The Short-Term Impacts of the Philadelphia Beverage Tax on Beverage Consumption


      On January 1, 2017, Philadelphia implemented a beverage tax of $0.015/ounce on sugar (“regular”) and sugar-substitute (“diet”) beverages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the immediate impact of the tax on residents’ consumption of soda, fruit drinks, energy drinks, and bottled water.


      A repeat cross-sectional study design used data from a random-digit-dialing phone survey during a no-tax period (December 6–31, 2016) and a tax period (January 15–February 31, 2017) among 899 respondents in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 878 respondents in three nearby comparison cities. Survey questions included frequency and volume of bottled water and beverages. Outcomes were daily consumption, and 30-day consumption frequency and volume. Propensity score–weighted difference-in-differences regression was used to control for secular time trend and confounding. Covariates were sociodemographics, BMI, health status, smoking, and alcohol use. Analyses were conducted in 2017.


      Within the first 2 months of tax implementation, relative to the comparison cities, in Philadelphia the odds of daily consumption of regular soda was 40% lower (OR=0.6, 95% CI=0.37, 0.97); energy drink was 64% lower (OR=0.36, 95% CI=0.17, 0.76); bottled water was 58% higher (OR=1.58, 95% CI=1.13, 2.20); and the 30-day regular soda consumption frequency was 38% lower (ratio of consumption frequency=0.62, 95% CI=0.40, 0.98).


      Early results suggest that the tax influenced daily consumption of regular soda, energy drinks, and bottled water. Future studies are needed to evaluate longer-term impact of the tax on sugared beverage consumption and substitutions.
      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


        • Malik V.
        • Popkin B.
        • Bray G.
        • Després J.
        • Hu F.
        Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease risk.
        Circulation. 2010; 121: 1356-1364
        • Hu F.B.
        Resolved: there is sufficient scientific evidence that decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption will reduce the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases.
        Obes Rev. 2013; 14: 606-619
        • Woodward-Lopez G.
        • Kao J.
        • Ritchie L.
        To what extent have sweetened beverages contributed to the obesity epidemic?.
        Public Health Nutr. 2011; 14: 499-509
        • Piernas C.
        • Ng S.W.
        • Mendez M.A.
        • Gordon-Larsen P.
        • Popkin B.M.
        A dynamic panel model of the associations of sweetened beverage purchases with dietary quality and food-purchasing patterns.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2015; 181: 661-671
        • Brownell K.D.
        • Frieden T.R.
        Ounces of prevention—the public policy case for taxes on sugared beverages.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1805-1808
        • Brownell K.D.
        • Farley T.
        • Willett W.C.
        • et al.
        The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 1599-1605
      1. Glickman D. Parker L. Sim L.J. Del Valle Cook H. Miller E.A. Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation. National Academies Press, Washington, DC2012
        • Purtle J.
        • Langellier B.
        • Le-Scherban F.
        A case study of the Philadelphia sugar-sweetened beverage tax policymaking process: implications for policy development and advocacy.
        J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018; 24: 4-8
        • Fletcher J.M.
        • Frisvold D.
        • Tefft N.
        Can soft drink taxes reduce population weight?.
        Contemp Econ Policy. 2010; 28: 23-35
      2. City of Philadelphia. Philadelphia Beverage Tax. Published 2017. Accessed January 5, 2017.

        • Falbe J.
        • Thompson H.R.
        • Becker C.M.
        • Rojas N.
        • McCulloch C.E.
        • Madsen K.A.
        Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption.
        Am J Public Health. 2016; 106: 1865-1871
        • Colchero M.A.
        • Popkin B.M.
        • Rivera J.A.
        • Ng S.W.
        Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study.
        BMJ. 2016; 352: h6704
      3. Hinton R, Svachula A. Soda taxes popping up around the U.S. Chicago Sun-Times. July 23, 2017. Accessed September 16, 2017.

      4. Brady N. Boulder begins taxing sugar sweetened drinks—Denver7 Published July 1, 2017. Accessed December 7, 2017.

      5. The soda tax: will your favorite beverage cost more? Infographics. Published 2017.

        • Azad M.B.
        • Abou-Setta A.M.
        • Chauhan B.F.
        • et al.
        Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies.
        Can Med Assoc J. 2017; 189: E929-E939
        • Chia C.W.
        • Shardell M.
        • Tanaka T.
        • et al.
        Chronic low-calorie sweetener use and risk of abdominal obesity among older adults: a cohort study.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0167241
        • Pase M.P.
        • Himali J.J.
        • Beiser A.S.
        • et al.
        Sugar- and artificially sweetened beverages and the risks of incident stroke and dementia: a prospective cohort study.
        Stroke. 2017; 48: 1139-1146
        • Salmon C.T.
        • Nichols J.S.
        The next-birthday method of respondent selection.
        Public Opin Q. 1983; 47: 270
      6. Czajka JL, Beyler A. Declining response rates in federal surveys: trends and implications (background paper). Mathematica Policy Research. Published 2016. Accessed September 4, 2017.

