Using nutritional survey data to inform the design of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in low-resource contexts: a cross-sectional analysis based on data from an adult Caribbean population

Comparing taxes as a percentage of sugar-sweetened beverage prices in Latin America and the Caribbean

Background

Excise taxes can be used to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), an important preventable risk factor for noncommunicable diseases. This study aimed to compare novel standardized indicators of the level of taxes applied on SSBs as a percentage of the price across beverage categories in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Methods

We used a method developed by the Pan American Health Organization and adapted from the World Health Organization's tobacco tax share. The analysis focused on the most sold brand of five categories of non-alcoholic beverages. Data were collected by surveying ministries of finance and reviewing tax legislation in effect as of March 2019.

Findings

Of the 27 countries analyzed, 17 applied excise taxes on SSBs. Of these, median excise taxes represented the highest share of the price for large sugar-sweetened carbonated drinks (6·5%) and the lowest for energy drinks (2·3%). In countries where excise taxes were applied on bottled waters, tax incidence exceeded the one applied on most SSBs. Overall, excise tax shares were higher in Latin America than in the Caribbean. Including all other indirect taxes (e.g., value added tax), median total tax shares were between 12·8% and 17·5%. At least two countries earmarked part of SSB excise tax revenues for health purposes.

Interpretation

Excise tax levels are generally low in the region. From a public health perspective, tax rates could be increased, and tax designs improved (e.g., excluding bottled waters). The method describe here provides a feasible and informative way to monitor SSB taxation and could be replicated in other regions and over time.

Funding

Bloomberg Philanthropies through the Global Health Advocacy Incubator.

Evidence of a health risk 'signalling effect' following the introduction of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax

Consuming sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) has been associated with increased rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes, making SSBs an increasingly popular target for taxation. In addition to changing prices, the introduction of an SSB tax may convey information about the health risks of SSBs (a signalling effect). If SSB taxation operates in part by producing a health risk signal, there may be important opportunities to amplify this effect. Our aim was to assess whether there is evidence of a risk signalling effect following the introduction of the Barbados SSB tax. We used process tracing to assess the existence of a signalling effect around sodas and sugar-sweetened juices (juice drinks). We used three data sources: 611 archived transcripts of local television news, 30 interviews with members of the public, and electronic point of sales data (46 months) from a major grocery store chain. We used directed content analysis to assess the qualitative data and an interrupted time series analysis to assess the quantitative data. We found evidence consistent with a risk signalling effect following the introduction of the SSB tax for sodas but not for juice drinks. Consistent with risk signalling theory, the findings suggest that consumers were aware of the tax, believed in a health rationale for the tax, understood that sodas were taxed and perceived that sodas and juice drinks were unhealthy. However consumers appear not to have understood that juice drinks were taxed, potentially reducing tax effectiveness from a health perspective. In addition, the tax may have incentivised companies to increase advertising around juice drinks (undermining any signalling effect) and to introduce low-cost SSB product lines. Policymakers can maximize the impact of risk signals by being clear about the definition of taxed SSBs, emphasizing the health rationale for introducing such a policy, and introducing co-interventions (e.g. marketing restrictions) that reduce opportunities for industry countersignals. These actions may amplify the impact of an SSB tax.