Higher retail prices of sugar-sweetened beverages 3 months after implementation of an excise tax in Berkeley, California

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 105, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 2194-2201

  Falbe, Jennifer ^a   Rojas, Nadia ^a   Grummon, Anna H ^b   Madsen, Kristine A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SUGAR INTAKE;

BEVERAGE; CALIFORNIA; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SUGAR INTAKE; TAX;

BEVERAGES; CALIFORNIA; COMMERCE; DIETARY SUCROSE; HUMANS; TAXES;

EID: 84943750405     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: 15410048     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302881     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(4):667-675.
2. Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake of sugarsweetened beverages and weight gain: A systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84(2):274-288.
3. Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Després JP, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease risk. Circulation. 2010;121(11):1356-1364.
4. Hu FB. Resolved: There is sufficient scientific evidence that decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption will reduce the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases. Obes Rev. 2013;14 (8):606-619.
5. Singh GM, Micha R, Khatibzadeh S, et al. Estimated global, regional, and national disease burdens related to sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in 2010. Circulation. 2015;132(8):639-666.
6. Block G. Foods contributing to energy intake in the US: data from NHANES III and NHANES 1999-2000. J Food Compos Anal. 2004;14(3-4):439-447.
7. Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. Dietary sources of energy, solid fats, and added sugars among children and adolescents in the United States. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(10): 1477-1484.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC guide to strategies for reducing the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. 2010. Available at: http://www. cdph. ca. gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/ StratstoReduce-Sugar-Sweetened-Bevs. pdf. Accessed March 15, 2011.
9. US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. Washington, DC: US Government Printing House; 2010.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Preventin. Recommended community strategies and measurements to prevent obesity in the United States. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2009;58(RR-7):1-26.
11. Jha P, Chaloupka FJ, Moore J, et al. Tobacco addiction. In: Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, et al., eds. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2006: 869-885.
12. Brownell KD, Frieden TR. Ounces of prevention- The public policy case for taxes on sugared beverages. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(18):1805-1808.
13. Brownell KD, Farley T, Willett WC, et al. The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(16):1599-1605. [Erratum in N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1250]
14. Institute of Medicine. Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012.
15. Institute of Medicine. Local Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science; 2009.
16. Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. Legislation database. 2015. Available at: http://www. uconnruddcenter. org/legislation-database. Accessed June 13, 2015.
17. Government of Alameda County. November 4, 2014-general election results. 2015. Available at: http://www. Acgov. org/rov/elections/20141104. Accessed July 1, 2015.
18. Chriqui JF, Chaloupka FJ, Powell LM, Eidson SS. A typology of beverage taxation: multiple approaches for obesity prevention and obesity prevention-related revenue generation. J Public Health Policy. 2013;34(3): 403-423.
19. Finkelstein EA, Zhen C, Bilger M, Nonnemaker J, Farooqui AM, Todd JE. Implications of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax when substitutions to non-beverage items are considered. J Health Econ. 2013;32(1):219-239.
20. Fullerton D, Metcalf GE. Tax incidence. In: Alan JA, Martin F, eds. Handbook of Public Economics. Vol 4. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2002:1787-1872.
21. Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Khan T,Wada R, Chaloupka FJ. Assessing the potential effectiveness of food and beverage taxes and subsidies for improving public health: A systematic review of prices, demand and body weight outcomes. Obes Rev. 2013;14(2):110-128.
