Does increasing soda prices discourage persons from drinking it?

In 2017, the city of Philadelphia introduced a tax on surgery drinks, such as for example soda. Has this made any difference to people’s attitudes toward these beverages?

In January 2017, metropolis of Philadelphia implemented a beverage tax that targets all sweet drinks distributed on the local market.

The tax, which can be known as the “Philadelphia soda tax,” is of just one 1.5 cents per ounce, and the legislators introduced it for the express purpose of financing prekindergartens.

Still, researchers from Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA, say that - theoretically - this intervention may possibly also have positive implications for public health.

Within their new study paper, which now appears in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, the investigators write that “[h]igh consumption of [sugar-sweetened beverages] is associated with increased threat of obesity, type 2 diabetes, coronary disease, and other health problems.”

In line with the authors, people may want to drink sugary drinks because they cost a lower amount than many healthful drinks and so are readily available available to buy.

So, in the new study, they wished to see whether or not increasing taxation for sugary drinks would put persons off buying them.

The ‘soda tax’ has minimal impact

The researchers analyzed changes in sugary beverage consumption in Philadelphia through the first year of the soda tax.

In addition they compared those trends with sugary drink consumption habits in cities from Philadelphia’s neighboring ares, including Trenton and Camden, NJ, and Wilmington, DE.

The researchers included the data of 515 participants in their final data. The participants reported how often they drank soda, fruit drinks, energy beverages, and water in bottles, and how much of every of the beverages they consumed over an interval of 30 days.

They offered these details in the beginning of the study (discussing their beverage consumption habits between December 2016 and January 2017) and again towards the end (reporting on their habits from December 2017 to February 2018).

Altogether, only 25% of the participants reported drinking sugary drinks every day.

The researchers discovered that within the first year of the soda tax, 39% of participants from Philadelphia and 34% of participants from neighboring areas said that they had consumed fewer sugar-sweetened beverages.

Although this proportion may seem significant, for Philadelphians, it actually only means consuming three fewer drinks monthly. This is not at all a drastic differ from the trends at baseline.

Considering these findings, study co-author Amy Auchincloss, Ph.D., notes that although “[w]e have ample evidence that sugary drinks are linked to type 2 diabetes, obesity, coronary disease, and other health issues, […] we’re since raising the cost of sugary beverages might not impact consumers who don’t drink a whole lot of soda.”

The study authors advise that this may be for the reason that soda tax simply isn't high enough to create a difference. Alternatively, it may be because Philadelphians can simply purchase sweet drinks from retailers beyond their city, that your tax will not affect.

“The availability of untaxed sugary beverages beyond Philadelphia, the still relatively cheap of these drinks compared [with more healthful] ones, and marketing and advertising may explain the reduced aftereffect of the tax.”

- Lead study author Yichen Zhong

Still, the study authors note that in the grand scheme of things, even this limited new tax may benefit public health - albeit not in the manner they were anticipating.

“Although this law had not been passed for health reasons, the tax has the potential to generate long-term health benefits for most Philadelphians because earnings from the tax has been directed toward expanding usage of quality early childhood education for children in low income [households] - and education includes a positive influence on many health outcomes,” explains senior study author Brent Langellier, Ph.D.