Pourya Valizadeh1,2, Barry M Popkin3,4, Shu Wen Ng3,4. 1. Agricultural & Food Policy Center, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 2. Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 3. Carolina Population Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: US individuals, particularly from low-income subpopulations, have very poor diet quality. Policies encouraging shifts from consuming unhealthy food towards healthy food consumption are needed. OBJECTIVES: We simulate the differential impacts of a national sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax and combinations of SSB taxes with fruit and vegetable (FV) subsidies targeted to low-income households on SSB and FV purchases of lower and higher SSB purchasers. METHODS: We considered a 1-cent-per-ounce SSB tax and 2 FV subsidy rates of 30% and 50% and used longitudinal grocery purchase data for 79,044 urban/semiurban US households from 2010-2014 Nielsen Homescan data. We used demand elasticities for lower and higher SSB purchasers, estimated via longitudinal quantile regression, to simulate policies' differential effects. RESULTS: Higher-SSB-purchasing households made larger reductions (per adult equivalent) in SSB purchases than lower SSB purchasers due to the tax (e.g., 4.4 oz/day at SSB purchase percentile 90 compared with 0.5 oz/day at percentile 25; P < 0.05). Our analyses by household income indicated low-income households would make larger reductions than higher-income households at all SSB purchase levels. Targeted FV subsidies induced similar, but nutritionally insignificant, increases in FV purchases of low-income households, regardless of their SSB purchase levels. Subsidies, however, were effective in mitigating the tax burdens. All low-income households experienced a net financial gain when the tax was combined with a 50% FV subsidy, but net gains were smaller among higher SSB purchasers. Further, low-income households with children gained smaller net financial benefits than households without children and incurred net financial losses under a 30% subsidy rate. CONCLUSIONS: SSB taxes can effectively reduce SSB consumption. FV subsidies would increase FV purchases, but nutritionally meaningful increases are limited due to low purchase levels before policy implementation. Expanding taxes beyond SSBs, providing larger FV subsidies, or offering subsidies beyond FVs, particularly for low-income households with children, may be more effective.
BACKGROUND: US individuals, particularly from low-income subpopulations, have very poor diet quality. Policies encouraging shifts from consuming unhealthy food towards healthy food consumption are needed. OBJECTIVES: We simulate the differential impacts of a national sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax and combinations of SSB taxes with fruit and vegetable (FV) subsidies targeted to low-income households on SSB and FV purchases of lower and higher SSB purchasers. METHODS: We considered a 1-cent-per-ounce SSB tax and 2 FV subsidy rates of 30% and 50% and used longitudinal grocery purchase data for 79,044 urban/semiurban US households from 2010-2014 Nielsen Homescan data. We used demand elasticities for lower and higher SSB purchasers, estimated via longitudinal quantile regression, to simulate policies' differential effects. RESULTS: Higher-SSB-purchasing households made larger reductions (per adult equivalent) in SSB purchases than lower SSB purchasers due to the tax (e.g., 4.4 oz/day at SSB purchase percentile 90 compared with 0.5 oz/day at percentile 25; P < 0.05). Our analyses by household income indicated low-income households would make larger reductions than higher-income households at all SSB purchase levels. Targeted FV subsidies induced similar, but nutritionally insignificant, increases in FV purchases of low-income households, regardless of their SSB purchase levels. Subsidies, however, were effective in mitigating the tax burdens. All low-income households experienced a net financial gain when the tax was combined with a 50% FV subsidy, but net gains were smaller among higher SSB purchasers. Further, low-income households with children gained smaller net financial benefits than households without children and incurred net financial losses under a 30% subsidy rate. CONCLUSIONS: SSB taxes can effectively reduce SSB consumption. FV subsidies would increase FV purchases, but nutritionally meaningful increases are limited due to low purchase levels before policy implementation. Expanding taxes beyond SSBs, providing larger FV subsidies, or offering subsidies beyond FVs, particularly for low-income households with children, may be more effective.
Authors: Hannah G Lawman; Sara N Bleich; Jiali Yan; Sophia V Hua; Caitlin M Lowery; Ana Peterhans; Michael T LeVasseur; Nandita Mitra; Laura A Gibson; Christina A Roberto Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Jennifer Falbe; Hannah R Thompson; Christina M Becker; Nadia Rojas; Charles E McCulloch; Kristine A Madsen Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jennifer Falbe; Matthew M Lee; Scott Kaplan; Nadia A Rojas; Alberto M Ortega Hinojosa; Kristine A Madsen Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Matthew M Lee; Jennifer Falbe; Dean Schillinger; Sanjay Basu; Charles E McCulloch; Kristine A Madsen Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 9.308