A new study of consumer buying habits in 4 mid-sized US cities reveals taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages do reduce con-sumption. And that, in turn, can help reduce the ill effects of excess sugar on certain population groups…
The top three sugar-sweetened beverages in America…
There have been many studies on the effects of selective taxation of foods that contain excess sugar. Sugar-sweetened beverages have long been tagged as the worst offenders among the latter. But until now, there was no conclusive proof that such taxes actually result in reduced consumption of excess sugar.
What they did
The study methodology was simple. Researchers at the University of Washington (WA) investigated responses to sweetened beverage taxes by monitoring the purchasing behavior of approximately 400 households in Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland and Philadelphia — all of which recently introduced beverage taxes. The study’s findings were published online September 30 in Health Economics.
Using Nielsen Consumer Panel, researchers followed the households for a year before and after the tax was implemented in their city. Participating consumers were given a handheld scanner to report their purchases.
What they found
After the tax was introduced, lower-income households decreased their purchases of sugary bever-ages by nearly 50 percent, while higher-income households reduced their purchases by 18 percent. Previous studies have shown that lower-income individuals in jurisdictions where there are no such selective taxes consume sweetened beverages at a higher-than-average rate.
These new findings suggest the taxes could help reduce health disparities and promote major pop-ulation-wide health benefits.
“If households reduce their sugar intake, they WILL experience health benefits,” observes Dr. Melissa Knox, the study’s Co-Author. “Sweetened beverages are one of the largest sources of [excess] sugar in the American diet. They have all kinds of health consequences and don’t really provide any nutrition. The idea with the tax is that lower-income people, because they reduce their intake more, receive greater health benefits than the higher-income households.”
The takeaway
Traditionally, lower-income households have consumed more excess sugar, in cheaper processed foods, and have suffered more-serious consequences. Hence, the reduction in disparities.
Additionally, lower-income households paid about the same amount as higher-income ones in actual dollars toward the tax. Meaning lower-income households spent a higher proportion of their income. But the study also showed more actual dollars went toward funding programs that benefit lower-income communities than those households paid in taxes.
My take
One factor not addressed by the study we’re looking at today is inflation. It’s been a while since we covered a sugary beverage tax study in thinks space. And last time we did, the jury was still out on whether such measures had any significant effect on excess sugar consumption. But these numbers are clear and convincing.
I have a theory… The difference in the effect of the taxes then and now could be linked to increasing pressure on lower income households by continuing high food prices in the face of falling buying power. Poverty levels are rising. It might be that lower-income shoppers have reached a threshold at which the added taxes constitute a last straw – a price point at which shoppers are finally deciding not to buy the taxed products.
Whatever the underlying causes, it’ appears to be a win-win situation…
~ Maggie J.