Four more US cities pass soda taxes: How effective are they?

Four cities approved taxes on sugar-added beverages in Tuesday's elections, following on the heels of two other cities with goals to tackle obesity.

Eric Risberg/AP/File
A 60-foot long Coca-Cola bottle stands near left field at AT&T Park in San Francisco. Voters in three Californian cities, including San Francisco, voted to implement a soda tax.

Voters in the Californian cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany, as well as in Boulder, Colo., voted to implement soda taxes on Tuesday, potentially becoming a harbinger for similar actions around the country.

The three California cities approved a penny-per-ounce tax on non-alcoholic beverages with caloric sweeteners, while Boulder went for a two-cents-per-ounce tax. In California, it was one of the most expensive ballot battles, pitting billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg against deep-pocketed beverage companies.

Cutting calories by targeting sugar-added drinks has increasingly been seen as a tool to tackle obesity in the United States, where more than 2 in 3 adults are considered to be overweight or obese. The solution was also touted by the World Health Organization last month. Multiple cities have flirted – and in some cases, failed – with implementing the tax, and Cook County in Illinois is set to vote on the issue on Thursday. But research from places with soda taxes in place shows mixed results that indicate it is too early to tell whether the strategy is truly effective.

"We respect the decision of voters in these cities. Our energy remains squarely focused on reducing the sugar consumed from beverages – engaging with prominent public health and community organizations to change behavior," the American Beverage Association said on Wednesday, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Beverage companies, such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, are already reducing sugars and calories in response to an increasingly health-conscious American population. In fact, sales of carbonated soft drinks in the American market have been declining for the past decade, with many consumers switching to bottled water.

Health advocates who support the tax often point toward Mexico, which implemented a soda tax in 2014, as a success story. As Food Tank previously reported, Mexico has the highest rate of overweight and obese adults in the world – as well as the highest per capita consumption of soda. Researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Mexican National Institute of Public Health found a 12 percent decrease in the sale of sugary beverages by December 2014, with lower socioeconomic groups showing the biggest decrease.

As for the United States, cities such as New York and San Francisco saw failures in passing a soda tax in previous years. Berkeley, Calif., and Philadelphia are two recent successes.

While Berkeley’s taxes only went into effect in January 2015, research by professors at the University of California, Berkeley, contends that residents are drinking 21 percent fewer soda and sugar-sweetened beverages and 62 percent more water.

"We are looking for tools that support people in making healthy choices, and the soda tax appears to be an effective tool," study senior author Kristine Madsen, an associate professor of public health at UC Berkeley, told Berkeley News.

Philadelphia will begin levying the tax in January 2017.

The caveat to those results is that the tax has to be high enough that it would be passed along to consumers in higher prices. To achieve the goal of tackling obesity, consumers also must not merely switch soda for another source of calories. As Margot Sanger-Katz at The New York Times wrote last year, the American Beverage Association has often used that excuse to argue that obesity won’t decline by implementing soda taxes.

"They just found that folks would just find other ways to get the products or nutrients they wanted," said William Dermody, a spokesman for the association, regarding studies that found soda taxes in Europe and United States don't work. "Taxes and bans and restrictions don't change the behaviors that lead to obesity."

Ms. Sanger-Katz points out that the study Mr. Dermody cites examines taxes that are too small or are passed along as sales taxes, thus escaping the notice of consumers. But she concedes that finding out whether soda taxes really contribute to a long-term decline in obesity will require research over a longer timeframe.

Now, researchers may have more data to pick from with the addition of the four new cities and potentially Chicago's Cook County.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Four more US cities pass soda taxes: How effective are they?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today