Sodas and junk food contribute to America’s problem with physical health and weight.
Medical experts and legislators have worked to find methods to protect children from the long-term health problems associated with childhood obesity. These include offering parents better education about the caloric content of snacks and treats, shifting programs like WIC to provide more fruits and vegetables, and even taxing certain products.
However, the first two years of evidence following one measure—a tax on sweetened beverages—reveal data that show little impact, if any.
The Philadephia Beverage Tax
While multiple jurisdictions have implemented taxes on sugary treats or food items deemed ‘luxuries,’ the version in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, provided a convenient population for study.
Since neighboring counties didn’t implement the same rule, the legislation conveniently provides a test group (kids who live in the area with said tax) and a control group (kids in neighboring counties).
The tax, imposed in 2017, charged 1.5 cents per ounce of sugary beverage. The tax is not directly assessed on the consumer but on the distributor, where the increased cost is expected to be passed on to the retailer and then on to the consumer.
One more significant factor that could affect the outcome of this study, though, is the broadness of the legislation. The Philadelphia Beverage Tax (PBT) is applied to all sweetened drinks, not only those with high fructose corn syrup and other high-calorie sweeteners.
This applies equally to a 20-oz soda containing 240 calories and a zero-calorie soda containing artificial sweeteners. It also applies to sweetened mixers intended to be combined with alcohol, fruit-flavored juice drinks that have sweeteners added, coffees and teas, and even sweetened powdered drink mixes.
This means that the legislation doesn’t encourage soda lovers to turn to lower-calorie treats with artificial sweeteners since they’re taxed at the same rate.
The Data Suggests That Philadelphia’s Beverage Tax Failed To Effect Childhood Obesity
The data in question is from 2014 through 2019. The PBT was implemented in 2017 so the data includes a few years before and a few years after it was imposed.
The analysis, released this month, found only small and inconsistent changes across the time period — insufficient to support the policy as a measure against obesity.
Even these changes were not entirely as expected. The researchers noted “prior reports that Black children consume more [sugar-sweetened beverages] than White children” but found that there was a slight weight loss for white kids, not Black kids, in their study. The data also showed small dips in weight gain for older teens and for kids whose starting BMI was higher.
Still, none of the changes was significant enough for researchers to conclude that a tax contributed to decreased childhood obesity.
Some Medical Experts Suggest The Tax Alone Was Just Not Sufficient
Following the release of the data, a Paediatric Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases specialist, Annika Janson, MD, PhD., and adjunct professor in Public Health Sciences at the Department of Global Public Health, Liselotte Schäfer Elinder, MSc, PhD, released an editorial addressing the conclusions.
They had several criticisms of the data analysis, including noting the demographic differences between the test and control groups:
“In the longitudinal study, 79% of the children exposed to taxes lived in areas with a low-socioeconomic index (a combination of educational level, housing costs, and employment) in contrast with 7% of the controls. Moreover, of the children exposed to taxes, 69% were Black, whereas in the control area 68% were White.”
These experts also noted that the study covered only two years of post-tax data, and that to see effects, it may be necessary to combine strategies for a longer term. These could include similar taxes, but also implement more methods of education and of making healthier food choices more accessible.
There Are Other Potential Advantages To This Type Of Tax
It’s worth recognizing that reducing the sale of sugary beverages was not the only effect of the tax.
The additional tax revenue was used for children’s programming, libraries, schools, parks, and rec centers, all of which benefit kids, particularly low-income communities, in the long run.
These facilities may even, over time, help improve children’s health, including by offering locations for physical activity. The authors of the original study note that, thanks to lawsuits, there were delays in building these facilities, so it’s hard to compute their impact yet, especially since the study cut off early when COVID-19 impacted shopping habits, physical activity, and dietary choices.
If the tax funds continue to be directed to projects that make kids healthier, taxes on high-calorie sweet treats could make a difference even if they don’t decrease kids’ intake.
What Should Parents Do?
As always, we should encourage our kids to eat healthy foods and limit their intake of sugary beverages and sweet treats. Offering real fruit juices (without added sweeteners), low-fat milk and water with their snacks and meals is one part of this.
This study’s outcome suggests that a tax isn’t going to make the necessary changes for us. We’re still responsible for what our kids eat and for providing them with the education to make their healthiest choices.
For those in food deserts or otherwise struggling to provide healthy meals, this means parents will have to keep working around the best options available to them and, where possible, advocate for better access and options in their neighborhoods.
On a policy level, it means that experts will have to continue advising and promoting measures with the best chances of improving public health.