Journal of Public Health Policy

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 403–423 | Cite as

A typology of beverage taxation: Multiple approaches for obesity prevention and obesity prevention-related revenue generation

  • Jamie F Chriqui
  • Frank J Chaloupka
  • Lisa M Powell
  • Shelby S Eidson
Open Access
Original Article


Obesity is a global problem. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) are a leading contributor of added sugars in individual diets and thus to obesity. Governments have considered taxing SSBs to prevent obesity and generate revenue, but no ‘one-size-fits-all’ taxation approach exists. We describes three key considerations for governments interested in exploring beverage taxation: (i) what type of tax to apply plus how and where the tax is collected and presented to consumers; (ii) what types of beverages to tax; and (iii) the amount of tax needed to affect consumption and/or obesity prevention-related revenue generation. We offer examples of existing beverage taxes in the United States and internationally. The information will be useful to policymakers at all levels of government, as they continue to consider beverage taxation policies.


tax beverage obesity 


Consumption of highly caloric beverages laden with sugars has been linked to obesity and overweight problems worldwide.1, 2, 3 Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) serves as the leading source of added sugars and a major energy contributor in the US diet4, 5 and is markedly higher for adolescents as compared with children, and for young adults, as compared with older adults.6, 7 Production and consumption of SSBs continues to increase worldwide. Consumption of soft drinks in Latin America and Eastern Europe alone is expected to grow by 15 per cent between 2009 and 2014.8

In response to growing concerns about SSB consumption and obesity, governments are pursuing policy options to reduce SSB access and/or increase SSB prices. The access-focused policies have centered on school-based restrictions, with recent evidence indicating that they are associated with reduced in-school access and/or consumption.9, 10 Governments have also begun adopting policies aimed at reducing SSB access in public venues, such as by requiring healthy vending and procurement policies for beverages sold/served in government-owned/operated locations.

On the price side, drawing from the success of tobacco taxation in reducing smoking prevalence among adults and youth, the public health community has called for SSB excise taxes of at least 1 cent / liquid ounce as a way to increase SSB prices significantly, reduce consumption, and reduce obesity rates.11, 12 In the United States, several state and local governments have considered imposing excise or significantly higher sales taxes on SSBs; however, to date, none of these recent efforts has succeeded.13 Internationally, several European and Pacific countries have reinstated, introduced, or are considering similar taxes.14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Most of the current tax schemes – which, in the United States, at least, are based on small sales taxes20 ranging from 1 to 7 per cent as of 1 January 2013 (see Table 1) – generally are too low to have meaningful impacts on overall consumption and weight/obesity.21, 22, 23, 24, 25 A recent review by Powell and colleagues shows that SSB consumption has a price elasticity of −1.2, suggesting that a tax that raises prices by 20 per cent will reduce consumption by 24 per cent.26 Recognizing this, recent proposals have called for sizeable taxes as a way to reduce caloric intake and consumption.11 Smith and colleagues estimated that a tax-induced 20 per cent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages would, on average, reduce adult and children’s daily caloric intake by 37 and 43 calories, respectively (3.8 and 4.5 pounds, respectively, annually).27 Andreyeva and colleagues estimated that a 1 cent / ounce SSB tax in the United States could reduce daily caloric intake from 190–200 calories/day currently to 145–150 calories/day, assuming no substitution to other beverages.28
Table 1

State sales taxes on selected beverages as of 1 January 2013 (Source: Bridging the Gap Program 2013)

Type of beveragea

Taxing states

Mean sales tax, all statesc


Number of states applying a sales tax to beverage

Mean sales tax, taxing states only



Regular carbonated soda





Diet carbonated soda





Isotonic beverages (sports drinks)





<50 per cent juice





RTD-sweetened teas





Bottled water





51–99 per cent juice





100 per cent juice





aType of beverage assumes beverages available for individual purchase from a retail food outlet for off-premise/home consumption. Taxes on energy drinks were not compiled for this analysis.

bDoes not include state-wide local taxes applied in three states: California (1 per cent), Virginia (1 per cent), and Utah (1.25 per cent). With the addition of the state-wide local rate, the maximum rate (range) for all beverages listed would increase to 7.25 per cent because of California’s 1 per cent state-wide local tax.

cAll states includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia and includes 0 percent for the states without a tax on the given beverage of interest.

