=1 March 2011 |title=Taxing soft drinks in the Pacific: implementation lessons for improving health |journal=Health Promot. Int. |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=55–64 |doi=10.1093/heapro/daq057 |pmid=20739326 |via=heapro.oxfordjournals.org |doi-access=free |hdl-access=free |hdl=10536/DRO/DU:30077328}}
=Finland=
Finland had sugar tax between 1926 and 1999 based on customs categories. Soft drink tax was introduced in 1940.{{Cite web|url=https://ntanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Tuomas-Kosonen-Session1485_Paper2948_FullPaper_1.pdf|title=A case for zero effect of sin taxes on consumption? Evidence from a sweets tax reform|access-date=16 April 2025}} Sugar tax was reintroduced on candy and expanded onto ice cream in 2011, but in 2017 the tax was dropped, after European Commission found it to be unfair state aid.{{Cite web|url=https://yle.fi/a/3-8340402|title=Tax on sweets and ice cream to be dropped|date=29 September 2015 |access-date=16 April 2025}}
= France =
France first introduced a targeted tax on nonalcoholic sugary drinks at a national level in 2012.{{cite report|url=http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/5827/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf|title=Food taxes and their impact on competitiveness in the agri-food sector|author=ECSIP|date=16 July 2014|publisher=European Commission|pages=27–30|id=Ref. Ares (2014) 2365745|access-date=20 March 2017|archive-date=19 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170119023945/http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/5827/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf|url-status=live}}{{cite journal|title=The impact of the French soda tax on prices and purchases. An ex post evaluation|journal=PLOS ONE|author1=Sara Capacci |author2=Olivier Allais |author3=Celine Bonnet |author4=Mario Mazzocchi |date=October 11, 2019|volume=14|issue=10|pages=e0223196|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0223196|pmid=31603901|pmc=6788734|bibcode=2019PLoSO..1423196C|doi-access=free}} The tax, which is 0.0716 euro per liter, applies to both regular and diet soft drinks, flavored mineral water, and fruit juices with added sugar, but does not apply to mineral water and 100% fruit juices (i.e., those with no added sugars). Following introduction, soft drinks were estimated to be up to 3.5% more expensive.{{cite news | url=http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,806143,00.html | work=Der Spiegel | title=Controversial sugar levy: France introduces a cola tax | date=28 December 2011 | access-date=28 December 2011 | archive-date=30 April 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120430232142/http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,806143,00.html | url-status=live }}{{Citation | title = Coca-Cola part en guerre contre la "taxe sodas" | url = http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2011/09/08/coca-cola-part-en-guerre-contre-la-taxe-sodas_1569497_823448.html | year = 2011 | journal = Le Monde | access-date = 2011-12-30 | archive-date = 11 November 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201111184149/https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2011/09/08/coca-cola-part-en-guerre-contre-la-taxe-sodas_1569497_823448.html | url-status = live }}
A 2019 article published in the journal PLOS One estimated the price and consumption effects of the tax, using a difference-in-difference methodology. The study concluded: "We find that the tax is transmitted to the prices of taxed drinks, with full transmission for soft drinks and partial transmission for fruit juices. The evidence on purchase responses is mixed and less robust, indicating at most a very small reduction in soft drink purchases (about half a litre per capita per year), an impact which would be consistent with the low tax rate. We find suggestive evidence of a larger response by the sub-sample of heavy purchasers. Fruit juices and water do not seem to have been affected by the tax."
= French Polynesia =
French Polynesia implemented taxes on soft drinks in 2002.
=Hungary=
Hungary's tax, which came into effect in September 2011, is a 4% tax{{cite journal |title=Taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes |year=2020 |publisher=NCBI, USA |pmc=7141932 |last1=Pfinder |first1=M. |last2=Heise |first2=T. L. |last3=Hilton Boon |first3=M. |last4=Pega |first4=F. |last5=Fenton |first5=C. |last6=Griebler |first6=U. |last7=Gartlehner |first7=G. |last8=Sommer |first8=I. |last9=Katikireddi |first9=S. V. |last10=Lhachimi |first10=S. K. |journal=The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=2020 |issue=4 |pages=CD012333 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD012333.pub2 |pmid=32270494 }} 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.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/18/sugar-tax-financially-regressive-but-progressive-for-health|title=Sugar tax: financially regressive but progressive for health?|first=Denis | last=Campbell |date=2016-03-17|newspaper=The Guardian|issn=0261-3077|access-date=2016-08-10|archive-date=27 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127184515/https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/18/sugar-tax-financially-regressive-but-progressive-for-health|url-status=live}}
=India=
=Ireland=
Sugar tax introduced on 1 May 2018. The tax sees 30 cent per litre added to the price of popular sweetened drinks containing more than 8g of sugar per 100ml.{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/sugar-tax-to-come-into-effect-next-week-1.3473163|title=Sugar tax to come into effect next week|first=Elaine|last=Edwards|newspaper=The Irish Times|access-date=10 September 2018|archive-date=9 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109023908/https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/sugar-tax-to-come-into-effect-next-week-1.3473163|url-status=live}}
=Israel=
In 2022, Israel also imposed a sugary drink tax due to it adding to their obesity rates.{{cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-hikes-tax-on-sweetened-drinks-in-bid-to-encourage-healthy-lifestyle/|title=Israel hikes tax on sweetened drinks in bid to encourage healthy lifestyle|website=The Times of Israel }} The tax has been cancelled as of 2023.{{Cite journal |last1=Troen |first1=Aron M. |last2=Martins |first2=Ana Paula Bortoletto |last3=Aguado |first3=Ildefonso Hernandez |last4=Popkin |first4=Barry |last5=Mozaffarian |first5=Dariush |last6=Caraher |first6=Martin |last7=Yaroch |first7=Amy Lazarus |last8=Bordonada |first8=Miguel Ángel Royo |last9=Levine |first9=Hagai |date=2023-02-01 |title=Israel decides to cancel sweetened beverage tax in setback to public health |url=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00214-3/abstract |journal=The Lancet |volume=401 |issue=10376 |pages=553–554 |language=English |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00214-3 |pmid=36738757 |s2cid=256461565 |issn=0140-6736}}
=Italy=
In 2018, several medical representatives forwarded an official letter to the Minister of Health Giulia Grillo containing a proposal to raise a 20% tax on sugary drinks, seen as a way to generate benefits for consumers' general health.{{Cite web|url=https://www.ansa.it/canale_saluteebenessere/notizie/diabete/2018/10/16/tassare-bevande-zuccherate-contro-obesita-appello-a-grillo_ddd20035-9e9f-4b48-b76e-6580ba1fb64c.html|title=Tassare le bevande zuccherate contro l'obesità, appello al ministro Grillo|date=2018-10-16|access-date=2021-09-03|website=ANSA|language=IT|trans-title=Appeal to Minister Grillo to tax sugary drinks|archive-date=3 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210903205431/https://www.ansa.it/canale_saluteebenessere/notizie/diabete/2018/10/16/tassare-bevande-zuccherate-contro-obesita-appello-a-grillo_ddd20035-9e9f-4b48-b76e-6580ba1fb64c.html|url-status=live}} A debate emerged on the introduction of such a tax, seen on the one hand as a possible mean to promote a healthier diet, and on the other as a danger to the sugar industry.{{Cite news|title=Tassa sulle bevande zuccherate, le imprese: blocco assunzioni e investimenti|url=https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/tassa-bevande-zuccherate-imprese-blocco-assunzioni-e-investimenti-AEFARSiG|date=2018-11-16|access-date=2021-09-03|work=Il sole 24 ore|trans-title=Sugar Tax: companies forecast to stop hiring and investments|archive-date=3 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210903205431/https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/tassa-bevande-zuccherate-imprese-blocco-assunzioni-e-investimenti-AEFARSiG|url-status=live}} In September 2019 the Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte mentioned in a public speech the idea of introducing a tax "on carbonated drinks" (not specifying if it refers only to sugary drinks), referring to it as "practicable".{{Cite news|title=Conte, sì alla tassa su merendine e bibite gassate|url=https://www.ansa.it/canale_terraegusto/notizie/in_breve/2019/09/21/conte-si-alla-tassa-su-merendine-e-bibite-gassate_fa4ff0f0-24ed-49bb-9792-168042f2a512.html|date=2019-09-21|access-date=2021-09-03|work=ANSA|language=IT|trans-title=Conte says yes to a tax on snacks and carbonated drinks|archive-date=3 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210903205438/https://www.ansa.it/canale_terraegusto/notizie/in_breve/2019/09/21/conte-si-alla-tassa-su-merendine-e-bibite-gassate_fa4ff0f0-24ed-49bb-9792-168042f2a512.html|url-status=live}}
