Evaluating the 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Chile: An observational study in urban areas

Ryota Nakamura, Andrew J Mirelman, Cristóbal Cuadrado, Nicolas Silva-Illanes, Jocelyn Dunstan, Marc Suhrcke, Ryota Nakamura, Andrew J Mirelman, Cristóbal Cuadrado, Nicolas Silva-Illanes, Jocelyn Dunstan, Marc Suhrcke

Abstract

Background: In October 2014, Chile implemented a tax modification on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) called the Impuesto Adicional a las Bebidas Analcohólicas (IABA). The design of the tax was unique, increasing the tax on soft drinks above 6.25 grams of added sugar per 100 mL and decreasing the tax for those below this threshold.

Methods and findings: This study evaluates Chile's SSB tax, which was announced in March 2014 and implemented in October 2014. We used household-level grocery-purchasing data from 2011 to 2015 for 2,836 households living in cities representative of the urban population of Chile. We employed a fixed-effects econometric approach and estimated the before-after change in purchasing of SSBs controlling for seasonality, general time trend, temperature, and economic fluctuations as well as time-invariant household characteristics. Results showed significant changes in purchasing for the statistically preferred model: while there was a barely significant decrease in the volume of all soft drinks, there was a highly significant decrease in the monthly purchased volume of the higher-taxed, sugary soft drinks by 21.6%. The direction of this reduction was robust to different empirical modelling approaches, but the statistical significance and the magnitude of the changes varied considerably. The reduction in soft drink purchasing was most evident amongst higher socioeconomic groups and higher pretax purchasers of sugary soft drinks. There was no systematic, robust pattern in the estimates by household obesity status. After tax implementation, the purchase prices of soft drinks decreased for the items for which the tax rate was reduced, but they remained unchanged for sugary items, for which the tax was increased. However, the purchase prices increased for sugary soft drinks at the time of the policy announcement. The main limitations include a lack of a randomised design, limiting the extent of causal inference possible, and the focus on purchasing data rather than consumption or health outcomes.

Conclusions: The results of subgroup analyses suggest that the policy may have been partially effective, though not necessarily in ways that are likely to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet-related health. It remains unclear whether the policy has had a major, overall population-level impact. Additionally, because the present study examined purchasing of soft drinks for only 1 year, a longer-term evaluation-ideally including an assessment of consumption and health impacts-should be conducted in future research.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02926001.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Volume (mL) of soft drink…
Fig 1. Volume (mL) of soft drink products purchased from January 2011 to December 2015.
(A) All beverages, (B) high-tax products, (C) low-tax category, (D) no-tax category. Aggregated mean volume of soft drinks purchased from January 2011 to December 2015. The grey vertical dotted line in the figure refers to the announcement of the IABA tax policy in March 2014, whereas the red vertical dotted line is for the implementation of the policy in October 2014. Source: authors’ analysis of the Kantar WorldPanel data for urban households in Chile. IABA, Impuesto Adicional a las Bebidas Analcohólicas.

