On October 11, 2017, the Cook County Board repealed the Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance, effective December 1, 2017. This dataset is historical and no longer maintained.

Disclaimer: This list was last updated on 10/05/2017 and is updated monthly on the website. If up-to-the-minute accuracy is needed, contact us at 312-603-6328. This dataset contains registered Sweetened Beverage Distributors.

Graph and download economic data for Expenditures: Sugar and Other Sweets by Income Before Taxes: $100,000 to $149,999 (CXUSWEETSLB0221M) from 2015 to 2023 about sugar, tax, expenditures, income, and USA.

This statistic shows the share of respondents to a poll who support or oppose the introduction of a tax on sugary drinks, also known as a Sugar Tax, in Great Britain in 2014. There has been a lot of media coverage in Britain recently regarding the effects of a diet high in sugar, fat and salt on health, prompting the survey into peoples' attitudes towards healthy eating and measures such as a proposed 'Sugar Tax'. Of respondents to this particular question, 54 percent stand in opposition to a tax on sugary drinks.

This statistic presents the sales-weighted average caloric content per portion in manufacturer branded soft drinks in England in 2015 and 2017, by sugar levy group. In 2017, there was a reduction of twelve claries in average calories per portion for soft drinks in with sugar content of over eight grams per one hundred milliliters.

This statistic presents the sales-weighted average caloric content per portion in retailer own-brand soft drinks in England in 2015 and 2017, by levy group. In 2017, there was an increase of five calories in average calories per portion for soft drinks in with sugar content of over eight grams per one hundred milliliters.

The Sugar Sweetened Drinks Tax (SSDT) applies on the first supply in the State of sugar sweetened drinks. It was introduced in May 2018. The tax operates as an Excise Duty and is a self-assessed tax.

This statistic shows the result of a survey on the impact of the sugar tax on Malaysian respondents' intent to consume soft drinks as of June 2019. During the period surveyed, ** percent of the respondents stated that they would drink less soft drinks due to the sugar tax. By comparison, ** percent of respondents stated that they would continue drinking the same amount of soft drinks despite the introduction of a sugar tax.

Background: Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes are a promising strategy to decrease SSB consumption, and their inequitable health impacts, while raising revenue to meet social objectives. In 2016, San Francisco passed a one cent per ounce tax on SSBs. This study compared SSB consumption in San Francisco to that in San José, before and after tax implementation in 2018. Methods & findings: A longitudinal panel of adults (n = 1,443) was surveyed from zip codes in San Francisco and San José, CA with higher densities of Black and Latino residents, racial/ethnic groups with higher SSB consumption in California. SSB consumption was measured at baseline (11/17–1/18), one (11/18–1/19), and two years (11/19-1/20) after the SSB tax was implemented in January 2018. Average daily SSB consumption (in ounces) was ascertained using the BevQ-15 instrument and modeled as both continuous and binary (high consumption: ≥6 oz (178 ml) versus low consumption: <6 oz) daily beverage intake measures. Weighted generalized linear models (GLMs) estimated difference-in-differences of SSB consumption between cities by including variables for year, city, and their interaction, adjusting for demographics and sampling source. In San Francisco, average SSB consumption in the sample declined by 34.1% (-3.68 oz, p = 0.004) from baseline to 2 years post-tax, versus San José which declined 16.5% by 2 years post-tax (-1.29 oz, p = 0.157), a non-significant difference-in-differences (-17.6%, adjusted AMR = 0.79, p = 0.224). The probability of high SSB intake in San Francisco declined significantly more than in San José from baseline to 2-years post-tax (AOR[interaction] = 0.49, p = 0.031). The difference-in-differences of odds of high consumption, examining the interaction between cities, time and poverty, was far greater (AOR[city*year 2*federal poverty level] = 0.12, p = 0.010) among those living below 200% of the federal poverty level 2-years post-tax. Conclusions: Average SSB intake declined significantly in San Francisco post-tax, but the difference in differences between cities over time did not vary significantly. Likelihood of high SSB intake declined significantly more in San Francisco by year 2 and more so among low-income respondents. Methods The three waves of the study utilized a “push-to-web” data collection method, in which sampled households were sent an invitation via mail, text, and/or E-mail to complete an online Web questionnaire. Additional web completes were collected using a non-probability web panel. Questionnaires were completed in English, Spanish, or Chinese. Data from each wave were appended together--each row/observation is unique to participant ID and wave. Variables for the study were constructed using Stata. More details on methodology can be found in SSB_Sampling_and_Data_Collection_Methodology.pdf and SSB_Analytic_Sample_Creation_Flowchart.pdf.

Graph and download economic data for Expenditures: Sugar and Other Sweets by Income Before Taxes: $70,000 to $79,999 (CXUSWEETSLB0212M) from 2003 to 2015 about sugar, tax, expenditures, income, and USA.

