Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

Results from a 2011 National Public Opinion Survey


      Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages including nondiet sodas, sport drinks, and energy drinks has been linked with obesity. Recent state and local efforts to tax these beverages have been unsuccessful. Enactment will be unlikely without public support, yet little research is available to assess how to effectively make the case for such taxes.


      The objectives were to assess public opinion about arguments used commonly in tax debates regarding sugar-sweetened beverages and to assess differences in public opinion by respondents' political party affiliation.


      A public opinion survey was fielded in January–March 2011 using a probability-based sample of respondents from a large, nationally representative online panel to examine public attitudes about nine pro- and eight anti-tax arguments. These data were analyzed in August 2011.


      Findings indicated greater public agreement with anti- than pro-tax arguments. The most popular anti-tax argument was that a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is arbitrary because it does not affect consumption of other unhealthy foods (60%). A majority also agreed that such taxes were a quick way for politicians to fill budget holes (58%); an unacceptable intrusion of government into people's lives (53.8%); opposed by most Americans (53%); and harmful to the poor (51%). No pro-tax arguments were endorsed by a majority of the public. Respondents reported highest agreement with the argument that sugar-sweetened beverages were the single largest contributor to obesity (49%) and would raise revenue for obesity prevention (41%).


      Without bolstering public support for existing pro-tax messages or developing alternative pro-tax messages, enacting such policies will be difficult. Message-framing studies could be useful in identifying promising strategies for persuading Americans that taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages are warranted.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Ludwig D.S.
        • Peterson K.E.
        • Gortmaker S.L.
        Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis.
        Lancet. 2001; 357: 505-508
        • Vartanian L.R.
        • Schwartz M.B.
        • Brownell K.D.
        Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Am J Public Health. 2007; 97: 667-675
        • Forshee R.A.
        • Anderson P.A.
        • Storey M.L.
        Sugar-sweetened beverages and body mass index in children and adolescents: a metaanalysis.
        Am J Clin Nutr. 2008; 87: 1662-1671
        • Brownell K.D.
        • Friedan T.R.
        Ounces of prevention—the public policy case for taxes on sugared beverages.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1805-1808
        • Sturm R.
        • Powell L.M.
        • Chriqui J.F.
        • Chaloupka F.J.
        Soda taxes, soft drink consumption, and children's body mass index.
        Health Aff. 2010; 29: 1052-1058
        • Ebbeling C.B.
        • Feldman H.A.
        • Osganian S.K.
        • et al.
        Effects of decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption on body weight in adolescents: a randomized, controlled pilot study.
        Pediatrics. 2006; 117: 673-680
        • James J.
        • Thomas P.
        • Cavan D.
        • Kerr D.
        Preventing childhood obesity by reducing consumption of carbonated drinks: cluster randomised controlled trial.
        Br Med J. 2004; 328: 1237
        • Chriqui J.F.
        • Eidson S.S.
        • Bates H.
        • et al.
        State sales tax rates for soft drinks and snacks sold through grocery stores and vending machines.
        J Public Health Pol. 2008; 29: 226-249
        • Powell L.M.
        • Chriqui J.F.
        • Chaloupka F.J.
        Associations between state-level soda taxes and adolescent body mass index.
        J Adolesc Health. 2009; 45: S57-S63
        • Fletcher J.M.
        • Frisvold D.
        • Tefft N.
        Taxing soft drinks and restricting access to vending machines to curb child obesity.
        Health Aff. 2010; 29: 1059-1066
        • Fletcher J.M.
        • Frisvold D.
        • Tefft N.
        Can soft drink taxes reduce population weight?.
        Contemp Econ Policy. 2010; 28: 23-35
        • Schroeter C.
        • Lusk J.
        • Tyner W.
        Determining the impact of food price and income changes on body weight.
        J Health Econ. 2008; 27: 45-68
        • Finkelstein E.A.
        • Zhen C.
        • Nonnemaker J.
        • Todd J.E.
        Impact of targeted beverage taxes on higher- and lower-income households.
        Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170: 2028-2034
        • Powell L.M.
        • Chaloupka F.J.
        Food prices and obesity: evidence and policy implications for taxes and subsidies.
        Milbank Q. 2009; 87: 229-257
        • Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity
        Sugar-sweetened beverage tax legislative maps.
        • Jacobs L.
        • Shapiro R.
        Politicians don't pander: political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness.
        in: University of Chicago Press, Chicago2000
        • Stimson J.A.
        Tides of consent: how public opinion shapes American politics.
        in: Cambridge University Press, New York2004
        • Stimson J.A.
        • MacKuen M.B.
        • Erikson R.S.
        Dynamic representation.
        Am Polit Sci Rev. 1995; 89: 543-565
      1. Quinnapiac public opinion poll.
        • Kaiser Family Foundation
        Public opinion poll.
      2. Mississippi public opinion poll.
        • California Center for Public Health Advocacy
        Public opinion poll.
      3. Philadelphia public opinion poll.
      4. Public opinion poll.
        • Harris Interactive
        The Harris Poll, no. 73.
        Adweek Media, 2010, Jun 2
        • 2011 Vermont sugar-sweetened beverage tax study
        • Fiske S.T.
        • Taylor S.E.
        Social cognition.
        in: McGraw Hill, New York1991
        • Iyengar S.
        Is anyone responsible?.
        in: University of Chicago Press, Chicago1991
        • Nelson T.E.
        • Clawson R.A.
        • Oxley Z.M.
        Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance.
        Am Polit Sci Rev. 1997; 91: 567-583
        • Entman R.M.
        Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.
        J Commun. 1993; 43: 51-58
        • Baumgartner F.R.
        • Jones B.D.
        Agendas and instability in American politics.
        in: University of Chicago Press, Chicago1993
      5. Niederdeppe J, Gollust SE, Barry CL. News coverage of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: pro- and anti-tax arguments in public discourse. Am J Public Health: In press.

      Linked Article

      • Talking About Sugar Sweetened–Beverage Taxes: Will Actions Speak Louder Than Words?
        American Journal of Preventive MedicineVol. 44Issue 2
        • Preview
          In this issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Colleen Barry and her colleagues1 present results from a national public opinion survey assessing the level of support for arguments commonly used in public debate about instituting taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. Many in public health want to learn what will persuade the public to support taxing sugary beverages because they are eager to mimic the success in tobacco control, where increasing excise taxes on cigarettes is the single most effective way to reduce consumption, especially among youth.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF