Dataset Information

Chile's 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax and changes in prices and purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages: An observational study in an urban environment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

On October 1, 2014, the Chilean government modified its previous sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax, increasing the tax rate from 13% to 18% on industrialized beverages with high levels of sugar (H-SSBs) (greater than 6.25 grams [g] sugar/100 milliliters [mL]) and decreasing the tax rate from 13% to 10% on industrialized beverages with low or no sugar (L-SSBs) (less than 6.25 g sugar/100 mL). This study examines changes in beverage prices and household beverage purchases following the implementation of the tax reform.

Methods and findings

We used longitudinal data collected between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, from 2,000 households. We defined the pretax period as January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2014, and the posttax period as October 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015. We conducted a pre-post analysis for changes in prices and purchases, with the latter examined by volume and calories. We compared posttax changes in prices and purchases to a counterfactual, defined as what would have been expected in the posttax period based on pretax trends. All results are stated as comparisons to this counterfactual. We linked beverages at the bar code level to nutrition facts panel data collected by a team of Chilean nutritionists who categorized them by taxation level and beverage subcategory, which included carbonated and noncarbonated H-SSBs and concentrated, ready-to-drink L-SSBs and untaxed beverages. We reconstituted concentrated beverages and analyzed all beverages using as-consumed volumes and calories. Posttax monthly prices of H-SSBs increased, but these changes were small. Prices of carbonated H-SSBs increased by 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0%-3.0%), while those of noncarbonated H-SSBs increased by 3.9% (95% CI 1.6%-6.2%). Prices of L-SSB concentrates decreased after the tax by 6.7% (95% CI -8.2%--4.6%), and prices of ready-to-drink L-SSBs increased by 1.5% (95% CI 0.3%-2.7%). Households decreased monthly per capita purchases of H-SSBs by 3.4% by volume (95% CI -5.9%--0.9%) and 4.0% by calories (95% CI -6.3%--1.9%), and this change was greater among high socioeconomic status (SES) households. The volume of household purchases of L-SSBs increased 10.7% (95% CI 7.5%-13.9%), while that of untaxed beverage purchases decreased by 3.1% (95% CI -5.1%--1.1%). The main limitation of this study was that there was no control group, so we were unable to assess the causal impact of the tax.

Conclusions

The modifications of Chile's SSB tax were small, and observed changes in prices and purchases of beverages after the tax were also small. Our results are consistent with previous evidence indicating that small increases in SSB taxes are unlikely to promote large enough changes in SSB purchases to reduce obesity and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs).

SUBMITTER: Caro JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6029755 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chile's 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax and changes in prices and purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages: An observational study in an urban environment.

Caro Juan Carlos JC Corvalán Camila C Reyes Marcela M Silva Andres A Popkin Barry B Taillie Lindsey Smith LS

PLoS medicine 20180703 7

<h4>Background</h4>On October 1, 2014, the Chilean government modified its previous sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax, increasing the tax rate from 13% to 18% on industrialized beverages with high levels of sugar (H-SSBs) (greater than 6.25 grams [g] sugar/100 milliliters [mL]) and decreasing the tax rate from 13% to 10% on industrialized beverages with low or no sugar (L-SSBs) (less than 6.25 g sugar/100 mL). This study examines changes in beverage prices and household beverage purchases follo ...[more]

