Sustained Impact of the Philadelphia Beverage Tax on Beverage Prices and Sales Over 2 Years

Published:February 24, 2022DOI:


      It is unclear whether changes in beverage price and sales after beverage tax implementation can be sustained long term. This study aims to quantify the changes in beverage prices and sales in large retailers 2 years after the implementation of the 1.5 cents per ounce Philadelphia beverage tax.


      Data on price and volume sales of beverages and potential food substitutes were collected from 109 supermarkets, 45 mass merchandizers, and 350 pharmacies in Philadelphia, Baltimore (control), and Pennsylvania ZIP codes bordering Philadelphia (to investigate potential cross-border shopping for tax avoidance). Difference-in-differences analyses compared beverage prices and volume sales in the year before tax implementation (2016) to 2 years after (2018). Data were analyzed in 2020–2021.


      Difference-in-differences analyses found that after tax implementation, taxed beverage prices in Philadelphia increased by 1.02 cents per ounce (95% CI=0.94, 1.11; 68% pass through), and taxed beverage volume sales in stores decreased by 50% (95% CI=36%, 61%). After accounting for cross-border shopping, taxed beverage volume sales decreased in Philadelphia by 35% in 2018. Volume sales of nontaxed beverages did not change after tax implementation (difference-in-differences=4%, 95% CI= −3%, 12%). Volume sales of nontaxed beverage concentrates increased on average by 34% (95% CI=19%, 51%), but there was no evidence of substitution to high-calorie foods.


      There was a large reduction in taxed beverage volume sales 2 years after Philadelphia tax implementation, even after accounting for cross-border shopping. Increases in nontaxed beverage concentrate sales likely partially offset this decline, but there was no evidence of post-tax food substitution.
      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 VS
        • Hu FB.
        Sugar-sweetened beverages and cardiometabolic health: an update of the evidence.
        Nutrients. 2019; 11: 1840
        • Te Morenga L
        • Mallard S
        • Mann J
        Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies.
        BMJ. 2013; 346: e7492
        • Krieger J
        • Bleich SN
        • Scarmo S
        • Ng SW.
        Sugar-sweetened beverage reduction policies: progress and promise.
        Annu Rev Public Health. 2021; 42: 439-461
        • Seiler S
        • Tuchman A
        • Yao S.
        The impact of soda taxes: pass-through, tax avoidance, and nutritional effects.
        J Mark Res. 2021; 58: 22-49
        • Falbe J
        • Lee MM
        • Kaplan S
        • Rojas NA
        • Ortega Hinojosa AM
        • Madsen KA
        Higher sugar-sweetened beverage retail prices after excise taxes in Oakland and San Francisco.
        Am J Public Health. 2020; 110: 1017-1023
        • Powell LM
        • Leider J
        • Léger PT.
        The impact of the Cook County, IL, sweetened beverage tax on beverage prices.
        Econ Hum Biol. 2020; 37100855
        • Powell LM
        • Leider J.
        The impact of Seattle's sweetened beverage tax on beverage prices and volume sold.
        Econ Hum Biol. 2020; 37100856
        • Léger PT
        • Powell LM.
        The impact of the Oakland SSB tax on prices and volume sold: a study of intended and unintended consequences.
        Health Econ. 2021; 30: 1745-1771
        • Powell LM
        • Leider J
        • Léger PT.
        The impact of a sweetened beverage tax on beverage volume sold in Cook County, Illinois, and its border area.
        Ann Intern Med. 2020; 172: 390-397
        • City of Philadelphia
        Chapter 19. 4100 of the Philadelphia Code. Bill No. 160176: Sugar-sweetened beverage tax.
        City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA2016 (Published June 2016. Accessed December 2, 2021)
        • Roberto CA
        • Lawman HG
        • LeVasseur MT
        • et al.
        Association of a beverage tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages with changes in beverage prices and sales at chain retailers in a large urban setting.
        JAMA. 2019; 321: 1799-1810
        • Gibson LA
        • Lawman HG
        • Bleich SN
        • et al.
        No evidence of food or alcohol substitution in response to a sweetened beverage tax.
        Am J Prev Med. 2021; 60: e49-e57
        • Long MW
        • Gortmaker SL
        • Ward ZJ
        • et al.
        Cost effectiveness of a sugar-sweetened beverage excise tax in the U.S.
        Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49: 112-123
        • Ruff RR
        • Zhen C.
        Estimating the effects of a calorie-based sugar-sweetened beverage tax on weight and obesity in New York City adults using dynamic loss models.
        Ann Epidemiol. 2015; 25: 350-357
        • Drouin-Chartier JP
        • Zheng Y
        • Li Y
        • et al.
        Changes in consumption of sugary beverages and artificially sweetened beverages and subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three large prospective U.S. cohorts of women and men.
        Diabetes Care. 2019; 42: 2181-2189
        • 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: 564-571
        • Willett W.
        Reproducibility and validity of food frequency questionnaires.
        Nutritional Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom2012: 96-141
      1. QuickFacts: Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. United States Census Bureau. Updated December 10, 2020. Accessed November 3, 2021.

