Loading…

Association of a Beverage Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages With Changes in Beverage Prices and Sales at Chain Retailers in a Large Urban Setting

IMPORTANCE: Policy makers have implemented beverage taxes to generate revenue and reduce consumption of sweetened drinks. In January 2017, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, became the second US city to implement a beverage excise tax (1.5 cents per ounce). OBJECTIVES: To compare changes in beverage prices...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2019-05, Vol.321 (18), p.1799-1810
Main Authors: Roberto, Christina A, Lawman, Hannah G, LeVasseur, Michael T, Mitra, Nandita, Peterhans, Ana, Herring, Bradley, Bleich, Sara N
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a489t-adea7a6899534fea7b6bd21ad2b59c721b590d30e63d7f6a1661b3ddac25d6d3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a489t-adea7a6899534fea7b6bd21ad2b59c721b590d30e63d7f6a1661b3ddac25d6d3
container_end_page 1810
container_issue 18
container_start_page 1799
container_title JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association
container_volume 321
creator Roberto, Christina A
Lawman, Hannah G
LeVasseur, Michael T
Mitra, Nandita
Peterhans, Ana
Herring, Bradley
Bleich, Sara N
description IMPORTANCE: Policy makers have implemented beverage taxes to generate revenue and reduce consumption of sweetened drinks. In January 2017, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, became the second US city to implement a beverage excise tax (1.5 cents per ounce). OBJECTIVES: To compare changes in beverage prices and sales following the implementation of the tax in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore, Maryland (a control city without a tax) and to assess potential cross-border shopping to avoid the tax in neighboring zip codes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used a difference-in-differences approach and analyzed sales data to compare changes between January 1, 2016, before the tax, and December 31, 2017, after the tax. Differences by store type, beverage sweetener status, and beverage size were examined. The commercial retailer sales data included large chain store sales in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the Pennsylvania zip codes bordering Philadelphia. These data reflect approximately 25% of the ounces of taxed beverages sold in Philadelphia. EXPOSURES: Philadelphia’s tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in taxed beverage prices and volume sales. RESULTS: A total of 291 stores (54 supermarkets, 20 mass merchandise stores, 217 pharmacies) were analyzed. The mean price per ounce of taxed beverages in Philadelphia increased from 5.43 cents in 2016 to 6.24 cents in 2017 at supermarkets; from 5.28 cents to 6.24 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.60 cents to 8.28 cents at pharmacies. The mean price per ounce in Baltimore increased from 5.33 cents in 2016 to 5.50 cents in 2017 at supermarkets, from 6.34 cents to 6.52 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.76 cents to 6.93 cents at pharmacies. The mean per-ounce difference in price between the 2 cities was 0.65 cents (95% CI, 0.60 cents-0.69 cents; P
doi_str_mv 10.1001/jama.2019.4249
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6518342</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ama_id>2733208</ama_id><sourcerecordid>2230831625</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a489t-adea7a6899534fea7b6bd21ad2b59c721b590d30e63d7f6a1661b3ddac25d6d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk2P0zAQhiMEYsvClQMHZIkLlxR_JXYuSKXiS6oEokUcrUnstK5SZ7Gdhf1N_Elsut0FJCR8GXvmmVcz1lsUjwmeE4zJiz0cYE4xaeac8uZOMSMVkyWrGnm3mGHcyFJwyc-KByHscTqEifvFGSNYCkzprPixCGHsLEQ7OjT2CNArc2k8bA3awHeUkutpC75cfzMmGmc0AqfRwkfb29Q2DFfotnRqDeiLjTu03IHLD-tuRT9626VUFlnDkG8xcwn5ZCLYwfhfPKAV-IR_9i2kEUyM1m0fFvd6GIJ5dB3Pi82b15vlu3L14e375WJVApdNLEEbEFDLpqkY79O9rVtNCWjaVk0nKEkBa4ZNzbToayB1TVqmNXS00rVm58XLo-zF1B6M7oyLHgZ14e0B_JUawao_K87u1Ha8VHVFJOM0CTy_FvDj18mEqA42dGYYwJlxCopyTiXnlfgPlDLSNFJQkdBnf6H7cfIufUSmsGSkplWi5keq82MI3vQ3cxOssmNUdozKjlHZManh6e_b3uAniyTgyRHIfacqFQLLtO0_iozRNNBP8ibPbQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2230831625</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Association of a Beverage Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages With Changes in Beverage Prices and Sales at Chain Retailers in a Large Urban Setting</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>American Medical Association Journals</source><creator>Roberto, Christina A ; Lawman, Hannah G ; LeVasseur, Michael T ; Mitra, Nandita ; Peterhans, Ana ; Herring, Bradley ; Bleich, Sara N</creator><creatorcontrib>Roberto, Christina A ; Lawman, Hannah G ; LeVasseur, Michael T ; Mitra, Nandita ; Peterhans, Ana ; Herring, Bradley ; Bleich, Sara N</creatorcontrib><description>IMPORTANCE: Policy makers have implemented beverage taxes to generate revenue and reduce consumption of sweetened drinks. In January 2017, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, became the second US city to implement a beverage excise tax (1.5 cents per ounce). OBJECTIVES: To compare changes in beverage prices and sales following the implementation of the tax in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore, Maryland (a control city without a tax) and to assess potential cross-border shopping to avoid the tax in neighboring zip codes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used a difference-in-differences approach and analyzed sales data to compare changes between January 1, 2016, before the tax, and December 31, 2017, after the tax. Differences by store type, beverage sweetener status, and beverage size were examined. The commercial retailer sales data included large chain store sales in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the Pennsylvania zip codes bordering Philadelphia. These data reflect approximately 25% of the ounces of taxed beverages sold in Philadelphia. EXPOSURES: Philadelphia’s tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in taxed beverage prices and volume sales. RESULTS: A total of 291 stores (54 supermarkets, 20 mass merchandise stores, 217 pharmacies) were analyzed. The mean price per ounce of taxed beverages in Philadelphia increased from 5.43 cents in 2016 to 6.24 cents in 2017 at supermarkets; from 5.28 cents to 6.24 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.60 cents to 8.28 cents at pharmacies. The mean price per ounce in Baltimore increased from 5.33 cents in 2016 to 5.50 cents in 2017 at supermarkets, from 6.34 cents to 6.52 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.76 cents to 6.93 cents at pharmacies. The mean per-ounce difference in price between the 2 cities was 0.65 cents (95% CI, 0.60 cents-0.69 cents; P&lt;.001) at supermarkets; 0.87 cents (95 % CI, 0.72 cents-1.02 cents; P&lt;.001) at mass merchandise stores, and 1.56 cents (95% CI, 1.50 cents-1.62 cents; P&lt;.001) at pharmacies. Total volume sales of taxed beverages in Philadelphia decreased by 1.3 billion ounces (from 2.475 billion to 1.214 billion) or by 51.0% after tax implementation. Volume sales in the Pennsylvania border zip codes, however, increased by 308.2 million ounces (from 713.1 million to 1.021 billion), offsetting the decrease in Philadelphia's volume sales by 24.4%. In Philadelphia, beverage volume sales in ounces per 4-week period between before and after tax periods decreased from 4.85 million to 1.99 million at supermarkets, from 2.98 million to 1.72 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.16 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. In Baltimore, the beverage volume sales in ounces decreased from 2.83 million to 2.81 million at supermarkets, from 1.05 million to 1.00 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.14 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. This was a 58.7% reduction at supermarkets (difference-in-differences, −2.85 million ounces; 95% CI, −4.10 million to −1.60 million ounces; P &lt; .001), 40.4% reduction at mass merchandise stores (difference-in-differences, −1.20 million ounces; 95% CI, −2.04 million to −0.36 million ounces; P = .001), and 12.6% reduction in pharmacies (difference-in-differences, −0.02 million ounces; 95% CI, −0.03 million to −0.01 million ounces; P &lt; .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In Philadelphia in 2017, the implementation of a beverage excise tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages was associated with significantly higher beverage prices and a significant and substantial decline in volume of taxed beverages sold. This decrease in taxed beverage sales volume was partially offset by increases in volume of sales in bordering areas.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-7484</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-3598</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.4249</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31087022</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Medical Association</publisher><subject>Artificial sweeteners ; Baltimore ; Beverages ; Beverages - economics ; Beverages - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Borders ; Changes ; Cities ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Data ; Dietary Sugars ; Excise taxes ; Government Regulation ; Humans ; Implementation ; Original Investigation ; Pharmacy ; Philadelphia ; Policy making ; Postal codes ; Prices ; Reduction ; Retail sales ; Retail stores ; Sales ; Sales taxes ; Sugar ; Supermarkets ; Sweetening Agents ; Taxation ; Taxes ; Urban areas</subject><ispartof>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2019-05, Vol.321 (18), p.1799-1810</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Medical Association May 14, 2019</rights><rights>Copyright 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a489t-adea7a6899534fea7b6bd21ad2b59c721b590d30e63d7f6a1661b3ddac25d6d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a489t-adea7a6899534fea7b6bd21ad2b59c721b590d30e63d7f6a1661b3ddac25d6d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,778,782,883,27849,27907,27908</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31087022$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Roberto, Christina A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lawman, Hannah G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LeVasseur, Michael T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitra, Nandita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peterhans, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herring, Bradley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bleich, Sara N</creatorcontrib><title>Association of a Beverage Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages With Changes in Beverage Prices and Sales at Chain Retailers in a Large Urban Setting</title><title>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</title><addtitle>JAMA</addtitle><description>IMPORTANCE: Policy makers have implemented beverage taxes to generate revenue and reduce consumption of sweetened drinks. In January 2017, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, became the second US city to implement a beverage excise tax (1.5 cents per ounce). OBJECTIVES: To compare changes in beverage prices and sales following the implementation of the tax in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore, Maryland (a control city without a tax) and to assess potential cross-border shopping to avoid the tax in neighboring zip codes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used a difference-in-differences approach and analyzed sales data to compare changes between January 1, 2016, before the tax, and December 31, 2017, after the tax. Differences by store type, beverage sweetener status, and beverage size were examined. The commercial retailer sales data included large chain store sales in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the Pennsylvania zip codes bordering Philadelphia. These data reflect approximately 25% of the ounces of taxed beverages sold in Philadelphia. EXPOSURES: Philadelphia’s tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in taxed beverage prices and volume sales. RESULTS: A total of 291 stores (54 supermarkets, 20 mass merchandise stores, 217 pharmacies) were analyzed. The mean price per ounce of taxed beverages in Philadelphia increased from 5.43 cents in 2016 to 6.24 cents in 2017 at supermarkets; from 5.28 cents to 6.24 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.60 cents to 8.28 cents at pharmacies. The mean price per ounce in Baltimore increased from 5.33 cents in 2016 to 5.50 cents in 2017 at supermarkets, from 6.34 cents to 6.52 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.76 cents to 6.93 cents at pharmacies. The mean per-ounce difference in price between the 2 cities was 0.65 cents (95% CI, 0.60 cents-0.69 cents; P&lt;.001) at supermarkets; 0.87 cents (95 % CI, 0.72 cents-1.02 cents; P&lt;.001) at mass merchandise stores, and 1.56 cents (95% CI, 1.50 cents-1.62 cents; P&lt;.001) at pharmacies. Total volume sales of taxed beverages in Philadelphia decreased by 1.3 billion ounces (from 2.475 billion to 1.214 billion) or by 51.0% after tax implementation. Volume sales in the Pennsylvania border zip codes, however, increased by 308.2 million ounces (from 713.1 million to 1.021 billion), offsetting the decrease in Philadelphia's volume sales by 24.4%. In Philadelphia, beverage volume sales in ounces per 4-week period between before and after tax periods decreased from 4.85 million to 1.99 million at supermarkets, from 2.98 million to 1.72 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.16 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. In Baltimore, the beverage volume sales in ounces decreased from 2.83 million to 2.81 million at supermarkets, from 1.05 million to 1.00 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.14 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. This was a 58.7% reduction at supermarkets (difference-in-differences, −2.85 million ounces; 95% CI, −4.10 million to −1.60 million ounces; P &lt; .001), 40.4% reduction at mass merchandise stores (difference-in-differences, −1.20 million ounces; 95% CI, −2.04 million to −0.36 million ounces; P = .001), and 12.6% reduction in pharmacies (difference-in-differences, −0.02 million ounces; 95% CI, −0.03 million to −0.01 million ounces; P &lt; .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In Philadelphia in 2017, the implementation of a beverage excise tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages was associated with significantly higher beverage prices and a significant and substantial decline in volume of taxed beverages sold. This decrease in taxed beverage sales volume was partially offset by increases in volume of sales in bordering areas.