PMID: 29969444

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionWhat has been the effect on purchases of beverages from stores in Mexico one year after implementation of the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages?MethodsIn this observational study the authors used data on the purchase of beverages in Mexico from January 2012 to December 2014 from an unbalanced panel of 6253 households providing 205 112 observations in 53 cities with more than 50 000 inhabitants. To test whether the post-tax trend in purchases was significantly different from the pretax trend, the authors used a difference in difference fixed effects model, which adjusts for both macroeconomic variables that can affect the purchase of beverages over time, and pre-existing trends. The variables used in the analysis included demographic information on household composition (age and sex of household members) and socioeconomic status (low, middle, and high). The authors compared the predicted volumes (mL/capita/day) of taxed and untaxed beverages purchased in 2014-the observed post-tax period-with the estimated volumes that would have been purchased if the tax had not been implemented (counterfactual) based on pretax trends.Study answer and limitationsRelative to the counterfactual in 2014, purchases of taxed beverages decreased by an average of 6% (-12 mL/capita/day), and decreased at an increasing rate up to a 12% decline by December 2014. All three socioeconomic groups reduced purchases of taxed beverages, but reductions were higher among the households of low socioeconomic status, averaging a 9% decline during 2014, and up to a 17% decrease by December 2014 compared with pretax trends. Purchases of untaxed beverages were 4% (36 mL/capita/day) higher than the counterfactual, mainly driven by an increase in purchases of bottled plain water.What this study addsThe tax on sugar sweetened beverages was associated with reductions in purchases of taxed beverages and increases in purchases of untaxed beverages. Continued monitoring is needed to understand purchases longer term, potential substitutions, and health implications.Funding, competing interests, data sharingThis work was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and by the Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública and the Carolina Population Center. The authors have no competing interests. No additional data are available.

Project description:ImportancePolicy makers have implemented beverage taxes to generate revenue and reduce consumption of sweetened drinks. In January 2017, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, became the second US city to implement a beverage excise tax (1.5 cents per ounce).ObjectivesTo compare changes in beverage prices and sales following the implementation of the tax in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore, Maryland (a control city without a tax) and to assess potential cross-border shopping to avoid the tax in neighboring zip codes.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used a difference-in-differences approach and analyzed sales data to compare changes between January 1, 2016, before the tax, and December 31, 2017, after the tax. Differences by store type, beverage sweetener status, and beverage size were examined. The commercial retailer sales data included large chain store sales in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the Pennsylvania zip codes bordering Philadelphia. These data reflect approximately 25% of the ounces of taxed beverages sold in Philadelphia.ExposuresPhiladelphia's tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages.Main outcomes and measuresChange in taxed beverage prices and volume sales.ResultsA total of 291 stores (54 supermarkets, 20 mass merchandise stores, 217 pharmacies) were analyzed. The mean price per ounce of taxed beverages in Philadelphia increased from 5.43 cents in 2016 to 6.24 cents in 2017 at supermarkets; from 5.28 cents to 6.24 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.60 cents to 8.28 cents at pharmacies. The mean price per ounce in Baltimore increased from 5.33 cents in 2016 to 5.50 cents in 2017 at supermarkets, from 6.34 cents to 6.52 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.76 cents to 6.93 cents at pharmacies. The mean per-ounce difference in price between the 2 cities was 0.65 cents (95% CI, 0.60 cents-0.69 cents; P<.001) at supermarkets; 0.87 cents (95 % CI, 0.72 cents-1.02 cents; P<.001) at mass merchandise stores, and 1.56 cents (95% CI, 1.50 cents-1.62 cents; P<.001) at pharmacies. Total volume sales of taxed beverages in Philadelphia decreased by 1.3 billion ounces (from 2.475 billion to 1.214 billion) or by 51.0% after tax implementation. Volume sales in the Pennsylvania border zip codes, however, increased by 308.2 million ounces (from 713.1 million to 1.021 billion), offsetting the decrease in Philadelphia's volume sales by 24.4%. In Philadelphia, beverage volume sales in ounces per 4-week period between before and after tax periods decreased from 4.85 million to 1.99 million at supermarkets, from 2.98 million to 1.72 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.16 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. In Baltimore, the beverage volume sales in ounces decreased from 2.83 million to 2.81 million at supermarkets, from 1.05 million to 1.00 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.14 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. This was a 58.7% reduction at supermarkets (difference-in-differences, -2.85 million ounces; 95% CI, -4.10 million to -1.60 million ounces; P < .001), 40.4% reduction at mass merchandise stores (difference-in-differences, -1.20 million ounces; 95% CI, -2.04 million to -0.36 million ounces; P = .001), and 12.6% reduction in pharmacies (difference-in-differences, -0.02 million ounces; 95% CI, -0.03 million to -0.01 million ounces; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn Philadelphia in 2017, the implementation of a beverage excise tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages was associated with significantly higher beverage prices and a significant and substantial decline in volume of taxed beverages sold. This decrease in taxed beverage sales volume was partially offset by increases in volume of sales in bordering areas.