By the end of 2019 the proposal of a tax on the consumption of sweetened soft drinks equal to 10 Euros per hectolitre in the case of finished products and 0.25 Euros per kilogram in the case of products to be diluted has been officially approved; its official start has been then postponed to 1 January 2022.{{Cite web|url=https://www.informazionefiscale.it/plastic-tax-sugar-tax-rinvio-1-luglio-legge-di-bilancio-2021-novita|title=Plastic tax e sugar tax, debutto rinviato con la Legge di Bilancio 2021|access-date=2021-09-03|last=D'Elia|first=Rosy|date=21 December 2020|language=IT|trans-title=Plastic tax and sugar tax postponed with 2021 budget law|archive-date=3 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210903091417/https://www.informazionefiscale.it/plastic-tax-sugar-tax-rinvio-1-luglio-legge-di-bilancio-2021-novita|url-status=live}} The association of soft drinks and beverages producers has renewed its opposition to the proposal, estimating that it would have as an effect a contraction of the market equal to 16%.{{Cite news|title=Sugar tax costerà 180 milioni di fatturato nel 2022|url=https://www.ansa.it/canale_terraegusto/notizie/in_breve/2021/09/01/sugar-tax-costera-180-milioni-di-fatturato-nel-2022_36a59314-a966-4837-b48b-f5b4e62712ca.html|date=2021-09-01|access-date=2021-09-03|work=ANSA|language=IT|trans-title=Sugar tax will cost the loss of 180 millions Euros in 2022|archive-date=3 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210903163056/https://www.ansa.it/canale_terraegusto/notizie/in_breve/2021/09/01/sugar-tax-costera-180-milioni-di-fatturato-nel-2022_36a59314-a966-4837-b48b-f5b4e62712ca.html|url-status=live}}
=Malaysia=
Malaysia has a sugary drink tax implemented 1 July 2019.{{cite web |last1=Arthur |first1=Rachel |title=Sugar taxes: the global picture |url=https://www.foodnavigator-latam.com/Article/2018/12/14/Sugar-taxes-the-global-picture |website=foodnavigator-latam.com |date=14 December 2018 |access-date=13 October 2019 |archive-date=19 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051808/https://www.foodnavigator-latam.com/Article/2018/12/14/Sugar-taxes-the-global-picture |url-status=live }}
= Mauritius =
Mauritius passed a soda tax in 2013.{{cite web |last=Diep |first=Francie |date=13 October 2016 |title=A World Tour of Sugary Taxes |url=https://psmag.com/a-world-tour-of-sugary-taxes-c6ffe2b3b225#.a8vejhu45 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051748/https://psmag.com/news/a-world-tour-of-sugary-taxes#.a8vejhu45 |archive-date=19 February 2022 |access-date=8 November 2016}}
= Mexico =
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,{{cite news|last=Rodríguez|first=Ruth|title=Experts applause ten percent on soda tax, (in Spanish).|url=http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion-mexico/2013/aplauden-impuesto-de-10-a-refrescos-949325.html|access-date=31 October 2013|newspaper=El Universal|date=10 September 2013|archive-date=27 February 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140227232412/http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion-mexico/2013/aplauden-impuesto-de-10-a-refrescos-949325.html|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=Fizzing with rage|url=https://www.economist.com/news/business/21588088-once-omnipotent-industry-fights-what-may-be-losing-battle-fizzing-rage?zid=305&ah=417bd5664dc76da5d98af4f7a640fd8a|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=31 October 2013|date=19 October 2013|archive-date=8 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131108150838/http://www.economist.com/news/business/21588088-once-omnipotent-industry-fights-what-may-be-losing-battle-fizzing-rage?zid=305&ah=417bd5664dc76da5d98af4f7a640fd8a|url-status=live}} 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.{{cite news|last=Gutiérrez-Alcala|first=Roberto|title=Morbid Obesity grows in Mexico, (in Spanish).|url=http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/cultura/2013/impreso/crece-la-obesidad-mrbida-o-grado-3-en-mxico-72282.html|access-date=31 October 2013|newspaper=El Universal|date=25 July 2013|archive-date=10 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610204816/http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/cultura/2013/impreso/crece-la-obesidad-mrbida-o-grado-3-en-mxico-72282.html|url-status=live}} 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 US$708 per year, with a total cost of 778,427,475 USD in 2010, and with each patient paying only 30 MXN (around US$2.31).{{cite news|last=BALANCE|title=Each patient with diabetes cost the Mexican Government 708 USD in 2011, (in Spanish)|url=http://mexico.cnn.com/salud/2011/06/13/cada-paciente-con-diabetes-le-cuesta-708-dolares-al-ano-a-mexico|work=CNNMéxico|access-date=31 October 2013|date=13 June 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131031110812/http://mexico.cnn.com/salud/2011/06/13/cada-paciente-con-diabetes-le-cuesta-708-dolares-al-ano-a-mexico|archive-date=31 October 2013|df=dmy-all}}
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.{{cite news|last=Sánchez|first=Julián|title=Tycoons and Sugar Cane productors reject soda tax, (in Spanish).|url=http://www.redpolitica.mx/nacion/industriales-y-productores-caneros-rechazan-iva-refrescos|access-date=31 October 2013|newspaper=El Universal|date=12 September 2013|archive-date=3 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231211/http://www.redpolitica.mx/nacion/industriales-y-productores-caneros-rechazan-iva-refrescos|url-status=dead}} They also publicly accused New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg{{cite news|last=Partlow|first=Joshua|title=Mexico's Soda companies fear junk-food tax|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexicos-soda-companies-fear-junk-food-tax/2013/10/26/674f977c-3db3-11e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html|access-date=31 October 2013|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=26 October 2013|archive-date=28 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131028120805/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexicos-soda-companies-fear-junk-food-tax/2013/10/26/674f977c-3db3-11e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html|url-status=live}} of orchestrating the controversial bill from overseas. In late October 2013, the Mexican Senate approved a 1 MXN per litre tax (around US$0.08) on sodas, along with a 5% tax on junk food.{{cite news|last=Figueroa-Alcantara|first=Héctor|title=Mexican Senate approves tax scheme for 2014, (in Spanish).|url=http://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/2013/10/28/925767|access-date=31 October 2013|newspaper=Excelsior|date=28 October 2013|archive-date=29 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191129130056/https://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/2013/10/28/925767|url-status=live}}
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.{{cite news|last1=Guthrie|first1=Amy|title=Mexican Soda Tax Helps Curb Consumption, Study Shows|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexican-soda-tax-helps-curb-consumption-study-shows-1452198709|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|date=7 January 2016|access-date=11 March 2017|archive-date=13 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170813132601/https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexican-soda-tax-helps-curb-consumption-study-shows-1452198709|url-status=live}} 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.{{Cite web|author1=Melissa Healy|url=https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-soda-tax-mexico-20161102-story.html|title=Mexico's soda tax will save 18,900 lives and more than $983 million over 10 years, study says|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|access-date=2016-11-04|date=3 November 2016|archive-date=29 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191129074022/https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-soda-tax-mexico-20161102-story.html|url-status=live}} 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."{{Cite journal|last1=Colchero|first1=M. Arantxa|last2=Molina|first2=Mariana|last3=Guerrero-López|first3=Carlos M.|date=2017-06-14|title=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|url=http://jn.nutrition.org/content/early/2017/06/13/jn.117.251892|journal=The Journal of Nutrition|pages=1552–1557|doi=10.3945/jn.117.251892|issn=0022-3166|pmid=28615377|volume=147|issue=8|pmc=5525113|access-date=5 September 2017|archive-date=4 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170904150939/http://jn.nutrition.org/content/early/2017/06/13/jn.117.251892|url-status=live}}
= Nauru =
Nauru implemented a soda tax in 2007.
= Netherlands =
The Netherlands is planning to implement a sugar tax as of December 2021.{{Cite web |date=2021-12-16 |title=Frisdrank duurder door invoering suikertaks: 'Effect is bewezen' |url=https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5274421/suikertaks-btw-groente-fruit-kabinet-regering-rutte |access-date=2022-12-15 |website=RTL Nieuws |language=nl}}{{Update needed|date=May 2024}}
Parties that have supported a sugar tax include the Party for the Animals, GroenLinks, D66, Christian Union, and the Labour Party.{{Cite web |title=De Voedselstemwijzer - Tweede Kamerverkiezingen 2021 |url=https://hetvoedselkabinet.nl/voedselstemwijzer |access-date=2022-12-15 |website=Het Voedselkabinet |language=nl}}
Parties that have opposed a sugar tax include the Socialist Party, CDA, SGP, VVD, and the FvD.
