Do soda taxes decrease obesity? Probably not.
Credit: Mohamad Babayan / Unsplash

Do soda taxes decrease obesity? Probably not.

The data linking soda taxes to beneficial health outcomes is far murkier than media reports suggest.

Taxes alter consumer behavior.?The?more?something is taxed, the less of it we get. Knowing this, governments use taxes to encourage or discourage behavior. For instance, cigarette taxes?were?an important tool in decreasing the prevalence of smoking.

Now, governments are trying to address the obesity epidemic using the same strategy. In recent years, “soda taxes” have become a popular policy option. Do they work?

The data is mixed. A?review paper?published in 2023 along with a subsequent?summary article?published in?Knowable?Magazine in February 2024 found no conclusive evidence that taxes on “sugar-sweetened beverages” changed consumer behavior in any meaningful way. They cite the?example of Philadelphia, which implemented one such tax and witnessed a drop in demand of 46%. This would be impressive if it wasn’t for the fact that most consumers either switched to another (also unhealthy) beverage or simply left the city limits when they wanted to purchase a soda.

Soda-less in Seattle

Would the outcome be any better in Seattle? A?new study?just published in?JAMA?Network?Open?sought to determine if Seattle’s tax had a tangible impact on public health. Media outlets (like?here?and?here) that reported on the research concluded yes. But none of them took the time to critically analyze the data?— and it?paints a much murkier picture than the media is reporting.

The study was well done and data intensive. It followed children aged 2 to 18 who lived in Seattle (where the soda tax was implemented on January 1, 2018) or in?urban?areas outside Seattle (where there was no soda tax) over the course of a few years to determine if the tax resulted in a decrease in body mass index (BMI).

BMI is a tricky statistic, especially when the analysis involves growing children who are supposed to gain weight as they get older. In part to account for this, the authors relied on a similar but difficult-to-understand metric called BMIp95.?

A child?is considered overweight or obese if their BMI is?at the 95th percentile or above for?their age, height, and sex. For example, consider a 5’10”,?16-year-old boy. The 95th percentile for BMI is 27.6, which converts to a weight of 192 pounds. So, any 5’10”, 16-year-old boy who is 192 pounds or heavier is considered overweight or obese. (Here is a?BMI calculator.)

To determine the BMIp95, the authors calculated BMIs for all the children, and then divided their BMIs by the 95th percentile?for their respective age, height, and sex. If a 5’10”, 16-year-old boy weighed 155 pounds, his BMI is 22.3. Because the 95th percentile for that age, height, and sex cohort has a BMI of 27.6, then this child’s BMIp95 = 22.3 / 27.6 = 81%.

In this way, the authors determined the BMIp95 for Seattle and the surrounding areas both before and after the tax was implemented.?(See table below.)?They?found that?BMIp95 dropped from 84% pre-tax to 82% post-tax in Seattle (green highlights), while BMIp95 only dropped from 86% to 85% (yellow highlights) in the surrounding (non-taxed) area. Therefore, in the authors’ opinion, the tax worked. And that’s what the media reported.

Source

But hold on. Notice the numbers highlighted in pink, which represent the prevalence of childhood obesity. That number?increased?from 8.9% pre-tax to 9.8% post-tax in Seattle. Similarly, it increased from 14% to 16% outside Seattle. What is going on? How can BMIp95 be decreasing while overall obesity is increasing?

A murky picture

I contacted the authors, who very graciously explained their data and provided additional figures.?The one below, which represents Seattle (and which I edited to include a red arrow), shows how BMIp95 changed after the tax.

Courtesy of the authors

Dr. Jessica Jones-Smith explained that while the overall BMIp95 curve shifted leftward / lower after the tax, there was a small group of children (red arrow) that shifted rightward / upward. In other words, while the population?as a whole lost?weight (represented by the drop in BMIp95), a small number got heavier?(represented by the increase in obesity?prevalence).

Let’s go back to our example 5’10”, 16-year-old boy. If he has a BMIp95 of 84% (which is the pre-tax Seattle BMIp95), then he weighs 161 pounds.?One year later, at age 17, the BMI 95th percentile for 5’10” boys (assuming he didn’t grow in height) is 28.3, or 197 pounds. If his BMIp95 fell to 82% (which is the post-tax Seattle BMIp95), then he stayed the same weight (161 pounds) as opposed to?weighing 166 pounds.?

Is this clinically significant? Dr. Jones-Smith says yes. I’m not so sure.

There are two other issues. First, a drop in BMIp95 also occurred outside the city of Seattle, suggesting that factors other than a soda tax are at play. While the decrease in Seattle was larger, it was?not?substantially so. (A statistically significant difference is not necessarily a meaningful one.)

Second, and more importantly, the entire point of the soda tax is to decrease obesity, not BMI. This is an important distinction. A child with a healthy BMI doesn’t need to lose weight, but an obese child does. Yet, the prevalence of obesity increased after the tax, which indicates to me that the policy failed.

Source: Jones-Smith JC et al, JAMA Network Open, 2024.

This article was originally published by the American Council on Science and Health .

Catherine G.

Ex TotalEnergies Global IT Services.

3 周

Sure it won’t. It would be large better to add taxes on all sodas, included at first all sodas with substitute and lot of added instead of real sugar.

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Alex Berezow, PhD, MBA, MWC的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了