Do ‘soda taxes’ curb consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages? According to the LA Times article, “Berkeley sees a big drop in soda consumption after penny-per-ounce ‘soda tax,’ this seems to be the case. The article mentions a recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) concerning the consumption patterns of residents in Berkeley five months after the tax was implemented. According to Falbe et al. (2016), lower-income residents in Berkeley reduced their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages by 21% and increased their water consumption by 63% (Kaplan, 2016). Interestingly enough, the neighboring cities actually experienced an increase in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and only a 19% increase in water consumption (Kaplan, 2016). While these are promising results, does this mean that a soda-tax will be just as successful in other places as well?
The LA Times article echoes a lot of what the AJPH article says and makes a lukewarm endorsement of ‘soda taxes’ at the most. Both the LA Times article and the AJPH article both state that it is unknown that such a tax would work in other cities since the study was only done in one city. It would be erroneous to state that what will work in Berkeley, a city with a population of 120,927 will work in a city like Washington D.C., with a population of around 672,228 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Another thing to take in consideration is the presently held health beliefs before the implementation of the tax. The AJPH article mentioned that the significant decrease in sugar-sweetened beverages could have also been due to Berkeley being a health conscious city. In addition, there was wide community support of these initiatives. In addition, Berkeley has relatively higher median income compared to it’s neighbors. How would these policy affect cities with much lower median incomes? It could have detrimental effects, especially in places which are food insecure. The APJH article was quite transparent in realizing the limitations of the study and called for longer-term studies.
While this is a short-term study, health practitioners, especially those who work in health policy and community health, can find some takeaways from these studies. As mentioned previously, it is integral to garner community support on the implementation of a ‘soda tax.’ There could be opposition to this measure by community members for some might see it as an infringement on their freedoms and punishing them for the choices they have. In other words, there would be a mismatch between policy and community concerns. Secondly, health practitioners in these areas could see that in order to gain support for these measures, one must be already be health conscious. Before even proposing this tax, practitioners should set the groundwork in creating community-wide programs which gets people thinking about their health.
SOURCES
Falbe, J., Thompson, H., Becker, C., Rojas, N., McCulloch, C., & Madsen, K. (2016). Impact of the Berkley Excise Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage
Consumption. American Journal of Public Health, 106(10), 1865-1871.
Kaplan, K (23 August 2016). Berkeley sees big drop in soda consumption after penny-per-ounce ‘soda tax.’ LA Times. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-soda-tax-works-20160823-snap-story.html
U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Quickfacts. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/11,0606000,00.
Though the results of this study are promising–I agree with the statements regarding the difficulty applying this logic to other cities. The size and culture differs extensively across different states, even counties. I think many states would recognize a tax as an invasion of their rights. My train of thought goes to “If we are taxing sugar sweetened beverages, are we taxing other things?” Ice cream, pastries, chips, CheezWiz, and the majority of the aisles of the grocery store are filled with junk food that contributes to obesity. What about “100% fruit juice”, (which is 100% a marketing scam) that is sweetened with “fruit juice” that was boiled down until all that is left is the sugar syrup? I don’t disagree with a tax at all–arguably I have a *more* extreme view in that I think we should stop making a majority of the garbage on the market all together but I just wonder where we can draw the line.
While I applaud Berkley on their enactment of the tax, they weren’t the first city to attempt it. Currently, Philadelphia is undergoing a lawsuit because they wanted to tax sugar sweetened beverages by 1.5 cents per ounce. There was already a 6% sales tax in Pennsylvania as well, but now its getting personal to the American Beverage Association. They’ve sued the city and started a 10 million dollar campaign to prevent the act from passing. The mayor has accused them now of trying to prevent the city’s youth from gaining new libraries and parks that would have been funded by the tax. Drama. Move over Boston Tea Party, hello Philly Soda Fountain.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/09/14/lawsuit-filed-against-philadelphia-in-effort-to-stop-soda-tax/#2944167fcbd7
The soda tax is still such a hot topic and it is great to see that health changes can be made in some communities where the tax is implemented. Yet, you make some great points about Berkeley as a city. It is very health conscious (I used to live south of there) and it is a thriving college town with many local shops and food sources and a relatively high income. So while this article shows that the low-income population in Berkeley reduced their intake of SSBs, economists have shown taxes on food and beverages negatively affect the low-income population more so than other groups. So my thoughts align more with those from the American Beverage Association in that “Taxing food and drink is unlikely to make the poor slim, but it will certainly ensure they stay poor.” Overall, I definitely feel like more research really needs to be done in a variety of communities to really determine the effects of the soda tax (also, since many of studies look at purchasing and not BMI changes), but this is a start.
http://www.ameribev.org/blog/2015/06/the-real-impact-of-soda-taxes/
It is great that this study found positive results with the soda tax, but realistically the tax is not enough to change someone’s behaviors. The ultimate goal of the tax is to aid in reducing obesity, but as you mentioned individuals need to be given other programs and opportunities in their communities to learn about improving their health to really make changes in their health. Just like with the increased taxes on tobacco products in recent years, people continue to keep smoking, and people will continue to drink sugary drinks as well.
I agree that instituting this type of tax will most certainly not have the same effects across state and county lines. The health conscientiousness of the city before the tax in addition to the amount of support for or fight against the tax from the residents plays a very large role in whether or not its implementation would have a positive effect. Additionally, it would be extremely necessary for a long-term study in order to determine if any of the positive effects of this tax actually permeate for an extended period of time or if they could be maintained at all. In particular, in cities of lower socio-economic status, a soda tax would certainly have the potential to pose more negative than positive effects, and this needs to be weighed among other factors before a decision to pass the tax is made.