Authors : Dr. Jayadeepthana Premaratnam; Dr. Andrew Harmer

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 9 - September

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/yekfc59j

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/yb8bzkff

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25sep469

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Background: Many fiscal policies have been implemented worldwide to reduce SSB consumption due to the health implications surrounding SSBs. These usually comprise a tax on soft drinks with added sugar, but the design and structure of the tax vary across jurisdictions. As part of measures to tackle childhood obesity, in 2016, the UK government announced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), which came into effect in 2018. The main aim of the levy was to incentivise producers to reformulate their drinks to contain less added sugar. The SDIL was unique in its design as it adopted a two-tiered tax rate based on the sugar concentration of the drinks and a two-year gap between its announcement and implementation.  Aim: To provide an up-to-date understanding of the positive and negative impacts of the tax on producer and consumer behaviours and recognise the aspects of the policy which contributed to these outcomes.  Objectives: Firstly, perform a literature review to identify the impact of the SDIL on purchasing and consumption of SSBs and industry responses to the levy. Next, discuss how the SDIL influenced the behaviours of producers and consumers based on the results of the literature review. Then, explore what aspects of the levy contributed to these changes. Finally, provide recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the SDIL.  Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted. The electronic databases Google Scholar, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched for relevant literature, which was then screened for inclusion using the eligibility criteria. Data from the ten eligible studies were extracted and summarised in tabular form, which highlighted the study aim, methodology, study period, main outcomes, major findings, and limitations of the chosen studies. This table was then used alongside notes made on the individual studies to identify and group the key outcomes within the literature, which were then organised and presented as a textual description.  Results: A total of six outcomes were explored in the ten chosen studies. These were changes in sales of soft drinks following the levy, reformulation activities, changes to sugar purchased through SSBs, pricing changes, and changes in domestic turnover of soft drinks companies. The review revealed that the SDIL led to a reduction in sales of taxed drinks and an increase in sales of untaxed drinks. The overall volume of sugar purchased through SSBs decreased. Reformulation was the most common industrial response to the SDIL. Some companies responded with price increases on taxed and diet/no sugar products, but consumers were unresponsive to pricing changes.  Conclusion: The SDIL was successful in reducing sugar consumption from SSBs. Reformulation by industry contributed more to this outcome than consumer behaviour changes. The tiered design, clear threshold to avoid tax, and the two-year gap between announcement and implementation of levy accelerated the reformulation responses. The research concluded that the SDIL would benefit public health without harming the UK soft drinks industry. However, multiple interventions need to be pursued simultaneously to the SDIL to reduce the health impacts of SSB consumption.

References :

1. Alhareky M. Taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages and its impact on dental caries: A narrative review. Saudi Journal of Medicine & Medical Sciences. 2021;9(2):113.
2. Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review–. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2006;84(2):274-88.
3. Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Després J-P, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease risk. Circulation. 2010;121(11):1356-64.
4. Malik VS, Li Y, Pan A, De Koning L, Schernhammer E, Willett WC, et al. Long-term consumption of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages and risk of mortality in US adults. Circulation. 2019;139(18):2113-25.
5. Brownell KD, Farley T, Willett WC, Popkin BM, Chaloupka FJ, Thompson JW, et al. The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. Mass Medical Soc; 2009. p. 1599-605.
6. Ruanpeng D, Thongprayoon C, Cheungpasitporn W, Harindhanavudhi T. Sugar and artificially sweetened beverages linked to obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine. 2017;110(8):513-20.
7. Qin P, Li Q, Zhao Y, Chen Q, Sun X, Liu Y, et al. Sugar and artificially sweetened beverages and risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and all-cause mortality: a dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. European journal of epidemiology. 2020;35(7):655-71.
8. James J, Thomas P, Cavan D, Kerr D. Preventing childhood obesity by reducing consumption of carbonated drinks: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328(7450):1237.
9. Lavin R, Timpson H. Exploring the acceptability of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: brief evidence review. Liverpool: Centre for Public Health Liverpool John Moores University. 2013.
10. Tedstone A, Targett V, Allen R. Sugar reduction: the evidence for action. Sugar reduction: the evidence for action. 2015.
11. UK Government. The Soft Drinks Industry Levy Regulations 2018: GOV.UK; 2018 [Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/41/contents/made.
12. HM Revenue and Customs. Policy paper - Soft Drinks Industry Levy: Gov.uk; 2016 [Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/soft-drinks-industry-levy/soft-drinks-industry-levy#further-information.
13. HM Treasury. Soft Drinks Industry Levy comes into effect 2018 [The 'Sugar Tax' will help to reduce sugar in soft drinks and tackle childhood obesity.]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drinks-industry-levy-comes-into-effect.
14. HM Revenue and Customs. Guidance - Check if your drink is liable for the Soft Drinks Industry Levy: GOV.UK; 2018 [Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-your-drink-is-liable-for-the-soft-drinks-industry-levy.
15. Haavio M, Kotakorpi K. The political economy of sin taxes. European Economic Review. 2011;55(4):575-94.
16. Colchero MA, Salgado JC, Unar-Munguía M, Molina M, Ng S, Rivera-Dommarco JA. Changes in prices after an excise tax to sweetened sugar beverages was implemented in Mexico: evidence from urban areas. PloS one. 2015;10(12):e0144408.
17. Goiana-da-Silva F, Cruz-e-Silva D, Gregório MJ, Miraldo M, Darzi A, Araújo F. The future of the sweetened beverages tax in Portugal. The Lancet Public Health. 2018;3(12):e562.
18. Capacci S, Allais O, Bonnet C, Mazzocchi M. The impact of the French soda tax on prices and purchases. An ex post evaluation. PloS one. 2019;14(10):e0223196.
19. Caro JC, Corvalán C, Reyes M, Silva A, Popkin B, Taillie LS. Chile’s 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax and changes in prices and purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages: An observational study in an urban environment. PLoS medicine. 2018;15(7):e1002597.
20. Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on prices and product availability. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2020;39(3):605-28.
21. Cawley J, Frisvold D. The incidence of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: the case of Berkeley, California. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2015.
22. Royo-Bordonada MÁ, Fernández-Escobar C, Gil-Bellosta CJ, Ordaz E. Effect of excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Catalonia, Spain, three and a half years after its introduction. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2022;19(1):1-11.
23. Etilé F, Lecocq S, Boizot-Szantai C. The Incidence of Soft-Drink Taxes on Consumer Prices and Welfare: Evidence from the French" Soda Tax". 2018.
24. Backholer K, Blake M, Vandevijvere S. Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: an update on the year that was 2017. Public health nutrition. 2017;20(18):3219-24.
25. Colchero MA, Popkin BM, Rivera JA, Ng SW. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. bmj. 2016;352.
26. Chaloupka FJ, Powell LM, Warner KE. The use of excise taxes to reduce tobacco, alcohol, and sugary beverage consumption. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40(1):187-201.
27. Madsen KA, Krieger J, Morales X. Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: emerging evidence on a new public health policy. Jama. 2019;321(18):1777-9.
28. Briggs ADM, Mytton OT, Kehlbacher A, Tiffin R, Elhussein A, Rayner M, et al. Health impact assessment of the UK soft drinks industry levy: a comparative risk assessment modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(1):e15-e22.
29. Veerman L. The impact of sugared drink taxation and industry response. The Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(1):e2-e3.
30. Cabrera Escobar MA, Veerman JL, Tollman SM, Bertram MY, Hofman KJ. Evidence that a tax on sugar sweetened beverages reduces the obesity rate: a meta-analysis. BMC public health. 2013;13(1):1-10.
31. Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Khan T, Wada R, Chaloupka FJ. Assessing the potential effectiveness of food and beverage taxes and subsidies for improving public health: a systematic review of prices, demand and body weight outcomes. Obesity reviews. 2013;14(2):110-28.
32. Andreyeva T, Long MW, Brownell KD. The impact of food prices on consumption: a systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food. American journal of public health. 2010;100(2):216-22.
33. Lean ME, Garcia AL, Gill T. Sugar taxation: a good start but not the place to finish. Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 435-6.
34. Tiffin R, Kehlbacher A, Salois M. The effects of a soft drink tax in the UK. Health Economics. 2015;24(5):583-600.
35. World Health Organization. Fiscal policies for diet and prevention of noncommunicable diseases: technical meeting report, 5-6 May 2015, Geneva, Switzerland. 2016.
36. Berger N, Cummins S, Allen A, Smith RD, Cornelsen L. Patterns of beverage purchases amongst British households: A latent class analysis. PLoS medicine. 2020;17(9):e1003245.
37. Langley K, Muirie J, Crawford F, Walsh D. Exploring the potential impact of sugar taxation on secondary school-age children and young people’s dietary intake: an evidence review. 2017.
38. Scarborough P, Adhikari V, Harrington RA, Elhussein A, Briggs A, Rayner M, et al. Impact of the announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy on sugar content, price, product size and number of available soft drinks in the UK, 2015-19: A controlled interrupted time series analysis. PLoS medicine. 2020;17(2):e1003025.
39. Goran MI, Ball GD, Cruz ML. Obesity and risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in children and adolescents. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2003;88(4):1417-27.
40. Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of planning education and research. 2019;39(1):93-112.
41. Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Lillie E, Perrier L, Horsley T, et al. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC medical research methodology. 2012;12(1):1-10.
42. Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of chiropractic medicine. 2006;5(3):101-17.
43. Bandy LK, Scarborough P, Harrington RA, Rayner M, Jebb SA. Reductions in sugar sales from soft drinks in the UK from 2015 to 2018. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):20.
44. Law C, Cornelsen L, Adams J, Pell D, Rutter H, White M, et al. The impact of UK soft drinks industry levy on manufacturers’ domestic turnover. Economics & Human Biology. 2020;37:100866.
45. Cornelsen L, Mytton OT, Adams J, Gasparrini A, Iskander D, Knai C, et al. Change in non-alcoholic beverage sales following a 10-pence levy on sugar-sweetened beverages within a national chain of restaurants in the UK: interrupted time series analysis of a natural experiment. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71(11):1107-12.
46. Dickson A, Gehrsitz M, Kemp J. Does a spoonful of sugar levy help the calories go down? An analysis of the UK soft drinks industry levy. 2021.
47. PHE. Sugar reduction - Report on progress between 2015 and 2019. 2020.
48. Chu BT, Irigaray CP, Hillier SE, Clegg ME. The sugar content of children’s and lunchbox beverages sold in the UK before and after the soft drink industry levy. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2020;74(4):598-603.
49. Hashem KM, He FJ, MacGregor GA. Labelling changes in response to a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2019;97(12):818.
50. Pell D, Mytton O, Penney TL, Briggs A, Cummins S, Penn-Jones C, et al. Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: controlled interrupted time series analysis. bmj. 2021;372.
51. Forde H, Penney TL, White M, Levy L, Greaves F, Adams J. Understanding Marketing Responses to a Tax on Sugary Drinks: A Qualitative Interview Study in the United Kingdom, 2019. 2022.
52. Johnston MP. Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries. 2017;3(3):619-26.
53. Smith E. Using secondary data in educational and social research: McGraw-Hill Education (UK); 2008.
54. Radey M. Secondary data analysis studies. The handbook of social work research methods. 2010:163-82.
55. Alshenqeeti H. Interviewing as a data collection method: A critical review. English linguistics research. 2014;3(1):39-45.
56. Simundic A-M. Bias in research. Biochemia medica. 2013;23(1):12-5.
57. Epstein LH, Jankowiak N, Nederkoorn C, Raynor HA, French SA, Finkelstein E. Experimental research on the relation between food price changes and food-purchasing patterns: a targeted review. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2012;95(4):789-809.
58. Sassi F, Belloni A, Capobianco C. The role of fiscal policies in health promotion. 2013.
59. Buckton CH, Patterson C, Hyseni L, Katikireddi SV, Lloyd-Williams F, Elliott-Green A, et al. The palatability of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: A content analysis of newspaper coverage of the UK sugar debate. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0207576.
60. Bridge G, Flint SW, Tench R. An exploration of the portrayal of the UK soft drinks industry levy in UK national newspapers. Public Health Nutr. 2020;23(17):3241-9.
61. Acton RB, Vanderlee L, Adams J, Kirkpatrick SI, Pedraza LS, Sacks G, et al. Tax awareness and perceived cost of sugar-sweetened beverages in four countries between 2017 and 2019: findings from the international food policy study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2022;19(1):1-18.
62. Gillison F, Grey E, Griffin T. Parents’ perceptions and responses to the UK soft drinks industry levy. Journal of nutrition education and behavior. 2020;52(6):626-31.
63. Álvarez-Sánchez C, Contento I, Jiménez-Aguilar A, Koch P, Gray HL, Guerra LA, et al. Does the Mexican sugar-sweetened beverage tax have a signaling effect? ENSANUT 2016. PloS one. 2018;13(8):e0199337.
64. Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. American journal of public health. 2016;106(10):1865-71.
65. Fletcher J. Soda taxes and substitution effects: will obesity be affected? Choices. 2011;26(316-2016-6589).
66. Enneking U, Neumann C, Henneberg S. How important intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decision. Food Quality and Preference. 2007;18(1):133-8.
67. Etilé F, Lecocq S, Boizot-Szantai C. Market heterogeneity and the distributional incidence of soft-drink taxes: evidence from France. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 2021;48(4):915-39.
68. Bonnet C, Villas-Boas SB. An analysis of asymmetric consumer price responses and asymmetric cost pass-through in the French coffee market. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 2016;43(5):781-804.
69. Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, Taillie LS, Induni M, Miles DR, et al. Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study. PLoS medicine. 2017;14(4):e1002283.
70. HM Revenue and Customs. Official Statistics - Soft Drinks Industry Levy statistics commentary 2021: Gov.uk; 2021 [Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/soft-drinks-industry-levy-statistics/soft-drinks-industry-levy-statistics-commentary-2021.
71. Dean J. Why we're committed to offering healthier eating options: ASDA; 2018 [Asda's senior nutritionist Julie Dean writes about the steps we're taking to reduce sugar from our own-brand products.]. Available from: https://corporate.asda.com/blog/2018/04/03/why-were-committed-to-offering-healthier-eating-options.
72. Tesco First to Take Action on Sugar: Action on Sugar; 2015 [Available from: https://www.actiononsugar.org/news-centre/press-releases/2015/items/tesco-first-to-take-action-on-sugar.html.
73. Adams J, Pell D, Penney TL, Hammond D, Vanderlee L, White M. Public acceptability of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: repeat cross-sectional analysis of the International Food Policy Study (2017-2019). BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e051677.
74. Cornelsen L, Quaife M, Lagarde M, Smith RD. Framing and signalling effects of taxes on sugary drinks: A discrete choice experiment among households in Great Britain. Health Economics. 2020;29(10):1132-47.
75. PHE. Salt Reduction Targets for 2017. 2017 March 2017.
76. Allcott H, Lockwood BB, Taubinsky D. Regressive sin taxes, with an application to the optimal soda tax. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2019;134(3):1557-626.
77. Harding M, Lovenheim M. The effect of prices on nutrition: comparing the impact of product-and nutrient-specific taxes. Journal of Health Economics. 2017;53:53-71.