= Norway =
Norway has had a generalized sugar tax measure on refined sugar products since 1922, introduced to boost state income rather than reducing sugar consumption.{{cite news|last1=Tisdall|first1=Jonathan|title="Chocolate tax" should go|url=http://www.aftenposten.no/english/business/article1846927.ece|work=Aftenposten|date=26 June 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070626022943/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/business/article1846927.ece|archive-date=26 June 2007}}
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.{{cite web |url=https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/okonomi-og-budsjett/skatter-og-avgifter/avgiftssatser-2017/id2514838/ |title=Avgiftssatser 2017 |language=no |publisher=Government of Norway |date=20 December 2016 |access-date=20 March 2017 |archive-date=21 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170321082442/https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/okonomi-og-budsjett/skatter-og-avgifter/avgiftssatser-2017/id2514838/ |url-status=live }}
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.{{Cite web|url=https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/okonomi-og-budsjett/skatter-og-avgifter/avgiftssatser-2018/id2575160/|title=Avgiftssatser 2018|last=Finansdepartementet|date=2017-10-12|website=Regjeringen.no|language=no|access-date=2018-02-19|archive-date=19 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180219210749/https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/okonomi-og-budsjett/skatter-og-avgifter/avgiftssatser-2018/id2575160/|url-status=live}}
The 42% tax increase on non-alcoholic beverages was attacked by Norwegian retailers and received much media attention. The increase was claimed to encourage even more traffic to the Swedish border shops, as Sweden does not have tax on non-alcoholic beverages. The tax increase was rolled back to 2017-level in 2020.
As a result of a budget settlement, the tax on non-alcoholic beverages was further reduced by 48.1% to 1.82 kroner per litre, effective January 2021.{{Cite web|last=Finansdepartementet|date=2020-10-07|title=Avgiftssatser 2021|url=https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/okonomi-og-budsjett/skatter-og-avgifter/avgiftssatser-2021/id2767486/|access-date=2021-02-04|website=Regjeringen.no|language=no|archive-date=12 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210212183115/https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/okonomi-og-budsjett/skatter-og-avgifter/avgiftssatser-2021/id2767486/|url-status=live}}
=Oman=
=Peru=
= Philippines =
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.{{Cite news|url=http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/12/20/17/train-explained-how-the-sugar-tax-will-impact-consumers|title=TRAIN explained: How the sugar tax will impact consumers|last=ABS-CBN News|date=20 December 2017|work=ABS-CBN News|access-date=2017-12-21|archive-date=22 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171222052654/http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/12/20/17/train-explained-how-the-sugar-tax-will-impact-consumers|url-status=live}} 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,{{Cite news|url=http://www.philstar.com/business/2017/07/24/1719992/coffee-juice-energy-drinks-be-taxed-5-questions-you-need-ask|title=Coffee, juice, energy drinks to be taxed! 5 questions that you need to ask|date=24 July 2017|work=The Philippine Star|access-date=2017-12-21|archive-date=22 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171222063820/http://www.philstar.com/business/2017/07/24/1719992/coffee-juice-energy-drinks-be-taxed-5-questions-you-need-ask|url-status=live}} but were exempted in the Senate version.{{Cite web|url=http://politics.com.ph/relax-lang-milk-3-1-coffee-excluded-senate-sugar-tax-bill-angara/|title=Relax lang: Milk, 3-in-1 coffee excluded from Senate sugar tax bill – Angara|date=24 September 2017|website=Politiko - politics.com.ph|access-date=2017-12-21|archive-date=6 October 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191006152746/https://politics.com.ph/relax-lang-milk-3-1-coffee-excluded-senate-sugar-tax-bill-angara/|url-status=live}}
=Poland=
Poland introduced a sugar tax on soft and energy drinks in January 2021.{{Cite web |date=October 27, 2020 |title=Poland implements new charge on certain beverages from 1 January 2021 |url=https://www.ey.com/en_gl/tax-alerts/poland-implements-new-charge-on-certain-beverages-from-1-january-2021 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051809/https://www.ey.com/en_gl/tax-alerts/poland-implements-new-charge-on-certain-beverages-from-1-january-2021 |archive-date=19 February 2022 |access-date=5 April 2021 |website=Ernst & Young}} It was reported that after its introduction prices of soft drinks increased by 36% and consumption dropped by 20%.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}
=Portugal=
Portugal introduced a sugary drink tax in 2017. It also has a tax on foods with high sodium.{{cite web |last1=Arthur |first1=Rachel |title=Sugar taxes: the global picture |url=https://www.foodnavigator-latam.com/Article/2018/12/14/Sugar-taxes-the-global-picture |website=www.foodnavigator-latam.com |date=14 December 2018 |access-date=13 October 2019 |archive-date=19 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051745/https://www.foodnavigator-latam.com/Article/2018/12/14/Sugar-taxes-the-global-picture |url-status=live }}
=Qatar=
= Samoa =
Samoa passed a soda tax in 1984.
=Saudi Arabia=
Saudi Arabia has a 50% sugar tax only on soft and energy drinks since 10 June 2017, and since 1 December 2019 the same tax percentage applies to all sugary drinks.{{cite web |title=Saudi Arabia to impose tax on tobacco, sugary drinks on June 10 |url=https://www.arabnews.com/node/1106726/business-economy |website=arabnews.com |access-date=13 October 2019 |date=28 May 2017 |archive-date=24 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190824132910/http://www.arabnews.com/node/1106726/business-economy |url-status=live }}[http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/583496 Sugary drinks to be costlier from 1 Dec.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191128115150/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/article/583496 |date=28 November 2019 }} Saudi Gazette Retrieved 27 November 2019.