The emerging evidence base and recommendations plus the need for additional revenues means governments worldwide are considering taxing SSBs. Such proposals are often met with extensive opposition – particularly from the beverage industry and from retailers concerned about job losses and/or lost revenue. Denmark recently repealed a ‘fat tax’ and a ‘sugar tax’ after the first year. The ‘fat tax’ had taxed foods high in saturated fat. It was criticized for raising food prices for consumers, making Danish products more expensive than imported foods, increasing administrative costs for food companies, and leading to job losses.29, 30 In a US example, the beverage industry spent US$4.1 million during the November 2012 election cycle to defeat ballot measures in Richmond and El Monte, California. Both measures would have added a penny-per-ounce tax to regular soda with monies to be dedicated to childhood obesity prevention activities. In comparison, supporters of the measures spent only $114 000.31

In addition to the political and societal challenges that policymakers face when considering such taxes, they must decide between several policy approaches to beverage taxation. Recent papers by Thow19 and Mytton18 offer useful overviews of the issues and global context for taxing to achieve public health nutrition, and taxing of unhealthy foods and drinks, respectively. We believe that this is the first study to examine beverage taxation globally and to identify factors that decision makers should consider when seeking to tax beverages.

Key Factors to Consider about Beverage Taxes

There are three key factors to consider when contemplating beverage taxes: (i) what type of tax to apply plus how and where the tax is to be collected and presented to consumers; (ii) what types of beverages to tax; and (iii) the amount of tax that will be needed to affect consumption and/or obesity prevention-related revenue generation. While the taxation approach will vary by country, the following discussion reviews the key considerations. Table 2 summarizes key terms used throughout the remainder of this article and Table 3 summarizes the options we present.
Table 2

Definitions of key terms



Ad valorem tax

Tax imposed as a percentage of a given beverage’s value (for example, 20 per cent of price)


Beverage containing noncaloric, artificial sweeteners (for example, aspartame, sucralose, saccharin)

Excise tax or excise duty

Tax levied on the manufacture, sale, use, or distribution of beverages. May also include a fixed fee or tax levied on an activity or an occupation, such as a privilege fee for selling fountain soda


A VAT (see below) imposed on goods and services in some countries (for example, Australia)


Canadian tax that combines the Canada GST with the provincial sales taxes The Canadian GST operates similar to a sales tax rather than a VAT

Point of purchase

The point at which the consumer purchases the beverage (that is, at the cash register or checkout)

Sales tax

An ad valorem tax levied on the sale of goods and services at the point of purchase

Shelf price

The price displayed in the case or on the shelf where the consumer selects the beverage (for example, refrigerated display)

Specific tax

A tax or levy assessed based on beverage volume or, perhaps, sugar volume (for example, $0.66/liter, 1 cent / ounce of sugar)


A calorically sweetened beverage


A tax applying to the production and distribution of commercial goods that is charged as a percentage of price at each stage in the production/distribution chain. It is considered a consumption tax because the ultimate ‘cost’ of paying the tax through each stage of the production/distribution chain is borne by the consumer at the place of purchase

Table 3

Beverage taxation considerations

Type of tax to apply

How tax is applied

Where tax is ‘presented’ to consumer

Where in the distribution chain tax is collected

Types of beverages to tax

Could affect weight outcomes

Generates revenue that could be dedicated for obesity prevention programs


Specific (for example, 1 cent / ounce, 1 cent / teaspoon of added sugar, $/ liter) OR

Shelf price

M, I, W, D, and/or R

SSBs, ASBs, or both

Depends on what beverages are taxed and whether SSB post-tax price is higher than the post-tax/final price for ASBs, 100 per cent juice, and water

Yes if sizeable tax (for example, 1 cent / ounce, 20 per cent of price); special fund could be established for dedicated tax revenues

Ad valorem (for example, 20 per cent of price)


Ad valorem

Point of purchase (register)


SSBs, ASBs, or both


VAT (including GST and HST)

Ad valorem

Shelf price

M, I, W, D, R, C (but ultimately paid for by consumer at the final point of sale)

SSBs, ASBs, or both


M=manufacturer, I=Importer, W=wholesaler, D=distributor, R=retailer, C=consumer.

Nonsales taxes include excise taxes as well as license/privilege fees/taxes.

