Soda Taxes: The Importance of Analysing Policy Processes; Comment on “The Untapped Power of Soda Taxes: Incentivising Consumers, Generating Revenue, and Altering Corporate Behaviours”

Document Type : Commentary


1 Evaluation Platform on Obesity Prevention (EPOP), Quebec Heart and Lung University Institute Research Center – Laval University (Université Laval), Quebec City, QC, Canada

2 Faculty of Nursing, Laval University (Université Laval), Quebec City, QC, Canada

3 Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University (Université Laval), Quebec City, QC, Canada


Sarah A. Roache and Lawrence O. Gostin’s recent editorial comprehensively presents soda taxation rationales from a public health perspective. While we essentially agree that soda taxes are gaining momentum, this commentary expands upon the need for a better understanding of the policy processes underlying their development and implementation. Indeed, the umbrella concept of soda taxation actually covers a diversity of objectives and mechanisms, which may not only condition the feasibility and acceptability of a proposal, but also alter its impact. We briefly highlight some conditions that may have influenced soda tax policy processes and why further theory-driven case studies may be instructive.


Main Subjects

  1. Roache SA, Gostin LO. the untapped power of soda taxes: incentivizing consumers, generating revenue, and altering corporate behavior. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(9):489-493. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.69
  2. Le Bodo Y, Paquette MC, De Wals P. Taxing Soda for Public Health: A Canadian Perspective. 1st ed. Springer; 2016.
  3. 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):564-571. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1231
  4. Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, et al. Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study. Langenberg C, ed. PLoS Med. 2017;14(4):e1002283. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283
  5. Sarlio-Lähteenkorva S, Winkler JT. Could a sugar tax help combat obesity? BMJ. 2015;351:h4047. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4047
  6. Whitehead R, Watson E, Chu W, Michail N, Gore-Langton L, Arthur R. 2016: The year of the sugar tax. Beverage Daily. December 15, 2016.  Accessed June 28, 2017.
  7. Blatchford A, Bronskill J. Le fédéral a considéré l’adoption d’une taxe sur les boissons gazeuses. La Presse.  Accessed June 28, 2017. Published August 8, 2016.
  8. Actualí Impuesto a las bebidas azucaradas no tuvo eco en reforma tributaria. Actualícese.  Accessed October 4, 2017. Published January 20, 2017.
  9. Gamboa R. The not-too-sweet side of sugar. The Philippine Star. August 31, 2017.  Accessed October 4, 2017.
  10. 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):887-894. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.06.011
  11. HM Treasury. Finance (No. 2) Bill 2017. Explanatory Notes. March 2017.  Accessed August 21, 2017.
  12. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages as a Public Health Strategy: The Experience of Mexico. Mexico DF; 2015.
  13. WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Technical Workshop on Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages - Meeting Report. Manila, Philippines; 2017.  Accessed June 28, 2017.
  14. 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. doi:10.1093/heapro/daq057
  15. Healthy Caribbean Coalition. A closer look - The Implementation of Taxation on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages by the Government of Barbados - A Civil society perspective.  Accessed June 28, 2017. Published July 2016.
  16. Mosier SL. Cookies, candy, and coke: examining state sugar-sweetened-beverage tax policy from a multiple streams approach. Int Rev Public Adm. 2013;18(1):93-120. doi:10.1080/12294659.2013.10805242
  17. Purtle J, Langellier B, Lê-Scherban F. A case study of the Philadelphia sugar-sweetened beverage tax policymaking process: implications for policy development and advocacy. J Public Health Manag Pract. March 2017. doi:10.1097/PHH.0000000000000563
  18. Paarlberg R, Mozaffarian D, Micha R. Viewpoint: Can U.S. local soda taxes continue to spread? Food Policy. 2017;71:1-7. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.05.007
  19. French Constitutional Council. Décision No2011-644DC. Article, Consolidation, Travaux Parlementaires; 2011.  Accessed March 1, 2012.
  20. Belgian Federal Government. Accord Budget 2016: ce qui change pour le portefeuille des Belges.  Accessed December 20, 2015. Published 2015.
  21. World Health Organization (WHO). Fiscal Policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases: Technical Meeting Report, 5-6 May 2015, Geneva, Switzerland.  Accessed October 4, 2017. Published 2016.
  22. Nestle M. Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  23. Choy L, Dela Cruz MR, Hagiwara M, et al. Insights in public health: taxing sugar sweetened beverages to improve public health: policy action in Hawai’i. Doctoral Health Policy Seminar, Spring 2013. Hawaii J Med Public Health. 2013;72(8):286-291.
  24. Hawkes N. Sugar tax will double funding for sport in primary schools, says chancellor. BMJ. 2016;352:i1602. doi:10.1136/bmj.i1602
  25. Bødker M, Pisinger C, Toft U, Jørgensen T. The rise and fall of the world’s first fat tax. Health Policy. 2015;119(6):737-742. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.03.003
  26. Sisnowski J, Street JM, Braunack-Mayer A. Targeting population nutrition through municipal health and food policy: implications of New York City's experiences in regulatory obesity prevention. Food Policy. 2016;58:24-34. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.10.007
  27. Capazorio B. Parliament hears pros and cons of a sugar tax in SA.  Accessed June 28, 2017. Published January 31, 2017.
  28. Arthur R. The reformulation race: Driving change in sugar-sweetened beverages. Beverage Daily. March 21, 2017.  Accessed May 10, 2017.
  29. Arthur R. UK sugar tax: Government encourages further reformulation as draft legislation published. Beverage Daily. October 5, 2017.  Accessed October 5, 2017.
  30. L’Essentiel. Finalement, il n’y aura pas de taxe sur les sodas. Lessentiel. September 18, 2017.  Accessed October 5, 2017.
  31. Cullerton K, Donnet T, Lee A, Gallegos D. Playing the policy game: a review of the barriers to and enablers of nutrition policy change. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(14):2643-2653. doi:10.1017/S1368980016000677.
  32. Clavier C, de Leeuw EJJ. Framing public policy in health promotion: ubiquitous, yet elusive. In: Health Promotion and the Policy Process. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013:1–22.
  33. Gagnon F, Bergeron P, Clavier C, Fafard P, Martin E, Blouin C. Why and how political science can contribute to public health? Proposals for collaborative research avenues. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(9):495-499. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.38
  34. Breton É, de Leeuw EJJ de. Policy change theories in health promotion research: a review. In: Health Promotion and the Policy Process. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
  35. Breton E, Richard L, Gagnon F, Jacques M, Bergeron P. Health promotion research and practice require sound policy analysis models: the case of Quebec’s Tobacco Act. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2008;67(11):1679-1689. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.07.028.
  36. Clarke B, Swinburn B, Sacks G. The application of theories of the policy process to obesity prevention: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1084. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3639-z
  • Receive Date: 24 August 2017
  • Revise Date: 10 October 2017
  • Accept Date: 11 October 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 May 2018