References

    1. WHO. Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014.
    1. Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, Jane-Llopis E, Abrahams-Gessel S, Fathima S, Feigl AB, et al. The global economic burden of non-communicable diseases Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2011.
    1. Suhrcke M, Nugent RA, Stuckler D, Rocco L. Chronic disease: an economic perspective London: The Oxford Health Alliance, 2006.
    1. Kelly T, Yang W, Chen CS, Reynolds K, He J. Global burden of obesity in 2005 and projections to 2030. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32(9):1431–7.
    1. GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2287–323. doi:
    1. Garmendia ML, Corvalan C, Uauy R. Addressing malnutrition while avoiding obesity: minding the balance. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013;67(5):513–7. doi:
    1. Azar A, Franetovic G, Martinez M, Santos H. Determinantes individuales, sociales y ambientales del sobrepeso y la obesidad adolescente en Chile[Individual, social and environmental determinants of overweight and obesity among Chilean adolescents]. Rev Med Chil. 2015;143(5):598–605. doi:
    1. Vio F, Albala C, Kain J. Nutrition transition in Chile revisited: mid-term evaluation of obesity goals for the period 2000–2010. Public Health Nutr. 2008;11(4):405–12. doi:
    1. Popkin BM, Hawkes C. Sweetening of the global diet, particularly beverages: patterns, trends, and policy responses. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(2):174–86. doi:
    1. Araneda J, Bustos P, Cerecera F, Amigo H. Ingesta de bebidas azucaradas analcohólicas e índice de masa corporal en escolares chilenos [Intake of sugar-sweetened non-alcoholic beverages and body mass index: A national sample of Chilean school children]. Salud Publica Mex. 2015;57(2):128–34.
    1. Han E, Powell LM. Consumption patterns of sugar-sweetened beverages in the United States. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013;113(1):43–53. doi:
    1. Cornelsen L, Green R, Dangour A, Smith R. Why fat taxes won't make us thin. J Public Health (Oxf). 2015;37(1):18–23.
    1. Thow AM, Jan S, Leeder S, Swinburn B. The effect of fiscal policy on diet, obesity and chronic disease: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(8):609–14. doi:
    1. Colchero MA, Popkin BM, Rivera JA, Ng SW. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ. 2016;352:h6704 doi:
    1. Smed S, Scarborough P, Rayner M, Jensen JD. The effects of the Danish saturated fat tax on food and nutrient intake and modelled health outcomes: an econometric and comparative risk assessment evaluation. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70(6):681–6. doi:
    1. Bíró A. Did the junk food tax make the Hungarians eat healthier? Food Policy. 2015;54:107–15.
    1. Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, Taillie LS, Induni M, Miles DR, et al. Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study. PLoS Med. 2017;14(4):e1002283 doi:
    1. Escalona E. Historia de los impuestos al consumo en Chile desde 1920 y al valor agregado. Revista Estudios Tributarios. 2014;10:9–49.
    1. Reemplaza texto del decreto Ley N 825 de 1974, (1976).
    1. Colchero MA, Salgado JC, Unar-Munguia M, Molina M, Ng S, Rivera-Dommarco JA. Changes in Prices After an Excise Tax to Sweetened Sugar Beverages Was Implemented in Mexico: Evidence from Urban Areas. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12):e0144408 doi:
    1. Suhrcke M, Nakamura R, Mirelman AJ, Cuadrado C, Silva N. Evaluation of the impact of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Chile United States National Institutes of Health; 2016.
    1. Adimark. El Nivel Socio Económico Esomar: Manual de Aplicación [Esomar socioeconomic level. Application manual] Santiago, Chile: Adimark, 2000.
    1. Sharot T. Weighting Survey Results. Journal of the Market Research Society. 1986;28(3):269–84.
    1. Encuesta de Consumo Alimentario en Chile (ENCA). Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Salud, 2014.
    1. Subdepartamento Alimentos y Nutrición. Santiago, Chile: Instituto de Salud Pública, 2013.
    1. Cawley J, Frisvold DE. The Pass-Through of Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Retail Prices: The Case of Berkeley, California. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2017;36(2):303–26.
    1. Encuesta Nacional de Empleo. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas—Chile, 2017.
    1. Datos de Temperaturas Medias. Santiago, Chile: Centro de Ciencia del Clima y la Resistencia, 2017.
    1. Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; 1963.
    1. Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, Haw S, Lawson K, Macintyre S, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1182–6. doi:
    1. Aguilar A, Gutierrez E, Seira E. Taxing to Reduce Obesity. 2016 [updated June 9, 2016]; 1–39]. Available from: [cited 27 October 2016].
    1. OECD. Handbook on Constructing Composity Indicator: Methodology and User Guide OECD, 2008.
    1. Briggs AD, Mytton OT, Kehlbacher A, Tiffin R, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. BMJ. 2013;347:f6189 doi:
    1. WHO. Fiscal Policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases: Technical Meeting Report Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2016.
    1. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263–92.
    1. Mazumdar T, Raj SP, Sinha I. Reference Price Research: Review and Propositions. Journal of Marketing 2005;69(4):84–102.
    1. Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A. Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. J Health Econ. 2010;29(1):1–28. doi:
    1. Green R, Cornelsen L, Dangour AD, Turner R, Shankar B, Mazzocchi M, et al. The effect of rising food prices on food consumption: systematic review with meta-regression. BMJ. 2013;346:f3703 doi:
    1. Guerrero-Lopez CM, Unar-Munguia M, Colchero MA. Price elasticity of the demand for soft drinks, other sugar-sweetened beverages and energy dense food in Chile. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):180 doi:
    1. Blakely T, Ni Mhurchu C, Jiang Y, Matoe L, Funaki-Tahifote M, Eyles HC, et al. Do effects of price discounts and nutrition education on food purchases vary by ethnicity, income and education? Results from a randomised, controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65(10):902–8. doi:
    1. Nederkoorn C, Havermans RC, Giesen JC, Jansen A. High tax on high energy dense foods and its effects on the purchase of calories in a supermarket. An experiment. Appetite. 2011;56(3):760–5. doi:
    1. Barnett AG, van der Pols JC, Dobson AJ. Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(1):215–20. Epub 2004/08/31. doi:
    1. World Bank Open Data. The World Bank; 2018. Available from: . [cited 26 February 2018].
    1. Jones AM, Koolman X, Rice N. Health-related non-response in the British Household Panel Survey and European Community Household Panel: using inverse-probability-weighted estimators in non-linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistics Society A. 2006;169(3):543–69.
    1. Cediel G, Reyes M, da Costa Louzada ML, Martinez Steele E, Monteiro CA, Corvalan C, et al. Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the Chilean diet (2010). Public Health Nutr. 2017:1–9.
    1. 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):564–71.
    1. Finkelstein EA, Zhen C, Bilger M, Nonnemaker J, Farooqui AM, Todd JE. Implications of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax when substitutions to non-beverage items are considered. J Health Econ. 2013;32(1):219–39. doi:

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera