Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: an update on the year that was 2017

  • Kathryn Backholer (a1) (a2), Miranda Blake (a1) (a2) and Stefanie Vandevijvere (a3)
  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: an update on the year that was 2017
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: an update on the year that was 2017
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: an update on the year that was 2017
      Available formats
      ×
Abstract
Copyright
Corresponding author
Email: Kathryn.backholer@deakin.edu.au
References
Hide All
1. Backholer, K, Blake, M & Vandevijvere, S (2016) Have we reached a tipping point for sugar-sweetened beverage taxes? Public Health Nutr 19, 30573061.
2. Hagenaars, LL, Jeurissen, PPT & Klazinga, NS (2017) 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 121, 887894.
3. Wright, A, Smith, KE & Hellowell, M (2017) Policy lessons from health taxes: a systematic review of empirical studies. BMC Public Health 17, 583.
4. Centre for Science in the Public Interest (2016) Big Soda vs. Public Health (2016 Edition). https://cspinet.org/resource/big-soda-vs-public-health-1 (accessed October 2017).
5. Purtle, J, Langellier, B & Le-Scherban, F (2017) A case study of the Philadelphia sugar-sweetened beverage tax policymaking process: implications for policy development and advocacy. J Public Health Manag Pract, (Epublication ahead of print version).
6. City Council of Philadelphia (2017) Mayor Kenney and Council President Clarke’s written testimony in support of the Philadelphia beverage tax. http://phlcouncil.com/mayor-kenney-council-president-clarkes-written-testimony-support-philadelphia-beverage-tax (accessed September 2017).
7. City of Albany California (2016) Ordinance 2016-02. An ordinance of the city of Albany enacting a general tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverage products. http://www.albanyca.org/home/showdocument?id=28928 (accessed September 2017).
8. Cook County Government (2017) Cook County Sweetened Beverage Tax. https://www.cookcountyil.gov/service/sweetened-beverage-tax (accessed September 2017).
9. Dewey, C (2017) Why Chicago’s soda tax fizzled after two months – and what it means for the anti-soda movement. The Washington Post, 10 October. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/10/why-chicagos-soda-tax-fizzled-after-two-months-and-what-it-means-for-the-anti-soda-movement/?utm_term=.96f09bbdd335 (accessed October 2017).
10. City of Boulder Colorado (2017) Five things to know about the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax. https://bouldercolorado.gov/newsroom/sugar-sweetened-beverage-tax (accessed September 2017).
11. City of Oakland California (2016) Resolution 86161. http://www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK063795 (accessed September 2017).
12. Seattle City Council (2017) Draft Rule – 5-953 Sweetened Beverage Tax. http://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/fas/rules/draft-rules-sweetened-beverage-tax.pdf (accessed September 2017).
13. Centre for Science in the Public Interest (2017) Santa Fe soda tax loss provides important lessons. Statement of CSPI President Michael F. Jacobson. https://cspinet.org/news/santa-fe-soda-tax-loss-provides-important-lessons-20170503 (accessed September 2017).
14. AT Autoridade (2017) Codigo Dos Impostos Especiais De Consumo (CIEC). CIEC (Decreto-Lei n.º 73/2010, de 21/06). http://www.dgaiec.min-financas.pt/NR/rdonlyres/314EF2B6-7EFE-4BF5-A8F2-4D8B61082810/0/CIEC.pdf (accessed October 2017).
15. Brunei Ministry of Finance (2017) Amendments to the customs import and excise duties effective 1st April 2017. https://www.brudirect.com/news.php?id=24304 (accessed October 2017).
16. Generalitat de Catalunya (2017) Tax on sugary drinks. http://web.gencat.cat/en/actualitat/detall/Impost-sobre-begudes-ensucrades (accessed September 2017).
17. Vision 2030, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (2017) Fiscal Balance Program: Balanced Budget 2020. http://vision2030.gov.sa/sites/default/files/attachments/BB2020_EN.pdf (accessed October 2017).
18. Burki, TK (2017) Tax on tobacco and sugary drinks in the United Arab Emirates. Lancet Oncol 18, e566.
19. Office for Budget Responsibility (2017) Economic and fiscal outlook – March 2017. http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/efo/economic-fiscal-outlook-march-2017/ (accessed October 2017).
20. Colchero, MA, Rivera-Dommarco, J, Popkin, BM et al. (2017) In Mexico, evidence of sustained consumer response two years after implementing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Health Aff (Millwood) 36, 564571.
21. Colchero, MA, Molina, M & Guerrero-Lopez, CM (2017) After Mexico implemented a tax, purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages decreased and water increased: difference by place of residence, household composition, and income level. J Nutr 147, 15521557.
22. Guerrero-López, CM, Molina, M & Colchero, MA (2017) Employment changes associated with the introduction of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and nonessential energy-dense food in Mexico. Prev Med, (Epublication ahead of print version).
23. Arteaga, JC, Flores, D & Luna, E (2017) The effect of a soft-drink tax in Mexico: a time series approach. Facultad de Economía, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Nuevo León, México. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/80831/1/MPRA_paper_80831.pdf (accessed October 2017).
24. Euromonitor International (2017) Soft Drinks in Mexico. http://www.euromonitor.com/soft-drinks-in-mexico/report (accessed October 2017).
25. Cherukupalli, R (2016) Growth rates and aggregates: bringing data to the soda wars. http://globalhealth.thelancet.com/2016/06/10/growth-rates-and-aggregates-bringing-data-soda-wars (accessed October 2017).
26. Pfister, K (2016) Coke funds research against soda taxes. https://medium.com/cokeleak/coke-funded-research-against-soda-taxes-4289d897bde3 (accessed October 2017).
27. GBD 2015 Obesity Collaborators, Afshin, A, Forouzanfar, MH et al. (2017) Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 years. N Engl J Med 377, 1327.
28. Alvarado, M, Kostova, D, Suhrcke, M et al. (2017) Trends in beverage prices following the introduction of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Barbados. Prev Med, (Epublication ahead of print version).
29. Delga, Y (2017) Chilean Government plans to ram through new tax on sugary foods. https://panampost.com/ysol-delgado/2017/01/13/chilean-government-plans-ram-new-tax-sugary-foods/ (accessed October 2017).
30. Taillie, LS, Rivera, JA, Popkin, BM et al. (2017) Do high vs. low purchasers respond differently to a nonessential energy-dense food tax? Two-year evaluation of Mexico’s 8 % nonessential food tax. Prev Med, (Epublication ahead of print version).
31. Hawkes, C, Alderman, H, Chaloupka, F et al. (2017) Principles behind evaluations of national food and beverage taxes and other regulatory efforts. Obes Rev 18, 13741375.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed