Should We Worry About Spillover Effects of Sugar Sweetened Beverage Taxation Policies?; Comment on “Understanding Marketing Responses to a Tax on Sugary Drinks: A Qualitative Interview Study in the United Kingdom, 2019”

Document Type : Commentary


1 Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

2 Chr. Michelsens Institute (CMI), Bergen, Norway

3 Bergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting in Health (BCEPS), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway


Taxes on sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) have been widely implemented and heralded as a panacea in reversing the growing burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Using a qualitative research methodology, Forde et al explored how sugary drink companies respond to changes in taxation positing that relative effectiveness of sugar taxes will not only depend on how prices are affected, and how consumers respond, but also how producers respond by reformulating their products or engaging in counteractive marketing strategies. They argue that these responses may undermine the public health goal. We discuss some of the key issues that arise in their paper and conclude that company responses may not be sufficient in undermining the public health goal, and that consumption of sugary drinks fall after imposition of taxes, though demand is inelastic. We argue that inelasticity of demand for SSB may require a combination of interventions to sufficiently reduce excess consumption of sugar drinks.


  1. Forde H, Penney TL, White M, Levy L, Greaves F, Adams J. Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022; 11(11):2618-2629. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.5465
  2. Dickson A, Gehrsitz M, Kemp J. Does a Spoonful of Sugar Levy Help the Calories Go Down? An Analysis of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy. 2021.
  3. Stacey N, Edoka I, Hofman K, Swart EC, Popkin B, Ng SW. Changes in beverage purchases following the announcement and implementation of South Africa’s Health Promotion Levy: an observational study. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(4):e200-e208. doi:1016/s2542-5196(20)30304-1
  4. Hangoma P, Bulawayo M, Chewe M, et al. The potential health and revenue effects of a tax on sugar sweetened beverages in Zambia. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(4):e001968. doi:1136/bmjgh-2019-001968
  5. 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:1377/hlthaff.2016.1231
  6. Hangoma P, Surgey G. Contradictions within the SDGs: are sin taxes for health improvement at odds with employment and economic growth in Zambia. Global Health. 2019;15(1):82. doi:1186/s12992-019-0510-x
  7. Farley TA, Halper HS, Carlin AM, Emmerson KM, Foster KN, Fertig AR. Mass media campaign to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in a rural area of the United States. Am J Public Health. 2017; 107(6):989-995. doi:2105/ajph.2017.303750
  8. Zenk SN, Leider J, Pugach O, Pipito AA, Powell LM. Changes in beverage marketing at stores following the Oakland sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Am J Prev Med. 2020;58(5):648-656. doi:1016/j.amepre.2019.12.014
  9. Asa N. Associations Between the Sweetened Beverage Tax Implementation in Seattle, WA and Changes in Supermarket Interior Marketing Displays [dissertation]. University of Washington; 2022.
  • Receive Date: 01 November 2022
  • Revise Date: 15 January 2023
  • Accept Date: 17 January 2023
  • First Publish Date: 18 January 2023