IntroductionThe surge in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) has been linked to excessive sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption. In response, the World Health Organization advocates for SSB taxes as a preventive measure. This study conducts a systematic literature review, encompassing simulation modeling and empirical evidence, to evaluate the effectiveness of SSB taxes in diminishing NCD prevalence.MethodA systematic search from August 2002 to August 2022, utilizing databases like ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, Wiley Online Library, Springer, and ResearchGate, identified 29 relevant articles worldwide following PRISMA 2020. The Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) 2018 tool was employed for economic evaluationResultAmong the selected articles, 22 utilized simulation models in group of countries such as South Africa, the US, the UK, Asia (Philippines, India, Indonesia, Thailand), Australia, and Europe (Germany), while seven were based on US and UK evidence. Simulation modeling consistently demonstrated that SSB taxes significantly reduced NCD incidence, prevalence, and mortality, also bolstering government revenue. Tax rates in simulations ranged from 10 to 25%. However, empirical evidence indicated a limited impact, primarily due to low tax rates. Notably, a UK-specific tax led to a 2.7% reduction in SSB sugar purchases and 40.2% higher purchases of no-levy drinks.DiscussionThe findings suggest that while simulation models demonstrate the potential effectiveness of SSB taxes in reducing NCDs, empirical evidence reveals there is no significant effect of the SSB tax, Based on the study conducted in this study, the SSB tax is not effective in reducing the prevalence of NCDs due to consumer preferences that have not changed. , likely due to the implementation of lower tax rates and failure to fulfill the assumption of subtitution product, physical activity, and so on. The study highlights that SSB tax is not effective in reducing the prevalence of NCDs due to consumer preference that have not change. Multi-actions are needed to support the sustainability of the implementation of the SSB tax, including education and promotion of healthy lifestyles and encouragement to reformulate SSB products by industry.

BackgroundAs a primary source of added sugars in the US diet, sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is presumed to contribute to obesity prevalence and poor oral health. We systematically synthesized and quantified evidence from US-based natural experiments concerning the impact of SSB taxes on beverage prices, sales, purchases, and consumption.MethodsA keyword and reference search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and EconLit from the inception of an electronic bibliographic database to Oct 31, 2022. Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the pooled effect of soda taxes on SSB consumption, prices, passthrough rate, and purchases.ResultsTwenty-six natural experiments, all adopting a difference-in-differences approach, were included. Studies assessed soda taxes in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco in California, Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, Boulder in Colorado, Seattle in Washington, and Cook County in Illinois. Tax rates ranged from 1 to 2 ¢/oz. The imposition of the soda tax was associated with a 1.06 ¢/oz. (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90, 1.22) increase in SSB prices and a 27.3% (95% CI = 19.3, 35.4%) decrease in SSB purchases. The soda tax passthrough rate was 79.7% (95% CI = 65.8, 93.6%). A 1 ¢/oz. increase in soda tax rate was associated with increased prices of SSBs by 0.84 ¢/oz (95% CI = 0.33, 1.35).ConclusionSoda taxes could be effective policy leverage to nudge people toward purchasing and consuming fewer SSBs. Future research should examine evidence-based classifications of SSBs, targeted use of revenues generated by taxes to reduce health and income disparities, and the feasibility of redesigning the soda tax to improve efficiency.

BackgroundRegular consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) is associated with weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and dental caries. The UK will introduce a levy on the manufacturers of SSBs in 2018. Details will be negotiated over the next two years. How the UK public views SSB taxes is likely to be an important determinant of the content and success of the final policy. We aimed to capture the views, ideas and concerns of commenters on major UK news websites on SSB taxes.Methods and findingsWe conducted a qualitative analysis of reader comments to online news coverage of one proposal for an SSB tax in the UK. 1645 comments on four articles were included. Three underpinning themes influenced support or opposition to the tax: the balance between individual responsibility and autonomy, and population need; mistrust of the intention of the proposed tax and those promoting it; and variations in the perceived complexity of unhealthy diets and obesity associated with variations in what are considered appropriate interventions. Arguments under each theme were used to justify both support and opposition in different cases.ConclusionsAs the final form of the UK SSB tax is negotiated, effort should be made to address the concerns we identified. Our results suggest these efforts could usefully focus on emphasising the social and environmental determinants of diet and obesity, reinforcing the benefits of the tax to the NHS, and pitching the tax as playing into a variety of different conceptualisations of obesity.

