In the News

Berkeley soda tax takes a big gulp out of sugary-drink sales

A new study published in PLOS Medicine by the Public Health Institute and the University of North Carolina showed that Berkeley’s sugar sweetened beverage tax is working as intended. Sales of sugar-sweetened beverages dropped nearly 10 percent during the first year of the tax, purchaces of healthier beverages rose, and $1.4 million was raised in the first year for child nutrition and community health programs. Read an overview of the new findings in this Reuters article.

The nation’s first soda tax is fulfilling health experts’ goals in Berkeley, California.

Sales of sugar-sweetened beverages dropped nearly 10 percent during the first year of the tax, which raised $1.4 million for child nutrition and community health programs, a new study showed.

“I’m calling it a home run,” lead author Dr. Lynn D. Silver, a senior advisor at the Public Health Institute in Oakland, said of the measure.

She ticked off the accomplishments of the penny-per-ounce tax in a phone interview. After it took effect in March 2015, residents drank less sugary drinks and more water, milk and other healthier beverages; average consumer grocery bills did not rise, despite soda company warnings; local store revenue did not, as tax opponents predicted, fall; and the tax raised money for health-education programs.

Berkeley voters levied the tax on soda and other sugary drinks to try to curb consumption and stem the epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Similar taxes have been levied around the globe – from Mexico to Colombia, France and South Africa.

Last year, other U.S. municipalities – including Philadelphia, San Francisco, Oakland and Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago – approved laws to tax sugary beverages.

The new study, reported in PLoS Medicine, evaluated changes in beverage sales in Berkeley during the tax’s first year. Sugar-sweetened drink sales fell 9.6 percent compared to predicted sales without the tax, while sales of untaxed beverages, like water and milk, rose 3.5 percent.

“The findings suggest that sugary-drink taxes make health and economic sense,” Silver said.

Proponents of soda taxes hailed the study as evidence of their effectiveness.

Michael F. Jacobson, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C., called the tax “a huge public-health victory.” He urged policymakers and voters in cities and counties without soda taxes to review the study and press for similar measures.

“This study won’t stop Big Soda from claiming that taxes don’t work,” said Jacobson, who was not involved with the research. “But if soda taxes didn’t make a significant dent in soda consumption, the industry wouldn’t be fighting taxes so hard.”

The American Beverage Association, which represents Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, said in a statement that the new “study acknowledges that taxes do not demonstrate a meaningful reduction in obesity rates.”

Silver called the trade group’s statement “simply false.” Her study did not attempt to judge the tax’s impact on obesity and diabetes rates.

“The soda tax did what it set out to do, which was to lower the sales of sugar-sweetened beverages and to increase consumption of healthier beverages,” she said.

“Our current obesity and diabetes rates are the result of decades of intensive marketing and growing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and other unhealthy foods,” she said. “It is far too soon to assess the impact of the tax on obesity and diabetes rates.”

Silver said that when she was training to become a pediatrician in the 1980s, she never saw a child with type 2 diabetes, which used to be called adult-onset diabetes. Today, she regularly sees children with type 2 diabetes.

She has watched mothers in clinic waiting rooms feeding their toddlers baby bottles filled with soda, she added.

Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association, said the study confirmed evidence from previous studies of the benefits of soda taxes, and she urged the beverage industry to embrace the taxes.

“Spending millions to fight local citizens working tirelessly to improve their community puts the beverage industry on the wrong side of health and history,” Brown, who was not involved with the study, said in a statement.

The American Beverage Association downplayed the significance of the new study, saying the unique demographic profile of the Northern California city of Berkeley makes it a “challenging place to determine the true impact of a beverage tax.”

Berkeley residents do tend to be higher income, better educated and drink less soda than residents of most other American cities. But Silver pointed out that her study’s findings mirrored those of another recent study of a soda tax in Mexico.

“In fact,” she said, “we saw an even greater decline in sugary-drink sales in Berkeley in the first year, in spite of Berkeley’s relative prosperity.”

Continue reading the full article on Reuters.

This study was also picked up by many other media outlets:

Originally published by Reuters

More Updates

Work With Us

You change the world. We do the rest. Explore fiscal sponsorship at PHI.

Bring Your Work to PHI

Support Us

Together, we can accelerate our response to public health’s most critical issues.


Find Employment

Begin your career at the Public Health Institute.

See Jobs

Aerial view of wildfire smoke


Wildfires & Extreme Heat: Resources to Protect Yourself & Your Community

Communities across the U.S. and around the world are grappling with dangerous wildfires and extreme heat. These threats disrupt and uproot communities and pose serious risks to environmental and community health—from rising temperatures, unhealthy air pollutants, water contamination and more. Find PHI tools, resources and examples to help communities take action and promote climate safety, equity and resiliency.

Get started

Continue to