Taxes on sugary beverages are working. Should they be placed on ultra-processed foods?

Back in January, researchers found that raising the prices of sugary sodas, coffees, teas and energy drinks and fruit drinks led to a decrease in the purchases of those drinks. Specifically, increasing the prices of said beverages by an average of 31% reduced consumer purchases by a third.

The study, published in JAMA Health Forum, looked at per-ounce tax plans by ZIP code in Boulder, Colorado; Oakland, California; Philadelphia; Seattle; and San Francisco. Nine US jurisdictions have implemented some form of consumer tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The drinks are taxed in various ways, including excise taxes, sales taxes and import/export taxes. Excise taxes, the most common type of tax implemented on sugary beverages, are placed on distributors, who then pass the cost of the tax — usually as a flat rate per ounce — on to consumers. Some US cities have implemented sales taxes on sugary beverages at checkout, typically at a rate of 1 to 2%. As for import/export taxes, those taxes are applied to specific ingredients in the drink, like sugar, before they are processed.

“For every 1% increase in price, we found a 1% decrease in purchases of these products,” study author Scott Kaplan, an assistant professor of economics at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, told CNN. “The decrease in consumer purchases occurred almost immediately after the taxes were put in place and stayed that way over the next three years of the study.”

Kaplan explained that the study “only looked at sugar-sweetened beverages that are sold in retail or convenience stores. Mass merchandise stores, supermarkets, convenience stores and drugstores made up our sample.” Compared to the other cities included in the study, Philadelphia had the highest success rate at reducing consumer consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, according to statistics from prior studies. That’s because Philadelphia’s taxes are more “broadly encompassing, including both regular and artificially sugar-sweetened beverages,” Kaplan explained.

The study’s findings pointed to a viable yet stricter solution that could lower the risks of several chronic diseases associated with consuming sugar-sweetened beverages, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity and stroke. Sugary and artificially sweetened beverages have also been found to increase the risk of early mortality, which is why placing taxes — especially on a larger scale, potentially a federal one — is so crucial.

Taxes on sugary beverages are also proving to be effective in the UK. A study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health found that the amount of sugar consumed by children from soft drinks halved three years after the country applied its “sugar tax” to soft drinks in 2016. Researchers looked at responses to the annual UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey between 2008 and 2019. 7,999 of those responses were from adults, while 7,656 were from children. Researchers found that the daily sugar intake for children fell by about 4.8 grams in the year after the tax was introduced. For adults, it was 10.9 grams.

Taxes on sugary beverages have been so successful that experts say implementing taxes on other high-sugar foods and drinks is now a “no-brainer.” Eddie Crouch, the chair of the British Dental Association, told The Guardian that the sugar tax was delivering “tangible results.”

“Extending it to the likes of cereals is a no-brainer for any government that cares about prevention,” he added. “This needn’t add to the cost of living. Where voluntary action on reformulation has failed, the levy forces the food industry to do the right thing.”

Dr. Nina Rogers, the lead author of the study and part of the University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, echoed similar sentiments, telling the outlet, “The new UK government might want to consider extending the tax to other (currently exempt) drinks which have a high sugar content, or even to some foods.”

Despite the ongoing calls for further taxation on unhealthy foods, the UK and the US have yet to tax the biggest threat to consumer health: ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Within the US, 73% of the food on grocery store shelves is ultra-processed. UPFs are commercially manufactured food products that have undergone significant processing — so much so, that they no longer resemble their raw ingredients. UPFs are typically high in refined sugars, salt, artificial colors, emulsifiers and sweeteners. Breakfast cereals, packaged snacks, soft drinks, candy and flavored yogurts are just a few common examples.

Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.

Carlos Monteiro, the Brazilian epidemiologist who coined the term ultra-processed food, remains one of the biggest voices urging for stricter regulations on UPFs sales. Ahead of the annual International Congress on Obesity, Monteiro called for tobacco-style warnings to be placed on UPFs. In a statement to The Guardian, he added that UPFs should also be banned from schools and health facilities and taxed.

Last year, Colombia became one of the first nations in the world to tax UPFs through its new “junk food law.” The tax was set to 10% and has risen to 15% this year. It is slated to reach 20% in 2025.

If or when a UPF tax will be introduced in the US remains a mystery. Research into UPFs is still ongoing as more studies try to better understand how such foods impact human health. Companies that manufacture UPFs also claim that taxing such products will only hurt their businesses and consumers in the long run.

In the case of sugary beverages, many states have already passed bills to prevent local taxation of such products. Four states — Arizona, California, Michigan, and Washington — have enacted laws preempting local taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. Many states have considered implementing similar legislation.