Association of a Beverage Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages With Changes in Beverage Prices and Sales at Chain Retailers in a Large Urban Setting

Christina A. Roberto,Hannah G. Lawman,Michael T. LeVasseur,Nandita Mitra,Ana Peterhans,Bradley Herring,Sara N. Bleich
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.4249
IF: 11.816
2019-05-14
JAMA
Abstract:<span><strong>Question</strong>  <span>What was the association between a beverage excise tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages implemented in Philadelphia in 2017 with changes in beverage prices and volume of sales?</span><strong>Findings</strong>  <span> In this difference-in-differences analysis of retailer sales data in the year before and the year after implementation of an excise tax of 1.5 cents per ounce on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, the tax was associated with significant increases in price-per-ounce of 0.65 cents at supermarkets, 0.87 cents by mass merchandise stores, and 1.56 cents at pharmacies. Total volume sales of taxed beverages in Philadelphia decreased by 1.3 billion ounces after tax implementation (51%), but sales in Pennsylvania border zip codes increased by 308.2 million ounces, partially offsetting the decrease in Philadelphia's volume sales by 24.4%.</span><strong>Meaning</strong>  <span>A beverage excise tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages in a large urban setting was associated with a significant increase in beverage prices and a significant reduction in volume sales of taxed beverages, although changes in sales volume were partially offset by purchases in neighboring areas.</span><strong>Importance</strong>  <span>Policy 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).</span><strong>Objectives</strong>  <span>To 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.</span><strong>Design, Setting, and Participants</strong>  <span>This 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.</span><strong>Exposures</strong>  <span>Philadelphia's tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages.</span><strong>Main Outcomes and Measures</strong>  <span>Change in taxed beverage prices and volume sales.</span><strong>Results</strong>  <span>A 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; <i>P</i>PPP 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; <i>P</i> <strong>Conclusions and Relevance</strong>  <span>In 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.</span></span></span>
What problem does this paper attempt to address?