Project description:IntroductionU.S. policy actions focus on reducing sugar-sweetened beverage purchases. Yet, there are no studies on trends in overall purchase distribution and how it has changed by key subpopulations. This study examined changes in distributions of total sugar-sweetened beverage purchases and its major subtypes (regular carbonated soft drinks and fruit/sports/energy drinks) in 2002-2014 and distinguished among low, moderate, and high purchasers.MethodsLongitudinal data on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases of U.S. households from the 2002-2014 Nielsen Homescan Panel were used. Sugar-sweetened beverages were defined as all caloric non-alcoholic beverages containing added sugars. Longitudinal quantile regression model examined trends across distributions (from quantile 25 to 95) of purchases (measured in kcal/day/capita), while accounting for households' unobserved differences. All statistical analyses were conducted in 2019.ResultsAll households across the total purchase distribution significantly reduced their purchases. High purchasers made less proportional reductions than low purchasers (e.g., 35% at 95th quantile vs 62% at 25th quantile). However, the smaller relative reductions among higher purchasers translated into larger absolute decreases (e.g., 134 kcal/day/capita at 95th quantile vs 23 kcal/day/capita at 25th quantile). Similar patterns in heterogeneity were observed across sugar-sweetened beverage subtype distributions and among racial/ethnic and income groups. In addition, there were significant racial/ethnic and income disparities in total sugar-sweetened beverage purchases in 2002-2003. Although racial/ethnic disparities among higher purchasers improved, income disparity patterns at all purchase levels persisted into 2013-2014.ConclusionsFrom 2002‒2003 to 2013-2014, U.S. households at all purchase levels made meaningful reductions in sugar-sweetened beverage purchases in both absolute and relative terms. Furthermore, racial/ethnic disparities in total sugar-sweetened beverage purchases narrowed, but income disparity patterns persisted.

Project description:ImportanceThe relationship between a sweetened beverage tax and changes in the prices and purchases of beverages and high-sugar food is understudied in the long term and in small independent food retail stores where sugar-sweetened beverages are among the most commonly purchased items.ObjectiveTo examine whether a 1.5 cent-per-fluid-ounce excise tax on sugar- and artificially sweetened beverages Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was associated with sustained changes in beverage prices and purchases, as well as calories purchased from beverages and high-sugar foods, over 2 years at small independent stores.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used a difference-in-differences approach to compare changes in beverage prices and purchases of beverages and high-sugar foods (candy, sweet snacks) at independent stores in Philadelphia and Baltimore, Maryland (a nontaxed control) before and 2 years after tax implementation, which occurred on January 1, 2017. Price comparisons were also made to independent stores in Philadelphia's neighboring counties.Main outcomes and measuresChanges in mean price (measured in cents per fluid ounce) of taxed and nontaxed beverages, mean fluid ounces purchased of taxed and nontaxed beverages, and mean total calories purchased from beverages and high-sugar foods.ResultsCompared with Baltimore independent stores, taxed beverage prices in Philadelphia increased 2.06 cents per fluid ounce (95% CI, 1.75 to 2.38 cents per fluid ounce; P < .001), with 137% of the tax passed through to prices 2 years after tax implementation, while nontaxed beverage prices had no statistically significant change. A total of 116 independent stores and 4738 customer purchases (1950 [41.2%] women; 4351 [91.8%] age 18 years or older; 1006 [21.2%] White customers, 3185 [67.2%] Black customers) at independent stores were assessed for price and purchase comparisons. Purchases of taxed beverages declined by 6.1 fl oz (95% CI, -9.9 to -2.4 fl oz; P < .001), corresponding to a 42% decline in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore; there were no significant changes in purchases of nontaxed beverages. Although there was no significant moderation by neighborhood income or customer education level, exploratory stratified analyses revealed that declines in taxed beverage purchases were larger among customers shopping in low-income neighborhoods (-7.1 fl oz; 95% CI, -13.0 to -1.1 fl oz; P = .001) and individuals with lower education levels (-6.9 fl oz; 95% CI, -12.5 to -1.3 fl oz; P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that a tax on sweetened beverages was associated with increases in price and decreases in purchasing. Beverage excise taxes may be an effective policy to sustainably decrease purchases of sweetened drinks and calories from sugar in independent stores, with large reductions in lower-income areas and among customers with lower levels of education.

Project description:BackgroundIn October 2014, Chile implemented a tax modification on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) called the Impuesto Adicional a las Bebidas Analcohólicas (IABA). The design of the tax was unique, increasing the tax on soft drinks above 6.25 grams of added sugar per 100 mL and decreasing the tax for those below this threshold.Methods and findingsThis study evaluates Chile's SSB tax, which was announced in March 2014 and implemented in October 2014. We used household-level grocery-purchasing data from 2011 to 2015 for 2,836 households living in cities representative of the urban population of Chile. We employed a fixed-effects econometric approach and estimated the before-after change in purchasing of SSBs controlling for seasonality, general time trend, temperature, and economic fluctuations as well as time-invariant household characteristics. Results showed significant changes in purchasing for the statistically preferred model: while there was a barely significant decrease in the volume of all soft drinks, there was a highly significant decrease in the monthly purchased volume of the higher-taxed, sugary soft drinks by 21.6%. The direction of this reduction was robust to different empirical modelling approaches, but the statistical significance and the magnitude of the changes varied considerably. The reduction in soft drink purchasing was most evident amongst higher socioeconomic groups and higher pretax purchasers of sugary soft drinks. There was no systematic, robust pattern in the estimates by household obesity status. After tax implementation, the purchase prices of soft drinks decreased for the items for which the tax rate was reduced, but they remained unchanged for sugary items, for which the tax was increased. However, the purchase prices increased for sugary soft drinks at the time of the policy announcement. The main limitations include a lack of a randomised design, limiting the extent of causal inference possible, and the focus on purchasing data rather than consumption or health outcomes.ConclusionsThe results of subgroup analyses suggest that the policy may have been partially effective, though not necessarily in ways that are likely to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet-related health. It remains unclear whether the policy has had a major, overall population-level impact. Additionally, because the present study examined purchasing of soft drinks for only 1 year, a longer-term evaluation-ideally including an assessment of consumption and health impacts-should be conducted in future research.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02926001.

Project description:BackgroundFew longitudinal studies examine the response to beverage taxes, especially among regular sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumers.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine changes in objectively measured beverage purchases associated with the Philadelphia beverage tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages.MethodsA longitudinal quasi-experiment was conducted with adult sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumers in Philadelphia (n = 306) and Baltimore (n = 297; a nontaxed comparison city). From 2016 to 2017 participants submitted all food and beverage receipts during a 2-wk period at: baseline (pretax) and 3, 6, and 12 mo posttax (91.0% retention; data analyzed in 2019). Linear mixed effects models were used to assess the difference-in-differences in total purchased ounces (fl oz) of taxed beverages in a 2-wk period in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore. Secondary analyses: 1) excluded weeks that contained major holidays at baseline and 12 mo (42% of measured weeks at baseline and 12 mo) because policy implementation timing necessitated data collection during holidays when SSB demand may be more inelastic, and 2) aggregated posttax time points to address serial correlation and low power.ResultsThere were no statistically significant changes in purchased ounces of taxed beverages in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore in the primary analysis. After excluding holiday purchasing, the tax was associated with statistically significant reductions of taxed beverage purchases at 3 and 6 mo (-157.1 ounces, 95% CI: -310.1, -4.1 and -175.1 ounces, 95% CI: -328.0, -22.3, respectively) but not 12 mo. Analyses aggregating all 6 wk of posttax time points showed statistically significant reductions (-203.7 ounces, 95% CI: -399.6, -7.8).ConclusionsA sweetened beverage tax was not associated with reduced taxed beverage purchases among SSB consumers 12 mo posttax in the full sample. Both secondary analyses excluding holiday purchasing or aggregating posttax time periods found reductions in taxed beverage purchases ranging from -4.9 to -12.5 ounces per day. Larger longitudinal studies are needed to further understand tax effects.

Dataset Information

Chile's 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax and changes in prices and purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages: An observational study in an urban environment.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Chile's 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax and changes in prices and purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages: An observational study in an urban environment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets