Advertisement

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: the Potential for Cardiovascular Health

  • Kathryn Backholer
  • Phillip Baker
Cardiovascular Risk Health Policy (W. Rosamond, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cardiovascular Risk Health Policy

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Global sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is high, with important implications for cardiovascular health. International momentum with the adoption and implementation of SSB taxes has been mounting in recent years, as has the evidence supporting such a policy for population health. In this review, we summarise the influence of regular SSB consumption on cardiovascular health and provide a global perspective on SSB consumption and SSB tax action and evidence. We further discuss the might and organised opposition of the beverage industry and the policy enablers for affirmative action.

Recent Findings

Compelling evidence demonstrates a link between regular SSB consumption and adverse cardiovascular health. Although global SSB consumption appears to be declining slightly, consumption remains high. Forty-five jurisdictions around the world have now implemented a notable tax on SSBs and consistent evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of this policy at reducing the purchase or consumption of SSBs at the population level. However, the political influence of industry remains a major barrier to further action. Enablers to policy action include the realisation of the revenue-raising potential of taxes, evidence base advocacy framing from trusted sources, broad-based advocacy coalitions and the communication of clear policy objectives.

Summary

SSB taxes represent a promising strategy, alongside a broader comprehensive approach, for improving population diets and cardiovascular health, but face stiff industry opposition. Future research must focus on the influence of different SSB tax designs and context on population diet and health.