      2. QuickFacts: Baltimore city (County), Maryland. United States Census Bureau. Updated December 10, 2020. Accessed November 3, 2021.

      3. Muth MK, Sweitzer M, Brown D, et al. Understanding IRI household-based and store-based scanner data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Published April 2016. Accessed December 2, 2021.

      4. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. North American industry classification system. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. Published 2017. Accessed December 2, 2021.

        • Wing C
        • Simon K
        • Bello-Gomez RA.
        Designing difference in difference studies: best practices for public health policy research.
        Annu Rev Public Health. 2018; 39: 453-469
        • Benjamini Y
        • Hochberg Y.
        Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.
        J R Stat Soc B. 1995; 57 (Accessed January 25, 2022.): 289-300
      5. Frequently asked questions (FAQ) for the sweetened beverage tax of Berkeley, CA. City of Berkeley. Updated December 30, 2017. Accessed January 4, 2022.

      6. Sugary drinks tax. Treasurer & Tax Collector. Updated May 11, 2021. Accessed January 4, 2022.

      7. Chapter 4.52.030 of the Oakland municipal code. City of Oakland. Updated October 28, 2021. Accessed February 18, 2022.

      8. Act 39 of 2016. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Updated July 29, 2016. Accessed January 4, 2022.

        • Cawley J
        • Frisvold D
        • Jones D.
        The impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on purchases: evidence from four city-level taxes in the United States.
        Health Econ. 2020; 29: 1289-1306
        • Stacey N
        • Edoka I
        • Hofman K
        • Swart EC
        • Popkin B
        • Ng SW.
        Changes in beverage purchases following the announcement and implementation of South Africa's Health Promotion Levy: an observational study.
        Lancet Planet Health. 2021; 5: e200-e208
        • Cawley J
        • Thow AM
        • Wen K
        • Frisvold D.
        The economics of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: a review of the effects on prices, sales, cross-border shopping, and consumption.
        Annu Rev Nutr. 2019; 39: 317-338
        • Bleich SN
        • Lawman HG
        • LeVasseur MT
        • et al.
        The association of a sweetened beverage tax with changes in beverage prices and purchases at independent stores.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2020; 39: 1130-1139
        • Bleich SN
        • Dunn CG
        • Soto MJ
        • et al.
        Association of a sweetened beverage tax with purchases of beverages and high-sugar foods at independent stores in Philadelphia.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4e2113527
        • Zhong Y
        • Auchincloss AH
        • Lee BK
        • McKenna RM
        • Langellier BA.
        Sugar-sweetened and diet beverage consumption in Philadelphia one year after the beverage tax.
        Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 1336
        • Cawley J
        • Frisvold D
        • Hill A
        • Jones D.
        The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on purchases and consumption by adults and children.
        J Health Econ. 2019; 67102225