        • Qayad M.G.
        • Pierannunzi C.
        • Chowdhury P.P.
        • Hu S.
        • Town G.M.
        • Balluz L.S.
        Landline and cell phone response measures in Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
        Surv Pract. 2013; 6: 1-11
      7. AAPOR. Standard Definitions (Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Survey). Published 2008. Accessed November 1, 2016.

        • Hedrick V.E.
        • Savla J.
        • Comber D.L.
        • et al.
        Development of a brief questionnaire to assess habitual beverage intake (BEVQ-15): sugar-sweetened beverages and total beverage energy intake.
        J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012; 112: 840-849
        • Kondaki K.
        • Grammatikaki E.
        • Jiménez-Pavón D.
        • et al.
        Daily sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and insulin resistance in European adolescents: the HELENA (Healthy Lifestyle in Europe by Nutrition in Adolescence) Study.
        Public Health Nutr. 2013; 16: 479-486
        • Malik V.S.
        • Popkin B.M.
        • Bray G.A.
        • Despres J.P.
        • Willett W.C.
        • Hu F.B.
        Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis.
        Diabetes Care. 2010; 33: 2477-2481
        • Schulze M.B.
        • Manson J.E.
        • Ludwig D.S.
        • et al.
        Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women.
        JAMA. 2004; 292: 927
        • Hill J.O.
        Can a small-changes approach help address the obesity epidemic? A report of the joint task force of the American Society for Nutrition, Institute of Food Technologists, and International Food Information Council.
        Am J Clin Nutr. 2009; 89: 477-484
        • Hall K.D.
        • Sacks G.
        • Chandramohan D.
        • et al.
        Quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight.
        Lancet. 2011; 378: 826-837
      8. DHHS-SAMHSA. 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health 2015 (NSDUH-2015-DS0001). U.S. DHHS, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Published 2015. Accessed November 1, 2016.

      9. DHHS-CDC. 2015 National Adult Tobacco Survey Questionnaire, 2013-2014 (NATS). Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Published 2015. Accessed November 1, 2016.

      10. U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2009–2015). Accessed September 5, 2017.

      11. Goins-Phillips T. Philly mayor accuses businesses of “price gouging” after implementing new soda tax. The Blaze. January 12, 2017.

        • Stuart E.A.
        • Huskamp H.A.
        • Duckworth K.
        • et al.
        Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change.
        Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2014; 14: 166-182
        • Austin P.C.
        Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.
        Stat Med. 2009; 28: 3083-3107
        • Rodriguez G.
        Models for count data with overdispersion.
        Princet Stat. 2013; : 1-7
      12. NIH. Drinking Levels Defined. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

        • Colchero M.A.
        • Salgado J.C.
        • Unar-Munguía M.
        • Hernández-Ávila M.
        • Rivera-Dommarco J.A.
        Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico.
        Econ Hum Biol. 2015; 19: 129-137
        • Silver L.D.
        • Ng S.W.
        • Ryan-Ibarra S.
        • et al.
        Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, U.S.: a before-and-after study.
        PLoS Med. 2017; 14: e1002283
        • Lora K.R.
        • Davy B.
        • Hedrick V.
        • Ferris A.M.
        • Anderson M.P.
        • Wakefield D.
        Assessing initial validity and reliability of a beverage intake questionnaire in Hispanic preschool-aged children.
        J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016; 116: 1951-1960
        • Riebl S.K.
        • Paone A.C.
        • Hedrick V.E.
        • Zoellner J.M.
        • Estabrooks P.A.
        • Davy B.M.
        The comparative validity of interactive multimedia questionnaires to paper-administered questionnaires for beverage intake and physical activity: pilot study.
        JMIR Res Protoc. 2013; 2: e40
        • Park S.
        • Xu F.
        • Town M.
        • Blanck H.M.
        Prevalence of sugar-sweetened beverage intake among adults—23 states and the District of Columbia, 2013.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016; 65: 169-174
        • Drewnowski A.
        • Rehm C.D.
        • Constant F.
        Water and beverage consumption among adults in the United States: cross-sectional study using data from NHANES 2005–2010.
        BMC Public Health. 2013; 13: 1068
        • Cawley J.
        • Frisvold D.
        The incidence of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: the case of Berkeley, California.
        Natl Bur Econ Res. 2015; (Working paper 21465)
        • Grogger J.
        Soda taxes and the prices of sodas and other drinks: evidence from Mexico.
        Am J Agric Econ. 2017; 99: 481-498
        • Falbe J.
        • Rojas N.
        • Grummon A.H.
        • Madsen K.A.
        Higher retail prices of sugar-sweetened beverages 3 months after implementation of an excise tax in Berkeley, California.
        Am J Public Health. 2015; 105: 2194-2201