=Singapore=
During the National Day Rally 2017, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke at length on the importance of fighting diabetes. He said, "If you drink soft drinks every day, you are overloading your system with sugar, and significantly increasing your risk of diabetes. Our children are most at risk because soft drinks are part of their lifestyle."{{cite web|url=https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/topics/nd2017/national-day-rally-1-in-9-singaporeans-has-diabetes-problem-very-9140176|title=National Day Rally: 1 in 9 Singaporeans has diabetes; problem 'very serious', says PM Lee|website=Channel NewsAsia|access-date=5 December 2018|archive-date=5 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181205103455/https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/topics/nd2017/national-day-rally-1-in-9-singaporeans-has-diabetes-problem-very-9140176|url-status=live}}
On 4 December 2018, the Ministry of Health began a consultation exercise to seek public's feedback on four proposed measures to fight diabetes including a ban on high-sugar packet drinks and implementation of a sugar tax.{{cite web |title=Public consultation on measures to reduce sugar intake from pre-packaged sugar-sweetened beverages |url=https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/public-consultation-on-measures-to-reduce-sugar-intake-from-pre-packaged-sugar-sweetened-beverages |website=MOH |access-date=30 September 2020 |date=4 December 2018 |archive-date=2 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302085556/https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/public-consultation-on-measures-to-reduce-sugar-intake-from-pre-packaged-sugar-sweetened-beverages |url-status=dead }}{{cite web |last1=Mahmud |first1=Aqil Haziq |title=MOH consulting public on banning, taxing some sugary drinks to fight diabetes |url=https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/moh-consults-public-banning-taxing-sugary-drinks-fight-diabetes-10995882 |website=Channel NewsAsia |access-date=30 September 2020 |date=4 December 2018 |archive-date=25 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200925174847/https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/moh-consults-public-banning-taxing-sugary-drinks-fight-diabetes-10995882 |url-status=dead }}{{cite news |title=MOH wants public consultation on whether Singapore should ban or tax high-sugar drinks |url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/moh-wants-public-consultation-on-whether-singapore-should-ban-or-tax-high-sugar |website=The Straits Times |access-date=30 September 2020 |date=4 December 2018 |last1=Khalik |first1=Salma |archive-date=8 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108131748/https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/moh-wants-public-consultation-on-whether-singapore-should-ban-or-tax-high-sugar |url-status=live }} On 10 October 2019, the Ministry of Health chose to ban advertisements of drinks with high sugar content; making Singapore the first country in the world to do so, as well as introduce color-coded labels. This comes after a public consultation favored these two options out of four. The labels will indicate drinks as "healthy", "neutral", "unhealthy" and take into account the amount of sugar and saturated fat contained in drinks, among other factors. They will be compulsory for "unhealthy" drinks and optional for "healthy" ones, covering instant drinks, soft drinks, juices, cultured milk and yogurt drinks in bottles, cans and packs. These measures will take effect sometime in 2020.{{cite web |url=https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/speech-by-mr-edwin-tong-senior-minister-of-state-ministry-of-law-ministry-of-health-at-the-opening-ceremony-of-the-singapore-health-biomedical-congress-2019-at-max-atria-@-singapore-expo |title=Opening Ceremony of the Singapore Health & Biomedical Congress 2019 at Max Atria @ Singapore Expo |website=MOH |access-date=5 November 2019 |date=10 October 2019 |archive-date=5 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191105154340/https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/speech-by-mr-edwin-tong-senior-minister-of-state-ministry-of-law-ministry-of-health-at-the-opening-ceremony-of-the-singapore-health-biomedical-congress-2019-at-max-atria-@-singapore-expo |url-status=dead }}{{cite news |last1=Khalik |first1=Salma |url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/high-sugar-drinks-to-carry-unhealthy-label-on-pack-advertisements-banned-next-year |title=War on diabetes: Unhealthy label for high-sugar drinks, total ban on ads to be introduced in Singapore |website=The Straits Times |access-date=5 November 2019 |date=10 October 2019 |archive-date=5 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191105154337/https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/high-sugar-drinks-to-carry-unhealthy-label-on-pack-advertisements-banned-next-year |url-status=live }}
= South Africa =
South Africa proposed a sugar-sweetened beverages tax in the 2016 South African national government budget.{{cite web|url=http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2016/guides/2016%20People's%20Guide%20English.pdf|title=2016 budget people's guide|date=2016-02-24|publisher=South African National treasury and Revenue Service|page=4|access-date=2016-02-24|quote=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.|archive-date=23 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220123150927/http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2016/guides/2016%20People%27s%20Guide%20English.pdf|url-status=live}} 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, despite health professionals warning that fruit juice is as bad for a person as highly sugary drinks.{{cite news|last= Child|first= Katharine|date= 2017-12-15|title= How the sugar tax will work|url= https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2017-12-15-how-the-sugar-tax-will-work/|work= South Africa Sunday Times|access-date= 2018-12-29|archive-date= 30 December 2018|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181230030249/https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2017-12-15-how-the-sugar-tax-will-work/|url-status= live}}In 2022, the government considered extending the tax to fruit juices.{{Cite web |last=Ndubiwa |first=Mzingaye |date=2022-03-28 |title=The South African Government is Considering Imposing a Sugar Tax on Pure Fruit Juices |work=Tridge |url=https://www.tridge.com/stories/the-south-african-government-is-considering-imposing-a-sugar-tax-on-pure-fruit-juices }}
= St Helena =
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.{{cite news |last=St Helena Government |date=21 March 2014 |title=Budget Speech 2014 |url=http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/budget-speech-201415 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150621035547/http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/budget-speech-201415/ |archive-date=21 June 2015 |access-date=26 March 2014}} 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.
=Thailand=
= Tonga =
Tonga has a soda tax.{{cite web |title=Health-related Taxes on Food and Beverages |url=http://foodresearch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Food-and-beverages-taxes-final-20-May-2015.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171031145418/http://foodresearch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Food-and-beverages-taxes-final-20-May-2015.pdf |archive-date=31 October 2017 |access-date=8 November 2016}}
=United Arab Emirates=
In 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.[http://www.businessinsider.com/uae-dubai-sugar-diabetes-tax-soda-energy-drinks-tobacco-2017-10 UAE imposes 'sin' tax on soda, tobacco, and energy drinks] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171215221533/http://www.businessinsider.com/uae-dubai-sugar-diabetes-tax-soda-energy-drinks-tobacco-2017-10 |date=15 December 2017 }} Business Insider 3 October 2017 From 1 January 2020, the UAE would impose a tax on all products which contains sugar or artificial sweeteners.{{Cite web | url=https://gulfnews.com/uae/the-need-for-a-tax-how-sugar-kills-you-1.1566322671146 | title=The need for a tax in UAE: How sugar kills you | date=20 August 2019 | access-date=21 August 2019 | archive-date=21 August 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190821090202/https://gulfnews.com/uae/the-need-for-a-tax-how-sugar-kills-you-1.1566322671146 | url-status=live }}
= United Kingdom =
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.{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124|title=Soft drink sugar tax starts, but will it work?|last=Triggle|first=Nick|date=2018-04-06|work=BBC News|access-date=2018-04-10|archive-date=7 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180807052405/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124|url-status=live}} 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 was estimated to generate an additional £1 billion a year in tax revenue which would be spent on funding for sport in UK schools.{{cite news|last1=Gander|first1=Kashmira|title=Budget 2016: George Osborne announces sugar tax on soft drinks industry|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/budget-2016-george-osborne-announces-sugar-tax-a6934206.html|newspaper=The Independent|date=17 March 2016|access-date=15 September 2017|archive-date=8 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171008030941/http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/budget-2016-george-osborne-announces-sugar-tax-a6934206.html|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2017-sugar-tax-philip-hammond-fight-obesity-child-weight-gain-fizzy-drinks-a7618316.html|title=New sugar tax confirmed in fight to combat rising obesity|website=Independent.co.uk|date=8 March 2017|access-date=20 December 2017|archive-date=29 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171229224528/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2017-sugar-tax-philip-hammond-fight-obesity-child-weight-gain-fizzy-drinks-a7618316.html|url-status=live}} The tax raised £336m in 2019-2020.{{cite news |date=27 December 2022 |title=Jamie Oliver: Sugar tax could fund school meals - BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-64101304 |access-date=27 December 2022 |work=BBC News}} Despite not being part of the United Kingdom the British Soft Drinks Industry Levy came into force on the Isle of Man on 1 April 2019 because of the Common Purse Agreement.{{cite web |title=Isle of Man Government - Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) |url=https://www.gov.im/news/2018/feb/20/soft-drinks-industry-levy-sdil/ |website=www.gov.im |publisher=Isle of Man Government |access-date=16 March 2019 |archive-date=21 June 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190621223010/https://www.gov.im/news/2018/feb/20/soft-drinks-industry-levy-sdil/ |url-status=live }} It was proposed that pure fruit juices, milk-based drinks and the smallest producers would not be taxed.{{cite news|last1=Triggle|first1=Nick|title=Sugar tax: How it will work?|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/health-35824071|work=BBC News|date=16 March 2016|access-date=21 June 2018|archive-date=19 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180519100504/http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35824071|url-status=live}} For other beverages there was an expectation that some manufacturers would voluntarily reduce the sugar content in order to avoid the taxation.
For example, Barr's changed the recipe of their best selling Irn Bru soft drink in 2018 and many long-term fans were disappointed at the change to the beloved drink. Cans and bottles dated before then sold for hundreds of pounds on websites such as eBay following the outcry.
A 2024 study led by the University of Cambridge found that, in the 11 months after the implementation of the tax, daily sugar consumption from drinks had fallen on average by 3.0g in children and 5.2g in adults.{{Cite journal |last1=Rogers |first1=Nina Trivedy |last2=Cummins |first2=Steven |last3=Jones |first3=Catrin P. |last4=Mytton |first4=Oliver |last5=Rayner |first5=Mike |last6=Rutter |first6=Harry |last7=White |first7=Martin |last8=Adams |first8=Jean |date=2024-09-01 |title=Estimated changes in free sugar consumption one year after the UK soft drinks industry levy came into force: controlled interrupted time series analysis of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2011–2019) |url=https://jech.bmj.com/content/78/9/578 |journal=J Epidemiol Community Health |language=en |volume=78 |issue=9 |pages=578–584 |doi=10.1136/jech-2023-221051 |issn=0143-005X |pmid=38981684|pmc=11347969 }}
= United States =
The United States does not have a nationwide soda tax, but taxes have been passed by localities.{{cite news | url=http://qz.com/685327/the-fight-over-taxing-your-sugary-soda-just-kicked-into-high-gear/ | work=Quartz | first=Chase | last=Purdy | date=17 May 2016 | title=SODA SCUFFLE: The fight over taxing your sugary soda just kicked into high gear | access-date=15 November 2016 | archive-date=28 November 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191128132027/https://qz.com/685327/the-fight-over-taxing-your-sugary-soda-just-kicked-into-high-gear/ | url-status=live }}{{Cite journal |last1=Davis |first1=Jennie N. |last2=Goon |first2=Shatabdi |last3=Gouck |first3=Jessie |last4=Solar |first4=Sarah E. |last5=Mancini |first5=Sally |last6=Hinojosa |first6=Alberto M. Ortega |last7=Krieger |first7=James |last8=Falbe |first8=Jennifer |date=2024 |title=An Inventory of Proposed and Enacted Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Policies at the State, Local, and Tribal Levels in the United States, 2014‒2023 |url=https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307855 |journal=American Journal of Public Health |volume=114 |issue=12 |language=en |pages=e1–e10 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.2024.307855 |pmid=39418616 |pmc=11540959 |pmc-embargo-date=December 1, 2025 |issn=0090-0036}} A few states also impose excise taxes on bottled soft drinks or on wholesalers, manufacturers, or distributors of soft drinks.{{cite journal | url=http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2017/jun/soda-taxes.html | title=Soda Taxes: Old and New | author=Sorensen, Christian, Alec Mullee, and Harley Duncan | journal=The Tax Adviser | date=June 2017 | volume=48 | issue=6 | pages=410–414 | access-date=7 July 2017 | archive-date=7 November 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107165858/https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2017/jun/soda-taxes.html | url-status=live }}
== Berkeley, California ==
The Measure D soda tax was approved by 76%{{cite web|url=http://www.berkeleyside.com/2014/11/04/berkeley-2014-elections-tune-in-here-for-live-coverage |title=Berkeley 2014 elections tune in here for live coverage |access-date=7 November 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107012218/http://www.berkeleyside.com/2014/11/04/berkeley-2014-elections-tune-in-here-for-live-coverage/ |archive-date=7 November 2014}}Heather Knight, [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Why-Berkeley-passed-a-soda-tax-and-S-F-didn-t-5879757.php Why Berkeley passed a soda tax and S.F. didn't] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111191136/http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Why-Berkeley-passed-a-soda-tax-and-S-F-didn-t-5879757.php|date=11 November 2016}}, San Francisco Chronicle (7 November 2014). of Berkeley voters on 4 November 2014, and took effect on 1 January 2015 as the first such tax in the United States.{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/11/05/361793296/how-did-berkeley-pass-a-soda-tax-bloombergs-cash-didnt-hurt|title=How Did Berkeley Pass A Soda Tax? Bloomberg's Cash Didn't Hurt|date=5 November 2014|newspaper=NPR|last1=Aubrey|first1=Allison|access-date=5 April 2018|archive-date=9 May 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150509040937/http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/11/05/361793296/how-did-berkeley-pass-a-soda-tax-bloombergs-cash-didnt-hurt|url-status=live}} 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.{{cite web|url=http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Berkeley_Sugary_Beverages_and_Soda_Tax_Question,_Measure_D_%28November_2014%29|title=City of Berkeley Sugary Beverages and Soda Tax Question, Measure D (November 2014)|work=ballotpedia.org|access-date=7 November 2014|archive-date=9 December 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201209083446/https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Berkeley_Sugary_Beverages_and_Soda_Tax_Question,_Measure_D_(November_2014)|url-status=live}}
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.{{cite web|title = Study: Berkeley soda tax falls flat|url = http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/08/study-berkeley-soda-tax-falls-flat|website = Cornell Chronicle|publisher = Cornell University|access-date = 2015-08-25|date = 17 August 2015|last = Boscia|first = Ted|archive-date = 8 November 2020|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201108101408/https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/08/study-berkeley-soda-tax-falls-flat|url-status = live}} 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.{{cite journal | last1 = Falbe | first1 = J. | last2 = Rojas | first2 = N. |display-authors=etal | year = 2015 | title = Higher Retail Prices of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages 3 Months After Implementation of an Excise Tax in Berkeley, California | journal = Am J Public Health | volume = 105 | issue = 11| pages = 2194–2201 | doi=10.2105/ajph.2015.302881| pmid = 26444622 | pmc = 4605188 }} In August 2016, a UC Berkeley study (relying on self-reporting) showed a 21% drop in the drinking of soda and sugary beverages in low-income Berkeley neighborhoods after a few months.{{cite web|url=http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/08/23/sodadrinking/|title=Soda tax linked to drop in sugary beverage drinking in Berkeley|first1=Yasmin|last1=Anwar|date=23 August 2016|publisher=UC Berkeley|access-date=25 August 2016|archive-date=13 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201113204549/https://news.berkeley.edu/2016/08/23/sodadrinking/|url-status=live}} 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.{{Cite journal|last1=Falbe|first1=Jennifer|last2=Thompson|first2=Hannah R.|last3=Becker|first3=Christina M.|last4=Rojas|first4=Nadia|last5=McCulloch|first5=Charles E.|last6=Madsen|first6=Kristine A.|date=2016-08-23|title=Impact of the Berkeley Excise Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption|journal=American Journal of Public Health|volume=106|issue=10|pages=1865–1871|doi=10.2105/ajph.2016.303362|pmid=27552267|pmc=5024386|issn=0090-0036}} 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.{{Cite journal|last1=Silver|first1=Lynn D.|last2=Ng|first2=Shu Wen|last3=Ryan-Ibarra|first3=Suzanne|last4=Taillie|first4=Lindsey Smith|last5=Induni|first5=Marta|last6=Miles|first6=Donna R.|last7=Poti|first7=Jennifer M.|last8=Popkin|first8=Barry M.|date=2017-04-18|title=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|journal=PLOS Medicine|volume=14|issue=4|pages=e1002283|doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283|pmid=28419108|pmc=5395172|issn=1549-1676 |doi-access=free }} 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.{{cite journal|title=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|first1=Lynn D.|last1=Silver|first2=Shu Wen|last2=Ng|first3=Suzanne|last3=Ryan-Ibarra|first4=Lindsey Smith|last4=Taillie|first5=Marta|last5=Induni|first6=Donna R.|last6=Miles|first7=Jennifer M.|last7=Poti|first8=Barry M.|last8=Popkin|date=18 April 2017|journal=PLOS Medicine|volume=14|issue=4|pages=e1002283|doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283|pmid = 28419108|pmc = 5395172 |doi-access=free }} A 2019 study relying on self-reporting found a 53% drop in consumption in low-income neighborhoods after three years.
== Oakland, California ==
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.{{cite web |last=Esterl |first=Mike |date=9 November 2016 |title=Soda Taxes Approved in Four Cities, Vote Looms in Chicago's Cook County |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/soda-taxes-approved-in-four-cities-vote-looms-in-chicagos-cook-county-1478698979 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170210071207/https://www.wsj.com/articles/soda-taxes-approved-in-four-cities-vote-looms-in-chicagos-cook-county-1478698979 |archive-date=10 February 2017 |access-date=11 March 2017 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal}}
== 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.{{cite web |title=Sugary Drinks Tax Frequently Asked Questions |url=http://sftreasurer.org/sugary-drinks-tax-frequently-asked-questions-faq |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107014003/http://sftreasurer.org/sugary-drinks-tax-frequently-asked-questions-faq |archive-date=7 November 2017 |access-date=30 October 2017 |website=SF Treasurer |publisher=City and County of San Francisco}} The soda industry doubled their spending from 2014 to almost $20 million in its unsuccessful push to defeat the soda tax initiative, a record-breaking amount for a San Francisco ballot initiative.{{cite news |last=Knight |first=Heather |date=25 October 2016 |title=Record spending by soda industry to defeat Prop V |work=San Francisco Chronicle |url=http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Record-spending-by-soda-industry-to-defeat-Prop-V-10306250.php/ |url-status=live |access-date=9 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200919133820/https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Record-spending-by-soda-industry-to-defeat-Prop-V-10306250.php |archive-date=19 September 2020}}
== Albany, California ==
A one-cent-per-ounce soda tax (Prop O1) passed with over 70% of the vote on 8 November 2016. The tax went into effect on 1 April 2017City of Albany. [http://38.106.4.142/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=29304 "Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax FAQs."]{{Dead link|date=June 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
==Santa Cruz, California ==
A voter approved, two-cents-per-ounce soda tax was implemented in April 2025.{{Cite web |last=Har |first=Janie |date=2025-05-01 |title=Northern California town's sugary soda tax is first to defy state ban |url=https://apnews.com/article/soda-tax-sugar-santa-cruz-california-beverage-69d5937528a341404ab3d5e7bd8b9767 |access-date=2025-05-01 |website=AP News |language=en}}
==Boulder, Colorado==
A two-cents-per-ounce soda tax (Measure 2H) passed with 54% of the vote on 8 November 2016. The tax took effect on 1 July 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.{{Cite web |title=Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax |url=https://bouldercolorado.gov/tax-license/finance-sugar-sweetened-beverage-tax |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170705234359/https://bouldercolorado.gov/tax-license/finance-sugar-sweetened-beverage-tax |archive-date=5 July 2017 |access-date=2017-06-12 |website=bouldercolorado.gov}} The University of Colorado, Boulder, campus was granted a one-year exemption from the tax as school officials survey what types of drinks students wish to have.{{cite news |date=23 May 2017 |title=University of Colorado Boulder receives soda-tax exemption |newspaper=The Denver Post |url=http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/23/university-colorado-boulder-soda-tax/ |url-status=live |access-date=24 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190702001021/https://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/23/university-colorado-boulder-soda-tax/ |archive-date=2 July 2019}}
==Cook County, Illinois==
A one-cent-per-ounce soda tax passed on 10 November 2016.Hal Dardick, [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-cook-county-soda-pop-tax-vote-met-1111-20161110-story.html Cook County soda pop tax approved with Preckwinkle breaking tie vote] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111002800/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-cook-county-soda-pop-tax-vote-met-1111-20161110-story.html|date=11 November 2016}}, Chicago Tribune (10 November 2016). The campaign to introduce the tax was heavily funded by Mike Bloomberg.{{cite news |author=V.v.B |date=13 October 2017 |title=Chicago's soda tax is repealed |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/10/fizzled-0 |url-status=live |access-date=16 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016075356/https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/10/fizzled-0 |archive-date=16 October 2017}} The tax went into effect on 2 August. 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.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-cook-county-settles-soda-pop-tax-food-stamp-issues-0818-biz-20170817-story.html Cook County: Soda tax no longer runs afoul of food stamp rules] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170823204941/http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-cook-county-settles-soda-pop-tax-food-stamp-issues-0818-biz-20170817-story.html|date=23 August 2017}} Chicago Tribune, 17 August 2017. On 10 October 2017, the Board of Commissioners voted to repeal the tax in a 15–1 vote. The tax stayed in effect up until 1 December.{{Cite news |last=Pathieu |first=Diane |date=2017-10-10 |title=Cook County officials vote 15-1 to repeal sugary drink tax |work=ABC7 Chicago |url=http://abc7chicago.com/politics/cook-county-officials-vote-15-1-to-repeal-sugary-drink-tax/2515951/ |url-status=live |access-date=2017-10-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171011001711/http://abc7chicago.com/politics/cook-county-officials-vote-15-1-to-repeal-sugary-drink-tax/2515951/ |archive-date=11 October 2017}} The tax was unpopular and seen as an attempt to plug the county's $1.8 billion budget deficit, rather than a public health measure.
==Navajo Nation==
In addition to the general sales tax (6 percent as of July 1, 2018) the Navajo Nation levies a special Junk Food Tax on applicable junk food items. The Junk Food Tax rate is 2 percent and applies to sales of sweetened beverages.{{Cite web |date=May 2018 |title=Blog: Navajo Nation sales tax rate change, July 2018 |url=https://www.avalara.com/taxrates/en/blog/2018/05/navajo-nation-salestaxratechangejuly2018.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200116121012/https://www.avalara.com/taxrates/en/blog/2018/05/navajo-nation-salestaxratechangejuly2018.html |archive-date=16 January 2020 |access-date=2020-01-16 |website=avalara.com |last1=Cole |first1=Gail }}{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable (WP:NOTRS).|date=May 2024}}
== Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ==
Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney initially proposed a citywide soda tax that would raise the price of soda at three cents per ounce, which would have been the highest soda tax rate in the United States. Kenney promoted using tax revenue to fund universal pre-K, jobs, and development projects while reducing sugar intake.{{cite web|url=http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160301_Kenney__soda_tax_to_fund__400_million_in_projects.html|title=Kenney: Soda tax would fund $400M in projects|work=The Philadelphia Inquirer|date=1 March 2016|access-date=20 March 2017|archive-date=21 March 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170321082640/http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160301_Kenney__soda_tax_to_fund__400_million_in_projects.html|url-status=live}} The American Beverage Association (ABA) spent $10.6 million in 2016 in its effort against the tax.{{cite web |date=6 March 2016 |title=Soft drinks, hard lobbying |url=http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160306_Soft_drinks_hard_lobbying.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170321165530/http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160306_Soft_drinks_hard_lobbying.html |archive-date=21 March 2017 |access-date=20 March 2017 |work=The Philadelphia Inquirer}}Claire Sasko, [http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/09/14/soda-tax-lawsuit/ American Beverage Association Files Soda-Tax Lawsuit] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170903153932/http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/09/14/soda-tax-lawsuit/ |date=3 September 2017 }}, Philadelphia Magazine (14 September 2016). The American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and other medical and public health groups supported the tax.[http://news.heart.org/fifteen-health-organizations-file-in-philadelphias-sugary-drink-tax/ Fifteen health organizations file in Philadelphia's sugary drink tax] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170719094243/http://news.heart.org/fifteen-health-organizations-file-in-philadelphias-sugary-drink-tax/ |date=19 July 2017 }}, American Heart Association News (10 March 2017). The Philadelphia City Council approved a 1.5-cents-per-ounce tax on 16 June 2016, effective on 1 January 2017.{{cite news |url=http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160617_Philadelphia_City_Council_to_vote_on_soda_tax.html |title=Soda tax passes; Philadelphia is first big city in nation to enact one |first=Tricia L. |last=Nadolny |newspaper=The Philadelphia Inquirer |date=16 June 2016 |access-date=17 June 2016 |archive-date=1 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190401205949/https://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160617_Philadelphia_City_Council_to_vote_on_soda_tax.html |url-status=live }}
A 2017 study found that Philadelphia's tax has decreased sugary beverage consumption in impoverished youth by 1.3 drinks/week.{{Cite journal|last1=Langellier|first1=Brent A.|last2=Lê-Scherban|first2=Félice|last3=Purtle|first3=Jonathan|date=August 2017|title=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|journal=Public Health Nutrition|volume=20|issue=13|pages=2450–2458|doi=10.1017/S1368980017001756|pmid=28774355|pmc=10261412 |issn=1368-9800|doi-access=free}} 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. A 2019 study (which has yet to be peer-reviewed) of the 1.5-cents-per-ounce tax in Philadelphia found purchases of the affected beverages (which included diet beverages) dropped 20% after some residents bought more in other jurisdictions.
==Seattle, Washington==
On 5 June 2017, Seattle's City Council voted 7–1 to pass a 1.75 cents per ounce tax on sugary drinks, with implementation beginning on 1 January 2018.[http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-says-yes-to-soda-tax/ Seattle City Council says yes to soda tax] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606150440/http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-says-yes-to-soda-tax/ |date=6 June 2017 }} Retrieved 5 June 2017 The final tax includes sugar-sweetened sodas, juice drinks with sugar added, and some but not all coffee products containing sugar; during the drafting process, the city's powerful specialty coffee industry lobbied for the limitations on which coffee drinks were subject to the tax, and the City Council debated also taxing artificially-sweetened sodas on grounds of racial and economic equity.[https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fancy-lattes-get-break-on-seattles-new-sweetened-beverage-tax/ "It’s the milk, not the sugar: Fancy lattes get a break on Seattle’s new sweetened-beverage tax"]
Seattle collected over $17 million in the first nine months of the tax, against a pre-implementation annual estimate of $15 million a year; the price increase on taxed beverages has mostly been passed on to consumers.{{Cite web| url=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/nearly-100-percent-of-seattles-soda-tax-is-being-passed-on-to-consumers-new-report-estimates/| title=Nearly all of Seattle's soda tax is being passed on to consumers, new report shows| date=7 January 2019| access-date=8 November 2019| archive-date=8 November 2019| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191108205247/https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/nearly-100-percent-of-seattles-soda-tax-is-being-passed-on-to-consumers-new-report-estimates/| url-status=live}} Post-implementation studies conducted by the city auditor, University of Washington, and University of Illinois Chicago have shown a roughly 20% decrease in the sales of taxed beverages[https://p3rc.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/561/2021/12/Ovrvw-Impct-Seattle-WA-SBT-on-Prcs-Dmnd-Sbsttn-Sgr-Sld_Rsrch-Brf-No.-124_Nov-2021.pdf "An Overview of the Impact of the Seattle, Washington, Sweetened Beverage Tax on Prices, Demand, Substitution, and Sugar Sold"] as well as a small decrease in youth Body Mass Index and its rate of change relative to areas outside the city.[https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/SBTEval_AllResultsOverview_Final.pdf "City of Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax: Overall Evaluation Findings"]
In 2018, Washington state voters approved Initiative 1634 which bans new taxes on grocery items such as sugary drinks, blocking other Washington cities from adding a sugary drink tax. Funding for the "Yes on 1634" campaign included over $20 million from major beverage producers.{{Cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1634,_Prohibit_Local_Taxes_on_Groceries_Measure_(2018) |title=Washington Initiative 1634, Prohibit Local Taxes on Groceries Measure (2018) at Ballotpedia |access-date=23 October 2019 |archive-date=2 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191002090557/https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1634,_Prohibit_Local_Taxes_on_Groceries_Measure_(2018) |url-status=live }}
Scientific studies
2015 emails revealed that funding by Coca-Cola for scientific studies sought to influence research to be more favorable to their business interests.{{cite web|url=http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets|title=Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away From Bad Diets|first=Anahad|last=O’Connor|newspaper=The New York Times|date=9 August 2015|access-date=9 November 2016|archive-date=9 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161109144731/http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/|url-status=live}} A 2016 meta-analysis found that research funded by soda companies was 34 times more likely to find that soda has no significant health impacts on obesity or diabetes.{{cite web |last=Healy |first=Melissa |date=31 October 2016 |title=Does the soda industry manipulate research on sugary drinks' health effects? |url=https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-sugary-drink-research-20161031-story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200223033734/https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-sugary-drink-research-20161031-story.html |archive-date=23 February 2020 |access-date=20 February 2020 |newspaper=Los Angeles Times}}
= Individual studies =
{{Excessive detail|section|details=consider replacing with relatively recent meta-analyses|date=May 2024}}
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 {{convert|5|lb|kg}} per person per year. The study followed 5,115 young adults ages 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006.Reuters, [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6275T720100308 Tax Soda, Pizza To Cut Obesity Researchers say] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109040507/https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6275T720100308 |date=9 November 2020 }}, 8 March 2010{{cite web| url=http://pubs.ama-assn.org/media/2010a/0308.dtl#1 | title=Unhealthy Foods Become Less Popular With Increasing Costs | publisher=American Medical Association |date=8 March 2010 |access-date=18 January 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100329092611/http://pubs.ama-assn.org/media/2010a/0308.dtl |archive-date=29 March 2010}}
A 2010 study published in the medical journal Health Affairs found that if taxes were about 18 cents on the dollar, they would make a significant difference in consumption.[http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.2009.0061v1 Health Affairs, Soda Taxes, Soft Drink Consumption, And Children's Body Mass Index] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100406072158/http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.2009.0061v1 |date=6 April 2010 }} 1 April 2010Associated Press [https://web.archive.org/web/20100404132722/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iH4SZwbKI9PYhye5kJT_WLhm4B4AD9EQ1LN01 Study: Small Soda Taxes Don't Dent Obesity] 1 April 2010,
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."Park, Alice (13 December 2010) [https://healthland.time.com/2010/12/13/study-sugar-tax-may-lead-to-only-modest-weight-loss/ "Study: Soda Taxes May Not Be Enough to Curb Obesity"] TIME. 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.{{cite journal | title=The effects of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and weight outcomes | author=Fletcher, Jason M. | journal=Journal of Public Economics |date=December 2010 | volume=94 | issue=11–12 | pages=967–974 | doi=10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.09.005}} 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."{{cite web | url=https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/23/13/59/taxes-on-sugar-sweetened-beverages | title=Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Policy Statement | publisher=APHA | date=30 October 2012 | access-date=20 March 2017 | archive-date=21 March 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170321082729/https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/23/13/59/taxes-on-sugar-sweetened-beverages | url-status=live }}
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".{{Cite journal | last1 = Andreyeva | first1 = T. | last2 = Chaloupka | first2 = F. J. | last3 = Brownell | first3 = K. D. | doi = 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.03.013 | title = Estimating the potential of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce consumption and generate revenue | journal = Preventive Medicine | volume = 52 | issue = 6 | pages = 413–416 | year = 2011 | pmid = 21443899 }} 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.{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20130507100406/http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/sodatax.aspx Revenue Calculator for Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes]}}
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.Allison Aubrey, "Could a Soda Tax Prevent 2,600 Deaths Per Year?" NPR.org, 12 January 2012
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%."{{Cite web |url=https://apha.confex.com/apha/140am/webprogram/Paper265089.html |title=Health benefits, particularly in high risk populations, projected from an excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages intake in California |access-date=30 July 2013 |archive-date=5 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105043721/https://apha.confex.com/apha/140am/webprogram/Paper265089.html |url-status=live }}
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.{{cite journal | title=Predicting the Effects of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes on Food and Beverage Demand in a Large Demand System | author=Zhen, Chen | journal=American Journal of Agricultural Economics |date=July 2013 | volume=95 | issue=1 | doi=10.1093/ajae/aat049 | pmid=24839299 | pages=1–25| pmc=4022288 }}
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.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 (1 April 2014): pp. 672-677.
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.{{cite journal | last1 = Veerman | first1 = JL | last2 = Sacks | first2 = G | last3 = Antonopoulos | first3 = N | last4 = Martin | first4 = J | year = 2016 | title = The Impact of a Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages on Health and Health Care Costs: A Modelling Study | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 11 | issue = 4| page = e0151460 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0151460| pmid = 27073855 | pmc = 4830445 | bibcode = 2016PLoSO..1151460V | doi-access = free }}
Between 2016 and 2020, economists from the University of Iowa, Cornell University, and Mathematica, a policy research firm, conducted a multiyear study of local sweetened-beverage taxes in Philadelphia, Oakland, Seattle, and San Francisco. The study examined the taxes’ one-year impacts on purchases, consumption, tax pass-through rates, pricing, and product availability. It was the first to look at the impacts on Oakland's sugar-sweetened beverage tax and the first to look at impacts of the taxes on children's consumption in either Philadelphia or Oakland. The study found that almost a year after Philadelphia and Oakland implemented taxes on sweetened beverages, purchases of sweetened beverages declined overall even as some of the effect is reduced by city residents shopping more in nearby untaxed jurisdictions. Consumption did not decline significantly overall in Philadelphia or Oakland, but there is more evidence of reduced consumption in Philadelphia, particularly among certain groups. Findings from the project have been published in peer-reviewed journals, such as the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,{{Cite journal|doi = 10.1002/pam.22201|title = The Impact of the Philadelphia Beverage Tax on Prices and Product Availability|year = 2020|last1 = Cawley|first1 = John|last2 = Frisvold|first2 = David|last3 = Hill|first3 = Anna|last4 = Jones|first4 = David|journal = Journal of Policy Analysis and Management|volume = 39|issue = 3|pages = 605–628|s2cid = 214526627|doi-access = }} Economics and Human Biology,John Cawley, David Frisvold, Anna Hill, David Jones, [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X19302552?via%3Dihub Oakland's sugar-sweetened beverage tax: Impacts on prices, purchases and consumption by adults and children] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051749/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570677X19302552?via%3Dihub |date=19 February 2022 }}, Economics & Human Biology, Volume 37, 2020, 100865, ISSN 1570-677X,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100865 the Journal of Health Economics,John Cawley, David Frisvold, Anna Hill, David Jones, [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629618309494?via%3Dihub The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on purchases and consumption by adults and children] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051806/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629618309494?via%3Dihub |date=19 February 2022 }}, Journal of Health Economics, Volume 67, 2019, 102225, ISSN 0167-6296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.102225 . as well as in working papers hosted by the National Bureau of Economic Research[https://www.nber.org/papers/w26393 The Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes on Purchases: Evidence from Four City-Level Taxes in the U.S.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200604003232/https://www.nber.org/papers/w26393 |date=4 June 2020 }}
John Cawley, David Frisvold, and David Jones, NBER Working Paper No. 26393, October 2019, JEL No. H23, H71, I12, I18 and in Mathematica issue briefs.{{Cite web |date=October 21, 2019 |title=Effects of Sweetened Beverage Taxes in Philadelphia and Oakland: Fewer Beverage Purchases, but Increased Cross-Border Shopping and Mixed Effects on Consumption |url=https://www.mathematica.org/reports/rwservlet |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210320153457/https://www.mathematica.org/news/effects-of-sweetened-beverage-taxes-in-philadelphia-and-oakland-fewer-beverage-purchases |archive-date=March 20, 2021 |access-date=2024-05-04 |website=Mathematica |language=en}}
Proposals
=Colombia=
A 2016 proposal for a 20% sugary drink tax, campaigned by Educar Consumidores, was turned down by the Colombian legislature despite opinion polls showing 70% support for it. Health officials and media outlets received substantial pressure against speaking out in favor of the tax.
= United States =
Some of the most notable early tax proposals include: File:Soda Tax - NYC - The Daily Ardmoreite - 1919.png
- 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.[http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1914-09-01/ed-1/seq-1/ "Wilson Proposes Soft Drink Tax,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140904003128/http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1914-09-01/ed-1/seq-1/|date=4 September 2014}} Hawaiian Gazette. 1 September 1914. Page 1. Retrieved 1 September 2014.
- In 2009, the Obama Administration explored an excise tax on sweetened beverages during health care reform efforts.Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger, [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-feb-07-la-na-soda-tax7-2010feb07-story.html "Beverage Industry Douses Tax on Soft Drinks."] Los Angeles Times, 7 February 2010.
- In 2010, New York State explored a soda tax.{{cite news |last=Hartocollis |first=Anemona |date=2 July 2010 |title=Soda Tax in N.Y. a Victim of Industry Campaign |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/nyregion/03sodatax.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170502091644/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/nyregion/03sodatax.html |archive-date=2 May 2017 |access-date=25 February 2017 |work=The New York Times}} (separate from Sugary drinks portion cap rule)
- In 2012, the City Council of Richmond, California was voted down at the ballot.{{Citation | title = Voters resoundingly reject Richmond 'soda' tax | url = http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/11/06/voters-resoundingly-reject-richmond-soda-tax/ | date = 6 November 2012 | website = MercuryNews.com | access-date = 20 March 2017 | last = Rogers | first = Robert | archive-date = 21 March 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170321081727/http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/11/06/voters-resoundingly-reject-richmond-soda-tax/ | url-status = live }}{{cite web | url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/11/07/soda-tax-trounced-in-richmond-but-may-rise-again-on-larger-stages/ | title=Soda tax trounced in Richmond but may rise again on larger stages | work=San Jose Mercury News | date=7 November 2012 | access-date=20 March 2017 | author=Rogers, Robert | archive-date=8 May 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170508060251/http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/11/07/soda-tax-trounced-in-richmond-but-may-rise-again-on-larger-stages/ | url-status=live }}
- The California State Legislature saw a variety of soda tax proposalsJeremy B. White, [http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article71436032.html California soda tax bill pulled without a vote] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170712182054/http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article71436032.html|date=12 July 2017}}, Sacramento Bee (12 April 2016). including in 2013,{{cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/california-soda-tax_n_3165417.html|title=New California Soda-Tax Bill Under Consideration|work=The Huffington Post|date=26 April 2013|access-date=20 February 2020|archive-date=8 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170108031503/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/california-soda-tax_n_3165417.html|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/regions/california/article_473ab2d2-c3e2-11e2-881d-0019bb30f31a.html|title=Bill Monning's Proposed Soda Tax Dies in Committee|work=Monterey County Weekly|date=23 May 2013 |access-date=28 July 2013|archive-date=19 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051814/https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/regions/california/article_473ab2d2-c3e2-11e2-881d-0019bb30f31a.html|url-status=live}} In 2014,Patrick McGreevy, [https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-soda-tax-20160308-story.html More expensive soda? Lawmakers want to tax sugary drinks] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191006152804/https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-soda-tax-20160308-story.html |date=6 October 2019 }}, Los Angeles Times (8 March 2016). and 2016.
- In June 2013, the city of Telluride, Colorado had a proposed tax{{cite web | url=http://www.coprevent.org/2013/06/telluride-proposes-soda-tax.html | title=Telluride proposes soda tax | publisher=Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment | date=26 June 2013 | access-date=9 August 2013 | author=Brendsel, Dave | archive-date=5 November 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105043054/http://www.coprevent.org/2013/06/telluride-proposes-soda-tax.html | url-status=live }} voted down.{{cite news | url=http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/11/06/quirky-ballot-issues-bag-fee-in-durango-falls-soda-tax-in-telluride-denied/102393/ | title=Quirky ballot issues: Durango stuffs bag fee, Telluride slams soda tax | work=The Denver Post | date=6 November 2013 | access-date=7 November 2013 | author=Meyer, Jeremy | archive-date=7 November 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131107010220/http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/11/06/quirky-ballot-issues-bag-fee-in-durango-falls-soda-tax-in-telluride-denied/102393/ | url-status=live }}
- In July 2014, U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, proposed a national soda tax.{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/opinion/mark-bittman-introducing-the-national-soda-tax.html?_r=0 | title=Introducing the National Soda Tax | work=The New York Times | date=29 July 2014 | access-date=10 September 2014 | author=Bittman, Mark | author-link=Mark Bittman | archive-date=10 September 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140910215727/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/opinion/mark-bittman-introducing-the-national-soda-tax.html?_r=0 | url-status=live }}
- In November 2014, voters in San Francisco and Berkeley, California voted on soda tax ballot measures.{{cite news|last1=Bump|first1=Philip|title=How a soda tax fight in San Francisco explains California politics|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/07/how-a-soda-tax-fight-in-san-francisco-explains-california-politics/|access-date=24 October 2014|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=7 October 2014|archive-date=30 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030233651/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/07/how-a-soda-tax-fight-in-san-francisco-explains-california-politics/|url-status=live}} The measure was approved in Berkeley{{cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Berkeley_Sugary_Beverages_and_Soda_Tax_Question,_Measure_D_(November_2014) |title=City of Berkeley Sugary Beverages and Soda Tax Question, Measure D (November 2014) |publisher=Ballotpedia |access-date=2016-05-07 |archive-date=28 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128082928/https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Berkeley_Sugary_Beverages_and_Soda_Tax_Question,_Measure_D_(November_2014) |url-status=live }} and received 55% of the vote in San Francisco, but was short of the needed 2/3 supermajority.{{cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Sugary_Drink_Tax,_Proposition_E_(November_2014) |title=City of San Francisco Sugary Drink Tax, Proposition E (November 2014) |website=Ballotpedia |access-date=2016-05-07 |archive-date=28 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128082929/https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Sugary_Drink_Tax,_Proposition_E_(November_2014) |url-status=live }}
- In a May 2017 election, Santa Fe's proposed tax on all sugar-sweetened beverages was voted down.{{cite web |url= https://www.abqjournal.com/997373/early-returns-are-against-sugary-drinks-tax.html |title= Updated: Soda tax goes flat in Santa Fe |author= T.S. Last, Journal staff writer |website= www.abqjournal.com |date= 3 May 2017 |access-date= 24 May 2017 |archive-date= 3 May 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170503043219/https://www.abqjournal.com/997373/early-returns-are-against-sugary-drinks-tax.html |url-status= live }}
== Public support ==
A 2016 poll by Morning Consult-Vox finds Americans split on their support of a soda tax.{{cite web|url= https://morningconsult.com/alert/poll-americans-split-soda-taxes/|title= Poll: Americans split on soda taxes|work= Morning Consult|date= 6 May 2016|access-date= 8 November 2016|archive-date= 9 November 2016|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20161109022544/https://morningconsult.com/alert/poll-americans-split-soda-taxes/|url-status= live}} A 2013 poll concluded that "respondents were opposed to government taxes on sugary drinks and candy by a more than 2-to-1 margin."{{cite web|url=http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/04/25/most-americans-oppose-soda-candy-taxes|title=Most Americans Oppose Soda, Candy Taxes|work=U.S. News & World Report|access-date=25 July 2013|archive-date=13 July 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130713205512/http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/04/25/most-americans-oppose-soda-candy-taxes|url-status=live}} 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."{{cite web|url=http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Poll-shows-support-for-soda-tax-to-fight-obesity-3457423.php|title=Poll shows support for soda tax to fight obesity|work=SFGate|date=4 April 2012|access-date=25 July 2013|archive-date=5 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105043041/http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Poll-shows-support-for-soda-tax-to-fight-obesity-3457423.php|url-status=live}}
See also
References
{{Reflist|30em}}
{{Soft drink}}