Keywords

Sugar-sweetened beverage Fiscal policy Tax Obesity Food policy Global 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Kathryn Backholer and Phillip Baker declare that they have no conflict of interest. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Forouzanfar MH, Alexander L, Anderson HR, Bachman VF, Biryukov S, Brauer M, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2287–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McKinsey Global Institute. Overcoming obesity: An initial economic analysis. 2018.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Te Morenga L, Mallard S, Mann J. Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ. 2012;346:e7492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Despres JP, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(11):2477–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Health Survey: Consumption of Added Sugars 2011–12 Report No.4363.0.55.011. Canberra, Australia; 2016.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s health no. 15. Cat. no. AUS 199. Canberra; 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pan A, Hu FB. Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14(4):385–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ventura AK, Mennella JA. Innate and learned preferences for sweet taste during childhood. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14(4):379–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fung TT, Malik V, Rexrode KM, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sweetened beverage consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(4):1037–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Koning L, Malik VS, Kellogg MD, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sweetened beverage consumption, incident coronary heart disease, and biomarkers of risk in men. Circulation. 2012;125(14):1735–41 S1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bray GA, Popkin BM. Calorie-sweetened beverages and fructose: what have we learned 10 years later. Pediatr Obes. 2013;8(4):242–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Welsh JA, Sharma A, Abramson JL, Vaccarino V, Gillespie C, Vos MB. Caloric sweetener consumption and dyslipidemia among US adults. JAMA. 2010;303(15):1490–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen L, Caballero B, Mitchell DC, Loria C, Lin PH, Champagne CM, et al. Reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with reduced blood pressure: a prospective study among United States adults. Circulation. 2010;121(22):2398–406.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singh GM, Micha R, Khatibzadeh S, Lim S, Ezzati M, Mozaffarian D, et al. Estimated global, regional, and national disease burdens related to sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in 2010. Circulation. 2015;132(8):639–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Despres JP, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease risk. Circulation. 2010;121(11):1356–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Varsamis P, Formosa MF, Larsen RN, Reddy-Luthmoodoo M, Jennings GL, Cohen ND, et al. Between-meal sucrose-sweetened beverage consumption impairs glycaemia and lipid metabolism during prolonged sitting: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Nutr. 2018.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson RK, Appel LJ, Brands M, Howard BV, Lefevre M, Lustig RH, et al. Dietary sugars intake and cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2009;120(11):1011–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Australian Heart Foundation. Healthy drinks [Available from: https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/food-and-nutrition/drinks.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Mytton OT, Clarke D, Rayner M. Taxing unhealthy food and drinks to improve health. BMJ. 2012;344:e2931.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Backholer K, Blake M, Vandevijvere S. Have we reached a tipping point for sugar-sweetened beverage taxes? Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(17):3057–61 Summary of action and evidence relating to SSB taxes throughout 2017. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Responsibility OfB. Economic and fiscal outlook. United Kingdom; 2017.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    •• Colchero MA, Popkin BM, Rivera JA, Ng SW. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ. 2016;352:h6704 First real-world evaluations of SSB taxes, demonstrating significant post implementation declines in SSB sales in Mexico, the city of Berkeley (CA, USA), and Chile respectively. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Colchero MA, Rivera-Dommarco J, Popkin BM, Ng SW. In Mexico, evidence of sustained consumer response two years after implementing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(3):564–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    •• Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Am J Public Health. 2016;106:e1–7 First real-world evaluations of SSB taxes, demonstrating significant post implementation declines in SSB sales in Mexico, the city of Berkeley (CA, USA), and Chile respectively. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    •• Nakamura R, Mirelman AJ, Cuadrado C, Silva-Illanes N, Dunstan J, Suhrcke M. Evaluating the 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Chile: an observational study in urban areas. PLoS Med. 2018;15(7):e1002596 First real-world evaluations of SSB taxes, demonstrating significant post implementation declines in SSB sales in Mexico, the city of Berkeley (CA, USA), and Chile respectively. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhong Y, Auchincloss AH, Lee BK, Kanter GP. The short-term impacts of the Philadelphia beverage tax on beverage consumption. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(1):26–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Blake MR, Lancsar E, Peeters A, Backholer K. The effect of sugar-sweetened beverage price increases and educational messages on beverage purchasing behavior among adults. Appetite. 2018;126:156–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Waterlander WE, Ni Mhurchu C, Steenhuis IH. Effects of a price increase on purchases of sugar sweetened beverages. Results from a randomized controlled trial. Appetite. 2014;78:32–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Backholer K, Sarink D, Beauchamp A, Keating C, Loh V, Ball K, et al. The impact of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages according to socio-economic position: a systematic review of the evidence. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(17):3070–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lal A, Mantilla-Herrera AM, Veerman L, Backholer K, Sacks G, Moodie M, et al. Modelled health benefits of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax across different socioeconomic groups in Australia: a cost-effectiveness and equity analysis. PLoS Med. 2017;14(6):e1002326.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Centre for science in the public interest. Big Soda vs. Public Health (2016 Edition). 2016.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2013;10(12):e1001578; dicsussion e.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Council AB. Australian Beverages 2016 Annual report. Waterloo, New South Wales; 2017.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    California legislative information. Assembly Bill No. 1838, Chapter 61. California; June 28, 2018.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hagenaars LL, Jeurissen PPT, Klazinga NS. The taxation of unhealthy energy-dense foods (EDFs) and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs): an overview of patterns observed in the policy content and policy context of 13 case studies. Health Policy. 2017;121(8):887–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Magnusson RS, Patterson D. The role of law and governance reform in the global response to non-communicable diseases. Glob Health. 2014;10(1):44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Donaldson E. Advocating for sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: a case study of Mexico: John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; 2017.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wright A, Smith KE, Hellowell M. Policy lessons from health taxes: a systematic review of empirical studies. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):583.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jou J, Niederdeppe J, Barry CL, Gollust SE. Strategic messaging to promote taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages: lessons from recent political campaigns. J Inf Secur. 2014;104(5):847–53.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Thow AM, Quested C, Juventin L, Kun R, Khan AN, Swinburn B. Taxing soft drinks in the Pacific: implementation lessons for improving health. Health Promot Int. 2011;26(1):55–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Using pricing policies to promote healthy diets. Copenhagen 2015.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bonilla-Chacín ME, Iglesias R, Suaya A, Trezza C, Macías C. Learning from the Mexican experience with taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and energy-dense foods of low nutritional value. Washington D.C.: World Bank; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Baker P, Jones A, Thow AM. Accelerating the Worldwide Adoption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: Strengthening Commitment and Capacity; Comment on “The Untapped Power of Soda Taxes: Incentivizing Consumers, Generating Revenue, and Altering Corporate Behavior”. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health & Social DevelopmentGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of Physical Activity and NutritionDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations