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”

Document Type : Commentary


1 Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

2 The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

3 The Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

4 Menzies Centre for Health Policy, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia


In their recent article Roache and Gostin outline why governments and public health advocates should embrace soda taxes. The evidence is strong and continues to grow: such taxes can change consumer behavior, generate significant revenue and incentivize product reformulation. In essence, such taxes are an important and now well-established instrument of fiscal and public health policy. In this commentary we expand on their arguments by considering how the worldwide adoption of such taxes might be further accelerated. First, we identify where in the world taxes have been implemented to date and where the untapped potential remains greatest. Second, drawing upon recent case study research on country experiences we describe several conditions under which governments may be more likely to make taxation a political priority in the future. Third, we consider how to help strengthen the technical and legal capacities of governments to design and effectively administer taxes, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries. We expect the findings to be most useful to public health advocates and policy-makers seeking to promote healthier diets and good nutrition.


Main Subjects

  1. Roache S, Gostin L. 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. World Health Organization. 'Best Buys' and Other Recommended Interventions for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases: Appendix 3 of the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases 2013-2020. Geneva: WHO; 2017.
  3. Jou J, Niederdeppe J, Barry CL, Gollust SE. Strategic messaging to promote taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages: lessons from recent political campaigns. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(5):847-853. doi:10.2105/ajph.2013.301679
  4. 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 DC: World Bank; 2016.
  5. Euromonitor International. Passport Market Information Database. Nutrition: London; 2017.
  6. Thow AM, Downs S, Jan S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of food taxes and subsidies to improve diets: understanding the recent evidence. Nutr Rev. 2014;72(9):551-565. doi:10.1111/nure.12123
  7. World Health Organization. Fiscal Policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases; Technical Meeting Report (5–6 May 2015, Geneva, Switzerland). Geneva: WHO; 2016.
  8. Popkin BM, Hawkes C. Sweetening of the global diet, particularly beverages: patterns, trends, and policy responses. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(2):174-186. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00419-2
  9. World Cancer Research Fund International. Use economic tools to address food affordability and purchase incentives. London: WCRF International; 2017.
  10. Baker P, Friel S. Processed foods and the nutrition transition: evidence from Asia. Obes Rev. 2014;15(7):564-577. doi:10.1111/obr.12174
  11. Baker P, Gill T, Friel S, Carey G, Kay A. Generating political priority for regulatory interventions targeting obesity prevention: an Australian case study. Soc Sci Med. 2017;177:141-149. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.047
  12. Shiffman J, Smith S. Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. Lancet. 2007;370(9595):1370-1379. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61579-7
  13. 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
  14. Magnusson RS, Patterson D. The role of law and governance reform in the global response to non-communicable diseases. Global Health. 2014;10:44. doi:10.1186/1744-8603-10-44
  15. Donaldson E. Advocating for sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: a case study of Mexico. John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; 2017.
  16. Wright A, Smith KE, Hellowell M. Policy lessons from health taxes: a systematic review of empirical studies. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):583. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4497-z
  17. 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
  18. Williams SN. 'Soda taxes' and 'fat taxes' can help tackle the twin problems of global obesity and under-nutrition. Perspect Public Health. 2016;136(1):21-22. doi:10.1177/1757913915616733
  19. Roh S, Schuldt JP. Where there's a will: can highlighting future youth-targeted marketing increase support for soda taxes? Health Psychol. 2014;33(12):1610-1613. doi:10.1037/hea0000021
  20. George A. Not so sweet refrain: Sugar-sweetened beverages taxes, industry opposition and harnessing the lessons learned from tobacco control legal challenges. Melbourne: McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer; 2017.
  21. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Using pricing policies to promote healthy diets. Copenhagen: WHO; 2015.
  22. Backholer K, Blake M, Vandevijvere S. Have we reached a tipping point for sugar-sweetened beverage taxes? Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(17):3057-3061. doi:10.1017/s1368980016003086
  23. Thow AM, Jones A, Hawkes C, Ali I, Labonte R. Nutrition labelling is a trade policy issue: lessons from an analysis of specific trade concerns at the World Trade Organization. Health Promot Int. 2017. doi:10.1093/heapro/daw109
  24. Magnusson RS. Framework legislation for non-communicable diseases: and for the Sustainable Development Goals? BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2(3). doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000385
  25. Gostin LO, Abou-Taleb H, Roache SA, Alwan A. Legal priorities for prevention of non-communicable diseases: innovations from WHO's Eastern Mediterranean region. Public Health. 2017;144:4-12. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2016.11.001
  • Receive Date: 17 September 2017
  • Revise Date: 14 October 2017
  • Accept Date: 15 October 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 May 2018