</description><subject>Artificial sweeteners</subject><subject>Baltimore</subject><subject>Beverages</subject><subject>Beverages - economics</subject><subject>Beverages - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Borders</subject><subject>Changes</subject><subject>Cities</subject><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>Data</subject><subject>Dietary Sugars</subject><subject>Excise taxes</subject><subject>Government Regulation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implementation</subject><subject>Original Investigation</subject><subject>Pharmacy</subject><subject>Philadelphia</subject><subject>Policy making</subject><subject>Postal codes</subject><subject>Prices</subject><subject>Reduction</subject><subject>Retail sales</subject><subject>Retail stores</subject><subject>Sales</subject><subject>Sales taxes</subject><subject>Sugar</subject><subject>Supermarkets</subject><subject>Sweetening Agents</subject><subject>Taxation</subject><subject>Taxes</subject><subject>Urban areas</subject><issn>0098-7484</issn><issn>1538-3598</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk2P0zAQhiMEYsvClQMHZIkLlxR_JXYuSKXiS6oEokUcrUnstK5SZ7Gdhf1N_Elsut0FJCR8GXvmmVcz1lsUjwmeE4zJiz0cYE4xaeac8uZOMSMVkyWrGnm3mGHcyFJwyc-KByHscTqEifvFGSNYCkzprPixCGHsLEQ7OjT2CNArc2k8bA3awHeUkutpC75cfzMmGmc0AqfRwkfb29Q2DFfotnRqDeiLjTu03IHLD-tuRT9626VUFlnDkG8xcwn5ZCLYwfhfPKAV-IR_9i2kEUyM1m0fFvd6GIJ5dB3Pi82b15vlu3L14e375WJVApdNLEEbEFDLpqkY79O9rVtNCWjaVk0nKEkBa4ZNzbToayB1TVqmNXS00rVm58XLo-zF1B6M7oyLHgZ14e0B_JUawao_K87u1Ha8VHVFJOM0CTy_FvDj18mEqA42dGYYwJlxCopyTiXnlfgPlDLSNFJQkdBnf6H7cfIufUSmsGSkplWi5keq82MI3vQ3cxOssmNUdozKjlHZManh6e_b3uAniyTgyRHIfacqFQLLtO0_iozRNNBP8ibPbQ</recordid><startdate>20190514</startdate><enddate>20190514</enddate><creator>Roberto, Christina A</creator><creator>Lawman, Hannah G</creator><creator>LeVasseur, Michael T</creator><creator>Mitra, Nandita</creator><creator>Peterhans, Ana</creator><creator>Herring, Bradley</creator><creator>Bleich, Sara N</creator><general>American Medical Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190514</creationdate><title>Association of a Beverage Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages With Changes in Beverage Prices and Sales at Chain Retailers in a Large Urban Setting</title><author>Roberto, Christina A ; Lawman, Hannah G ; LeVasseur, Michael T ; Mitra, Nandita ; Peterhans, Ana ; Herring, Bradley ; Bleich, Sara N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a489t-adea7a6899534fea7b6bd21ad2b59c721b590d30e63d7f6a1661b3ddac25d6d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Artificial sweeteners</topic><topic>Baltimore</topic><topic>Beverages</topic><topic>Beverages - economics</topic><topic>Beverages - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Borders</topic><topic>Changes</topic><topic>Cities</topic><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>Data</topic><topic>Dietary Sugars</topic><topic>Excise taxes</topic><topic>Government Regulation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implementation</topic><topic>Original Investigation</topic><topic>Pharmacy</topic><topic>Philadelphia</topic><topic>Policy making</topic><topic>Postal codes</topic><topic>Prices</topic><topic>Reduction</topic><topic>Retail sales</topic><topic>Retail stores</topic><topic>Sales</topic><topic>Sales taxes</topic><topic>Sugar</topic><topic>Supermarkets</topic><topic>Sweetening Agents</topic><topic>Taxation</topic><topic>Taxes</topic><topic>Urban areas</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Roberto, Christina A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lawman, Hannah G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LeVasseur, Michael T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitra, Nandita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peterhans, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herring, Bradley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bleich, Sara N</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Roberto, Christina A</au><au>Lawman, Hannah G</au><au>LeVasseur, Michael T</au><au>Mitra, Nandita</au><au>Peterhans, Ana</au><au>Herring, Bradley</au><au>Bleich, Sara N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Association of a Beverage Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages With Changes in Beverage Prices and Sales at Chain Retailers in a Large Urban Setting</atitle><jtitle>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</jtitle><addtitle>JAMA</addtitle><date>2019-05-14</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>321</volume><issue>18</issue><spage>1799</spage><epage>1810</epage><pages>1799-1810</pages><issn>0098-7484</issn><eissn>1538-3598</eissn><abstract>IMPORTANCE: Policy makers have implemented beverage taxes to generate revenue and reduce consumption of sweetened drinks. In January 2017, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, became the second US city to implement a beverage excise tax (1.5 cents per ounce). OBJECTIVES: To compare changes in beverage prices and sales following the implementation of the tax in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore, Maryland (a control city without a tax) and to assess potential cross-border shopping to avoid the tax in neighboring zip codes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used a difference-in-differences approach and analyzed sales data to compare changes between January 1, 2016, before the tax, and December 31, 2017, after the tax. Differences by store type, beverage sweetener status, and beverage size were examined. The commercial retailer sales data included large chain store sales in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the Pennsylvania zip codes bordering Philadelphia. These data reflect approximately 25% of the ounces of taxed beverages sold in Philadelphia. EXPOSURES: Philadelphia’s tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in taxed beverage prices and volume sales. RESULTS: A total of 291 stores (54 supermarkets, 20 mass merchandise stores, 217 pharmacies) were analyzed. The mean price per ounce of taxed beverages in Philadelphia increased from 5.43 cents in 2016 to 6.24 cents in 2017 at supermarkets; from 5.28 cents to 6.24 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.60 cents to 8.28 cents at pharmacies. The mean price per ounce in Baltimore increased from 5.33 cents in 2016 to 5.50 cents in 2017 at supermarkets, from 6.34 cents to 6.52 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.76 cents to 6.93 cents at pharmacies. The mean per-ounce difference in price between the 2 cities was 0.65 cents (95% CI, 0.60 cents-0.69 cents; P&lt;.001) at supermarkets; 0.87 cents (95 % CI, 0.72 cents-1.02 cents; P&lt;.001) at mass merchandise stores, and 1.56 cents (95% CI, 1.50 cents-1.62 cents; P&lt;.001) at pharmacies. Total volume sales of taxed beverages in Philadelphia decreased by 1.3 billion ounces (from 2.475 billion to 1.214 billion) or by 51.0% after tax implementation. Volume sales in the Pennsylvania border zip codes, however, increased by 308.2 million ounces (from 713.1 million to 1.021 billion), offsetting the decrease in Philadelphia's volume sales by 24.4%. In Philadelphia, beverage volume sales in ounces per 4-week period between before and after tax periods decreased from 4.85 million to 1.99 million at supermarkets, from 2.98 million to 1.72 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.16 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. In Baltimore, the beverage volume sales in ounces decreased from 2.83 million to 2.81 million at supermarkets, from 1.05 million to 1.00 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.14 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. This was a 58.7% reduction at supermarkets (difference-in-differences, −2.85 million ounces; 95% CI, −4.10 million to −1.60 million ounces; P &lt; .001), 40.4% reduction at mass merchandise stores (difference-in-differences, −1.20 million ounces; 95% CI, −2.04 million to −0.36 million ounces; P = .001), and 12.6% reduction in pharmacies (difference-in-differences, −0.02 million ounces; 95% CI, −0.03 million to −0.01 million ounces; P &lt; .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In Philadelphia in 2017, the implementation of a beverage excise tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages was associated with significantly higher beverage prices and a significant and substantial decline in volume of taxed beverages sold. This decrease in taxed beverage sales volume was partially offset by increases in volume of sales in bordering areas.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Medical Association</pub><pmid>31087022</pmid><doi>10.1001/jama.2019.4249</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0098-7484
ispartof JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2019-05, Vol.321 (18), p.1799-1810
issn 0098-7484
1538-3598
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6518342
source PAIS Index; American Medical Association Journals
subjects Artificial sweeteners
Baltimore
Beverages
Beverages - economics
Beverages - statistics & numerical data
Borders
Changes
Cities
Costs and Cost Analysis
Data
Dietary Sugars
Excise taxes
Government Regulation
Humans
Implementation
Original Investigation
Pharmacy
Philadelphia
Policy making
Postal codes
Prices
Reduction
Retail sales
Retail stores
Sales
Sales taxes
Sugar
Supermarkets
Sweetening Agents
Taxation
Taxes
Urban areas
title Association of a Beverage Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages With Changes in Beverage Prices and Sales at Chain Retailers in a Large Urban Setting
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T08%3A36%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Association%20of%20a%20Beverage%20Tax%20on%20Sugar-Sweetened%20and%20Artificially%20Sweetened%20Beverages%20With%20Changes%20in%20Beverage%20Prices%20and%20Sales%20at%20Chain%20Retailers%20in%20a%20Large%20Urban%20Setting&rft.jtitle=JAMA%20:%20the%20journal%20of%20the%20American%20Medical%20Association&rft.au=Roberto,%20Christina%20A&rft.date=2019-05-14&rft.volume=321&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=1799&rft.epage=1810&rft.pages=1799-1810&rft.issn=0098-7484&rft.eissn=1538-3598&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001/jama.2019.4249&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2230831625%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a489t-adea7a6899534fea7b6bd21ad2b59c721b590d30e63d7f6a1661b3ddac25d6d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2230831625&rft_id=info:pmid/31087022&rfr_iscdi=true