Dataset Information

Evaluation of Changes in Beverage Prices and Volume Sold Following the Implementation and Repeal of a Sweetened Beverage Tax in Cook County, Illinois.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Health taxes are policy tools used to reduce harmful consumption of products and raise tax revenue, and they may also be associated with signaling (ie, informational and educational) factors that enhance their impact.

Objectives

To examine changes in prices and volume sold of sweetened beverages following the implementation and repeal of the Cook County, Illinois, Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) compared with the comparison site of St Louis County and city, Missouri, which did not impose a tax.

Design, setting, and participants

This study used interrupted time series analyses to assess changes in price and volume sold of taxed (based on beverage type and sweetener status) and untaxed beverages in Cook County compared with St Louis following the implementation of the SBT on August 2, 2017, and its repeal effective December 1, 2017. Statistical analysis was performed from January to June 2020.

Exposures

Implementation and repeal of the Cook County SBT.

Main outcomes and measures

Changes in taxed and untaxed beverage prices and volume sold. Nielsen food store scanner data were obtained for weekly volume and dollar amount sold of nonalcoholic beverage universal product codes (UPCs) for each site in supermarkets and mass merchandise, grocery, drug, convenience, and dollar stores.

Results

The analytic samples included 16 510 UPCs for volume and 2141 UPCs (balanced sample) for prices for 122 pretax weeks, 16 tax weeks, and 35 postrepeal weeks. Compared with St Louis, posttax implementation in Cook County resulted in a level increase in taxed beverage prices of 1.13 cents per fluid ounce (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.25 cents per fluid ounce), representing a slight overshifting, followed by a posttax repeal level decrease of -1.19 cents per fluid ounce (95% CI, -1.33 to -1.04 cents per fluid ounce), with no resulting change pretax to posttax repeal. Volume sold of taxed beverages in Cook County compared with St Louis exhibited a posttax implementation level decrease of 25.7% (??=?-0.297; 95% CI, -0.415 to -0.179) and a posttax repeal level increase of 30.5% (??=?0.266, 95% CI, 0.124 to 0.408), with no net change in volume sold from pretax to 8 months after repeal.

Conclusions and relevance

This study using interrupted time series analysis found no net change in volume sold of taxed beverages following the implementation and repeal of the Cook County SBT, suggesting the tax had no signaling association. Repeals of such taxes may fully reverse their associations with reduced demand and harms associated with sweetened beverage intake.

SUBMITTER: Powell LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7770557 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of Changes in Beverage Prices and Volume Sold Following the Implementation and Repeal of a Sweetened Beverage Tax in Cook County, Illinois.

Powell Lisa M LM Leider Julien J

JAMA network open 20201201 12

<h4>Importance</h4>Health taxes are policy tools used to reduce harmful consumption of products and raise tax revenue, and they may also be associated with signaling (ie, informational and educational) factors that enhance their impact.<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine changes in prices and volume sold of sweetened beverages following the implementation and repeal of the Cook County, Illinois, Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) compared with the comparison site of St Louis County and city, Missouri, which ...[more]

PMID: 33369659

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAdults and children routinely exceed recommended intake amounts of added sugars established by dietary guidelines. Taxes are used as a policy tool to reduce demand for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) given consumption-related adverse health outcomes but may induce substitution to other sources of added sugars.ObjectiveTo examine the extent to which changes in grams of sugar sold from taxed beverages may be offset by changes in grams of sugar sold from untaxed beverages, sweets, and stand-alone sugar after the implementation of the Seattle, Washington, Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) on January 1, 2018.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used difference-in-differences analyses to examine changes in grams of sugar sold from taxed and untaxed products in Seattle compared with Portland, Oregon, at year 1 and year 2 post tax. This study used Nielsen scanner data from supermarkets and mass merchandise as well as grocery, drug, convenience, and dollar stores on unit sales and measurements for beverage and food product universal product codes (UPCs) for each site for the pretax period (January 8-December 30, 2017) and the corresponding weeks in year 1 post tax (2018) and in year 2 post tax (2019). Nutritional analyses assessed grams of sugar for each UPC. The analytical balanced sample included 1326 taxed beverage UPCs, 239 untaxed beverage UPCs, 2054 sweets UPCs, and 81 stand-alone sugar UPCs. Statistical analysis was performed from January to August 2021.ExposuresImplementation of the Seattle SBT.Main outcomes and measuresChanges in grams of sugar sold from taxed beverages, untaxed beverages, sweets, and stand-alone sugar.ResultsAt both year 1 and year 2 post tax in Seattle compared with Portland, grams of sugar sold from taxed beverages decreased 23% (year 2 posttax ratio of incidence rate ratios [RIRR] = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80). Sugar sold from untaxed beverages increased at year 1 post tax by 4% (RIRR = 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) with no change at year 2 post tax. Sugar sold from sweets increased by 4% at both year 1 and year 2 post tax (year 2 posttax RIRR = 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06). There were no changes in stand-alone sugar sold.Conclusions and relevanceThis study using difference-in-differences analysis found a net 19% reduction in grams of sugar sold from taxed SSBs at year 2 post tax after accounting for changes in sugar sold from untaxed beverages, sweets, and stand-alone sugar. These results suggest that SSB taxes may effectively yield permanent reductions in added sugars sold from SSBs in food stores.

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:BackgroundOn 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 findingsWe 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.ConclusionsThe 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).

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

Evaluation of Changes in Beverage Prices and Volume Sold Following the Implementation and Repeal of a Sweetened Beverage Tax in Cook County, Illinois.

Importance

Objectives

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Evaluation of Changes in Beverage Prices and Volume Sold Following the Implementation and Repeal of a Sweetened Beverage Tax in Cook County, Illinois.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets