Sugary drink tax

[8] Some point to substitutes like fruit juice, energy-dense snacks and biscuits as ways a tax on processed sugar in drinks might be limited.

[18] Consumption of added sugar in sugar-sweetened beverages has been positively correlated with high calorie intake, and through it, with excess weight and obesity.

[20] Added sugar is a common feature of many processed and convenience foods such as breakfast cereals,[21] chocolate, ice cream, cookies, yogurts and drinks produced by retailers.

[22] The ubiquity of sugar-sweetened beverages and their appeal to younger consumers has made their consumption a subject of particular concern by public health professionals.

[23][24] A French study published in 2019 on the British Medical Journal also enlighted a possible link between the consumption of sugary drinks (beverages containing more than a 5% of sugar) and a higher or increased risk of developing cancer.

[25] Even if the researchers were unable to prove a clear causality between the two factors, they stated that their results can be taken as a confirm that "reducing the amount of sugar in our diet is extremely important.

[33] The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that a national targeted tax on sugar in soda could generate $14.9 billion in the first year alone.

[citation needed] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that a nationwide three-cent-per-ounce tax would generate over $24 billion over four years.

[34] Some tax measures call for using the revenue collected to pay for relevant health needs: improving diet, increasing physical activity, obesity prevention, nutrition education, advancing healthcare reform, etc.

[35] Another area to which the revenue raised by a soda tax might go, as suggested by Mike Rayner of the United Kingdom, is to subsidize healthier foods like fruits and vegetables.

[43] A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from around the world found that sugary drink taxes resulted in higher prices of the targeted beverages and a 15% decrease in the sales of such products.

They argued that such measure would not help reduce the obesity in Mexico and would leave hundreds of Mexicans working in the sugar cane industry jobless.

[86] Whether the imposition of the tax and the resulting 6% decline in sales of soft drinks will have any measurable impact on long-term obesity or diabetes trends in Mexico has yet to be determined.

[86] A 2016 study published in PLoS Medicine suggested that a 10% excise tax on soda "could prevent 189,300 new cases of Type 2 diabetes, 20,400 strokes and heart attacks, and 18,900 deaths among adults 35 to 94 years old" over a ten-year period.

"[103] On 4 December 2018, the Ministry of Health began a consultation exercise to seek public's feedback on four proposed measures to fight diabetes including a ban on high-sugar packet drinks and implementation of a sugar tax.

[104][105][106] On 10 October 2019, the Ministry of Health chose to ban advertisements of drinks with high sugar content; making Singapore the first country in the world to do so, as well as introduce color-coded labels.

[115] In the 2016 United Kingdom budget, the UK Government announced the introduction of a sugar tax, officially named the "Soft Drinks Industry Levy".

The measure was estimated to generate an additional £1 billion a year in tax revenue which would be spent on funding for sport in UK schools.

[119] Despite not being part of the United Kingdom the British Soft Drinks Industry Levy came into force on the Isle of Man on 1 April 2019 because of the Common Purse Agreement.

[121] A 2024 study led by the University of Cambridge found that, in the 11 months after the implementation of the tax, daily sugar consumption from drinks had fallen on average by 3.0g in children and 5.2g in adults.

[136] Exemptions for the tax include infant formulas, milk products, supplements, drinks used for medical reasons, and 100% fruit and vegetable juices.

[140] The University of Colorado, Boulder, campus was granted a one-year exemption from the tax as school officials survey what types of drinks students wish to have.

The university was not aware it would be involved in the soda tax, and would have to pay an estimated additional $1 million a year to purchase sugary drinks.

[152] Langellier et al. also found that when paired with the pre-K program, attendance increases significantly, a finding that is likely to have longer term positive effects than a sugary drink tax alone.

[39] On 5 June 2017, Seattle's City Council voted 7–1 to pass a 1.75 cents per ounce tax on sugary drinks, with implementation beginning on 1 January 2018.

[161][162] A 2010 study published in the medical journal Health Affairs found that if taxes were about 18 cents on the dollar, they would make a significant difference in consumption.

[166] In response to these arguments, the American Public Health Association released a statement in 2012 in which they argued that "Even if individuals switch to 100% juice or chocolate milk, this would be an improvement, as those beverages contribute some nutrients to the diet.

"[167] A 2011 study in the journal Preventive Medicine concluded that "a modest tax on sugar-sweetened beverages could both raise significant revenues and improve public health by reducing obesity".

[172] A 2014 study published in the American Journal of Public Health concluded that Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) don't have a negative impact on employment.

[179] A 2016 proposal for a 20% sugary drink tax, campaigned by Educar Consumidores, was turned down by the Colombian legislature despite opinion polls showing 70% support for it.