A glaring omission in the Biden strategy on nutrition: a sweetened-beverage tax

The White House released its National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall, describing key initiatives to improve the nation’s diet. But there was one glaring omission: the strategy doesn’t mention sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, despite ample research showing that they are one of the most effective interventions to improve people’s diets. 

These taxes generate millions of dollars that cities can use to fix problems plaguing their communities. In the absence of national leadership, it’s time for more cities and states to pass taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.   

Sweetened-beverage taxes seemed to be catching fire after Berkeley, Calif., passed one in 2014. Six other cities, including Philadelphia, Seattle and San Francisco, followed suit.  

But then they stalled. A national beverage tax was introduced repeatedly by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) but went nowhere. States from Hawaii to New York to West Virginia have proposed bills that never moved. 

Instead, soda manufacturers have mounted a campaign to block the passage of these taxes and pass preemption laws. Those measures, like one that succeeded in California, enable the state to prohibit cities from taxing sugar-sweetened beverages.

In America, we pride ourselves on giving states and cities the freedom to pursue solutions that work for them. Preemption instead robs cities of a policy tool that, in this case, can raise revenue and support healthy eating. 

Unhealthy diets are a major cause of chronic diseases, and a big contributor is drinking too many sugar-sweetened beverages. These drinks are the leading source of added sugar in American diets and they are linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and dental cavities. Yet, on any given day, about half of Americans consume them. 

Why are these beverages so popular? They are available everywhere. They are heavily marketed. They taste good. And they are so cheap they can be incredibly hard to give up. 

On Jan. 1, 2017, Philadelphia began taxing the distribution of sweetened beverages at a rate of 1.5 cents per ounce. This enabled the city to raise $385 million through March 2022 for schools, parks and playgrounds, all while reducing intake. 

In a short time, a large body of research shows that these taxes consistently lead to higher prices for unhealthy drinks and cause large declines in sales. Our research in Philadelphia found that the tax led to a sustained 35 percent drop in sweetened beverage sales two years after the tax started, even after accounting for some people avoiding the tax by shopping outside the city. 

We also found that the tax led to a 15 percent drop in adolescents’ reported soda intake. A recent study from Mexico — and the first to look at health outcomes — found that a 10 percent price increase from the country’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax was linked to a 3 percent reduction in prevalence of overweight or obesity in adolescent girls two years after the tax took effect. 

These public health gains are exciting to see. But a reasonable concern is that these taxes may be regressive because lower-income individuals, who are more likely to consume sugary drinks, will bear a greater burden of the tax. For this reason, it is essential that the tax revenue is used in equitable ways, as has been done for existing beverage taxes.

In Philadelphia this was accomplished through investments in education, enabling children and families to reap the benefits. The Philadelphia tax is on its way to achieving its primary goal: expanding free, quality pre-Kindergarten in the city. Since its start, it has funded 4,300 pre-K slots across Philadelphia and provided resources for 20 community schools. It also has helped rebuild old recreation centers, parks and libraries. 

Other U.S. cities have used their beverage tax revenue to improve education and community infrastructure, while providing job training and food subsidies, especially during the pandemic. 

Also, because nutrition-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease are more likely to affect lower-income and communities of color, these taxes may help reduce health care costs for these historically marginalized groups. 

Though it is too soon to know if these taxes help reduce chronic disease, we can look to a similar policy — tobacco taxes — to make predictions. The consumption of tobacco and sugar-sweetened beverages is both harmful to health and occurs more often among lower-income groups. Studies of tobacco taxes find that the short-term costs of tobacco price hikes pale beside the long-term benefits of reduced use, including fewer out-of-pocket health expenses and less income lost from tobacco-related diseases. 

In the long run, lower-income individuals often gain more from tobacco taxes, which also may be true for sweetened beverage taxes. 

The beverage industry has spent astronomical sums over the past decade opposing sweetened-beverage taxes, arguing they will kill jobs. But like tobacco taxes, there is no evidence of that; research shows no changes in employment after such taxes took effect. 

These taxes can be a win-win for communities and policymakers. They generate revenue to spend on beneficial programs such as children’s education, and they lead people to buy fewer drinks that are bad for their health. In the absence of national leadership, our state and city leaders who care about the health of their constituents need to take action and pass taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.  