22. Cornelsen L, Green R, Dangour A, Smith R. Why fat taxes won't make us thin. J Public Health (Oxf). 2015; 37(1):18-23.
23. Pomeranz JL. Sugary beverage tax policy: lessons learned from tobacco. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(3): e13-e15.
24. DeCicca P, Kenkel D, Liu F. Who pays cigarette taxes? The impact of consumer price search. Rev Econ Statistics. 2012;95(2):516-529.
25. Harding M, Leibtag E, Lovenheim MF. The heterogeneous geographic and socioeconomic incidence of cigarette taxes: evidence from Nielsen Homescan Data. Am Econ J Econ Policy. 2012;4(4):169-198.
26. Hanson A, Sullivan R. The incidence of tobacco taxation: evidence from geographic micro-level data. Natl Tax J. 2009;62(4):677-698.
27. Brock B, Choi K, Boyle RG, Moilanen M, Schillo BA. Tobacco product prices before and after a statewide tobacco tax increase. Tob Control. 2015;Epub ahead of print.
28. Chiou L,Muehlegger E. Consumer response to cigarette excise tax changes. Natl Tax J. 2014;67(3):621-650.
29. Sullivan RS, Dutkowsky DH. The effect of cigarette taxation on prices: An empirical analysis using local-level data. Public Finance Rev. 2012;40(6):687-711.
30. Kenkel DS. Are alcohol tax hikes fully passed through to prices? Evidence from Alaska. Amer Econ Rev. 2005;95(2):273-277.
31. Young DJ, Bielinska-Kwapisz A. Alcohol taxes and beverage prices. Natl Tax J. 2002;55(1):57-73.
32. Jensen JD, Smed S. The Danish tax on saturated fat-short run effects on consumption, substitution patterns and consumer prices of fats. Food Policy. 2013;42:18-31.
33. Berardi N, Sevestre P, Tepaut M, Vigneron A. The Impact of a 'Soda Tax' on Prices: Evidence From French Micro Data. Paris, France: Banque de France; 2012. Working Paper No. 415.
34. Bergman UM, Hanson LH. Are excise taxes on beverages fully passed through to prices? The Danish evidence. 2013. Available at: http://www. econ. ku. dk/ okombe/MBNLH. pdf. Accessed June 1, 2015.
35. Grogger J. Soda taxes and the prices of sodas and other drinks: evidence from Mexico. 2015. Available at: http:// www. nber. org/papers/w21197. Accessed June 15, 2015.
36. The City of Berkeley. Election information: 2014 ballot measures. 2014. Available at: https://www. cityofberkeley. info/Clerk/Elections/Election--2014- Ballot-Measure-Page. Aspx. Accessed October 20, 2014.
37. Stelzer A. Berkeley soda tax brings in 116,000 in first month. KQED News. May 19, 2015.
38. Beverage Digest. US beverage results for 2013. 2014. Available at: http://www. beverage-digest. com/ pdf/top-10-2014. pdf. Accessed May 15, 2014.
39. Beverage Industry. 2012 state of the industry: tea and ready-to-drink tea. 2012. Available at: http://www. bevindustry. com/articles/85658-2012-state-of-theindustry-tea-and-ready-to-drink-tea. Accessed March 15, 2014.
40. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011-2012. JAMA. 2014;311(8):806-814.
41. Ogden CL, Kit BK, Carroll MD, Park S. Consumption of sugar drinks in the United States, 2005-2008. NCHS Data Brief. 2011;(71):1-8.
42. US Census Buereau. 2006-2010 5-year American Community Survey (ACS): 5-year estimates. 2010. Available at: http://factfinder. census. gov/faces/ tableservices/jsf/pages/productview. xhtml?pid=ACS- 13-5YR-S1701&prodType=table. Accessed February 8, 2014.
43. Reitzel LR, Regan SD, Nguyen N, et al. Density and proximity of fast food restaurants and body mass index among African Americans. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(1):110-116.
44. Langellier BA. The food environment and student weight status, Los Angeles County, 2008-2009. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E61.
45. Morland K, Wing S, Diez Roux A, Poole C. Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(1):23-29.
46. US Census Bureau. North American industry classification system. 2014. Available at: http://www. census. gov/eos/www/naics. Accessed August 8, 2014.
47. Infogroup. ReferenceUSA. 2014. Available at: http://www. referenceusa. com/Static/AboutUs. Accessed July 1, 2014.
48. Yee SY. Berkeley Dollar Tree pulls soda off shelves due to sugary drink tax. KQED News. June 23, 2015.
49. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Food Research Program. Purchases of taxed beverages decline in Mexico after excise tax takes effect. 2015. Available at: http://uncfoodresearchprogram. web. unc. edu/822. Accessed June 17, 2015.
50. Reich R, Capitelli L, Alexander V. Op-ed: The Berkeley tax may have passed, but the campaign has not ended for big soda. Berkeleyside. March 19, 2015.
51. Long MW, Gortmaker SL, Ward ZJ, et al. Cost effectiveness of a sugar-sweetened beverage excise tax in the US. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(1):112-123.