BackgroundA sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax in Mexico has been effective in reducing consumption of SSBs, with larger decreases for low-income households. The health and financial effects across socioeconomic groups are important considerations for policy-makers. From a societal perspective, we assessed the potential cost-effectiveness, health gains, and financial impacts by socioeconomic position (SEP) of a 20% SSB tax for Australia.Methods and findingsAustralia-specific price elasticities were used to predict decreases in SSB consumption for each Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) quintile. Changes in body mass index (BMI) were based on SSB consumption, BMI from the Australian Health Survey 2011–12, and energy balance equations. Markov cohort models were used to estimate the health impact for the Australian population, taking into account obesity-related diseases. Health-adjusted life years (HALYs) gained, healthcare costs saved, and out-of-pocket costs were estimated for each SEIFA quintile. Loss of economic welfare was calculated as the amount of deadweight loss in excess of taxation revenue. A 20% SSB tax would lead to HALY gains of 175,300 (95% CI: 68,700; 277,800) and healthcare cost savings of AU$1,733 million (m) (95% CI: $650m; $2,744m) over the lifetime of the population, with 49.5% of the total health gains accruing to the 2 lowest quintiles. We estimated the increase in annual expenditure on SSBs to be AU$35.40/capita (0.54% of expenditure on food and non-alcoholic drinks) in the lowest SEIFA quintile, a difference of AU$3.80/capita (0.32%) compared to the highest quintile. Annual tax revenue was estimated at AU$642.9m (95% CI: $348.2m; $1,117.2m). The main limitations of this study, as with all simulation models, is that the results represent only the best estimate of a potential effect in the absence of stronger direct evidence.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that from a 20% tax on SSBs, the most HALYs gained and healthcare costs saved would accrue to the most disadvantaged quintiles in Australia. Whilst those in more disadvantaged areas would pay more SSB tax, the difference between areas is small. The equity of the tax could be further improved if the tax revenue were used to fund initiatives benefiting those with greater disadvantage.

BackgroundTaxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) meant to improve health and raise revenue are being adopted, yet evaluation is scarce. This study examines the association of the first penny per ounce SSB excise tax in the United States, in Berkeley, California, with beverage prices, sales, store revenue/consumer spending, and usual beverage intake.Methods and findingsMethods included comparison of pre-taxation (before 1 January 2015) and first-year post-taxation (1 March 2015–29 February 2016) measures of (1) beverage prices at 26 Berkeley stores; (2) point-of-sale scanner data on 15.5 million checkouts for beverage prices, sales, and store revenue for two supermarket chains covering three Berkeley and six control non-Berkeley large supermarkets in adjacent cities; and (3) a representative telephone survey (17.4% cooperation rate) of 957 adult Berkeley residents.Key hypotheses were that (1) the tax would be passed through to the prices of taxed beverages among the chain stores in which Berkeley implemented the tax in 2015; (2) sales of taxed beverages would decline, and sales of untaxed beverages would rise, in Berkeley stores more than in comparison non-Berkeley stores; (3) consumer spending per transaction (checkout episode) would not increase in Berkeley stores; and (4) self-reported consumption of taxed beverages would decline.Main outcomes and measures included changes in inflation-adjusted prices (cents/ounce), beverage sales (ounces), consumers’ spending measured as store revenue (inflation-adjusted dollars per transaction) in two large chains, and usual beverage intake (grams/day and kilocalories/day).Tax pass-through (changes in the price after imposition of the tax) for SSBs varied in degree and timing by store type and beverage type. Pass-through was complete in large chain supermarkets (+1.07¢/oz, p = 0.001) and small chain supermarkets and chain gas stations (1.31¢/oz, p = 0.004), partial in pharmacies (+0.45¢/oz, p = 0.03), and negative in independent corner stores and independent gas stations (−0.64¢/oz, p = 0.004). Sales-unweighted mean price change from scanner data was +0.67¢/oz (p = 0.00) (sales-weighted, +0.65¢/oz, p = 0.003), with +1.09¢/oz (p

Graph and download economic data for Expenditures: Sugar and Other Sweets by Income Before Taxes: $150,000 and over (CXUSWEETSLB0217M) from 2003 to 2015 about sugar, tax, expenditures, income, and USA.

China Sugar: YoY: Total Tax: Year to Date data was reported at 21.792 % in Oct 2015. This records a decrease from the previous number of 44.528 % for Sep 2015. China Sugar: YoY: Total Tax: Year to Date data is updated monthly, averaging 3.730 % from Jan 2006 (Median) to Oct 2015, with 89 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 127.220 % in Feb 2010 and a record low of -47.565 % in Apr 2014. China Sugar: YoY: Total Tax: Year to Date data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Industrial Sector – Table CN.BHA: Agricultural and Sideline Food Processing: Sugar.

China Sugar: Sales Tax and Surcharge: Year to Date data was reported at 0.279 RMB bn in Oct 2015. This records an increase from the previous number of 0.245 RMB bn for Sep 2015. China Sugar: Sales Tax and Surcharge: Year to Date data is updated monthly, averaging 0.183 RMB bn from Dec 1998 (Median) to Oct 2015, with 102 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.093 RMB bn in Dec 2009 and a record low of 0.023 RMB bn in Feb 2009. China Sugar: Sales Tax and Surcharge: Year to Date data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Industrial Sector – Table CN.BHA: Agricultural and Sideline Food Processing: Sugar.

This statistic displays public opinion regarding the extent to which taxing sugar in soft drinks would inevitably lead to taxing sugar in other products in the United Kingdom (UK), as of *************. Of respondents, ** percent somewhat agree that it would lead to taxing sugar in other products.

This statistic illustrates the sales-weighted average (SWA) sugar levels in leading manufacturer soft drink brands in England in 2015 and 2017. In 2017, Old Jamaica Regular was the leading soft drink with sugar average amount of **** grams per one hundred milliliters.

PERIOD: FY 1927-1936. By region in FY 1936. SOURCE: [Annual Statistical Report of the Tax Bureau].