Christina A. Roberto, PhD, and Laura A. Gibson, PhD, are senior fellows at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and food policy researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The White House released its National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall, describing key initiatives to improve the nation’s diet. But there was one glaring omission: the strategy doesn’t mention sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, despite ample research showing that they are one of the most effective interventions to improve people’s diets. 

These taxes generate millions of dollars that cities can use to fix problems plaguing their communities. In the absence of national leadership, it’s time for more cities and states to pass taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.   

Sweetened-beverage taxes seemed to be catching fire after Berkeley, Calif., passed one in 2014. Six other cities, including Philadelphia, Seattle and San Francisco, followed suit.  

But then they stalled. A national beverage tax was introduced repeatedly by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) but went nowhere. States from Hawaii to New York to West Virginia have proposed bills that never moved. 

Instead, soda manufacturers have mounted a campaign to block the passage of these taxes and pass preemption laws. Those measures, like one that succeeded in California, enable the state to prohibit cities from taxing sugar-sweetened beverages.

In America, we pride ourselves on giving states and cities the freedom to pursue solutions that work for them. Preemption instead robs cities of a policy tool that, in this case, can raise revenue and support healthy eating. 

Unhealthy diets are a major cause of chronic diseases, and a big contributor is drinking too many sugar-sweetened beverages. These drinks are the leading source of added sugar in American diets and they are linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and dental cavities. Yet, on any given day, about half of Americans consume them. 

Why are these beverages so popular? They are available everywhere. They are heavily marketed. They taste good. And they are so cheap they can be incredibly hard to give up. 

On Jan. 1, 2017, Philadelphia began taxing the distribution of sweetened beverages at a rate of 1.5 cents per ounce. This enabled the city to raise $385 million through March 2022 for schools, parks and playgrounds, all while reducing intake. 

In a short time, a large body of research shows that these taxes consistently lead to higher prices for unhealthy drinks and cause large declines in sales. Our research in Philadelphia found that the tax led to a sustained 35 percent drop in sweetened beverage sales two years after the tax started, even after accounting for some people avoiding the tax by shopping outside the city. 

We also found that the tax led to a 15 percent drop in adolescents’ reported soda intake. A recent study from Mexico — and the first to look at health outcomes — found that a 10 percent price increase from the country’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax was linked to a 3 percent reduction in prevalence of overweight or obesity in adolescent girls two years after the tax took effect. 

These public health gains are exciting to see. But a reasonable concern is that these taxes may be regressive because lower-income individuals, who are more likely to consume sugary drinks, will bear a greater burden of the tax. For this reason, it is essential that the tax revenue is used in equitable ways, as has been done for existing beverage taxes.

In Philadelphia this was accomplished through investments in education, enabling children and families to reap the benefits. The Philadelphia tax is on its way to achieving its primary goal: expanding free, quality pre-Kindergarten in the city. Since its start, it has funded 4,300 pre-K slots across Philadelphia and provided resources for 20 community schools. It also has helped rebuild old recreation centers, parks and libraries. 

Other U.S. cities have used their beverage tax revenue to improve education and community infrastructure, while providing job training and food subsidies, especially during the pandemic. 

Also, because nutrition-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease are more likely to affect lower-income and communities of color, these taxes may help reduce health care costs for these historically marginalized groups. 

Though it is too soon to know if these taxes help reduce chronic disease, we can look to a similar policy — tobacco taxes — to make predictions. The consumption of tobacco and sugar-sweetened beverages is both harmful to health and occurs more often among lower-income groups. Studies of tobacco taxes find that the short-term costs of tobacco price hikes pale beside the long-term benefits of reduced use, including fewer out-of-pocket health expenses and less income lost from tobacco-related diseases. 

In the long run, lower-income individuals often gain more from tobacco taxes, which also may be true for sweetened beverage taxes. 

The beverage industry has spent astronomical sums over the past decade opposing sweetened-beverage taxes, arguing they will kill jobs. But like tobacco taxes, there is no evidence of that; research shows no changes in employment after such taxes took effect. 

These taxes can be a win-win for communities and policymakers. They generate revenue to spend on beneficial programs such as children’s education, and they lead people to buy fewer drinks that are bad for their health. In the absence of national leadership, our state and city leaders who care about the health of their constituents need to take action and pass taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.  

Christina A. Roberto, PhD, and Laura A. Gibson, PhD, are senior fellows at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and food policy researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.