(i) What type of tax to apply, how to apply the tax, where to collect the tax, and where the consumer ultimately sees the tax ‘incorporated’? (Columns 1–4 of Table 3 summarize the options)

The tax may be in the form of an excise, sales, or a value-added tax (VAT) (see Table 2 for definitions). An excise tax would be levied before the point of purchase, so it would be presented to the consumer through an increase in the shelf price (that is, the point at which purchase decisions are being made). It may be a specific tax (for example, 1 cent / ounce, 1 cent / teaspoon of added caloric sweetener, $0.20/liter) or ad valorem (for example, 10 per cent of price). Excise taxes are easier to collect as they are typically collected earlier in the distribution process, when there are fewer entities from which to collect taxes. This lowers the administrative costs and the likelihood of tax evasion.

Sales taxes are ad valorem taxes applied at the point of purchase (that is, at the cash register), presented to the consumer only on the final cash register receipt, and collected at the point of sale. VATs are broad-based consumption taxes assessed on the value added to goods, such as SSBs, at each stage in the production/distribution/retail chain. Governments collect them fractionally, based on a system of partial payments at each stage in the chain.32 In most cases, goods and services taxes (GST) and harmonized sales taxes (HST) are forms of VAT taxes (see Table 2).

Specific taxes offer several advantages over ad valorem taxes including, but not limited to, the following: (i) their impact does not fluctuate with the price; thus they reduce relative price gaps when imposed or increased, making it less likely that consumers will substitute down to cheaper beverage options in response to taxes and tax increases (for example, going to cheaper beverages or high volume options that are cheaper per ounce);33 (ii) they produce more predictable/stable revenues, important if these are to be used to fund obesity prevention efforts. If the tax is high enough, it will induce larger declines in consumption;27, 34 (iii) they are not subject to the same sort of industry price manipulation as ad valorem taxes; and (iv) they are easier to administer because the taxes are based solely on volume. Specific taxes, however, have the disadvantage of needing to be regularly adjusted to keep pace with inflation.34

In contrast, ad valorem taxes yield unstable revenues, as revenue fluctuates with the price (for example, 20 per cent of a $1.00 bottle yields $0.20 in tax revenue; whereas, if the price of the bottle declined to $0.90, a 20 per cent tax would only yield $0.18 in tax revenue).34 In essence, the government subsidizes industry price cuts (that is, tax revenue declines) but benefits from industry price increases (that is, tax revenue increases). Ad valorem taxes are more likely to keep pace with inflation than specific taxes, assuming prices follow inflation trends. Ad valorem taxes may also induce ‘trading down’ to less expensive brands, and thus generate less revenue. Finally, on the basis of experiences with cigarette taxes, ad valorem taxes require strong tax administrative systems because of the potential for abusive transfer pricing to avoid taxes. (If the tax is imposed at the manufacturer level, manufacturers can set artificially low prices, pay a low tax, and then raise prices later in the distribution chain.)34

Like an excise tax, the VAT is usually built into the shelf price seen by consumers, but because the VAT is applied at each stage strong administrative systems are required to ensure that the tax is paid at each stage. VAT also is subject to the same limitations as ad valorem taxes generally (as described above).

(ii) What types of beverages to tax?

Options to consider when determining what types of beverages to tax – include taxing: (i) only SSBs; (ii) all sweetened beverages; (iii) all/most beverages; or (iv) selected beverages. SSBs include all beverages for liquid consumption sweetened with caloric sweeteners including, but not limited to, calorically sweetened carbonated beverages, ready-to-drink (RTD) packaged teas/coffees, isotonic beverages or sports drinks, energy drinks, less than 100 per cent juice and fruit drinks, and calorically sweetened waters.28 In choosing to tax only SSBs, governments may decide to tax all SSBs or only selected SSBs (for example, only calorically sweetened carbonated beverages).

Or they may choose to tax all sweetened beverages, including both SSBs and artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs). ASBs are sweetened with noncaloric sweeteners (for example, aspartame, saccharin, or sugar substitutes) and include, but are not limited to, diet/no-calorie beverages and artificially sweetened RTD packaged teas/coffees, 0-calorie isotonic beverages, artificially sweetened less than 100 per cent juice drinks, and no-calorie, sweetened waters.

Alternatively, policymakers may opt to tax all beverages, regardless of sweetener, including SSBs, ASBs, 100 per cent juices, and bottled water or selected beverages (for example, all carbonated beverages and all juices with <100 per cent juice drinks). A jurisdiction need not tax all beverages at the same rate (see Table 1).

Besides the specific type of beverage, taxes may vary based on the beverage preparation method (for example, syrup, powder/mix). Sales taxes, however, are generally applied based on quantity (for example, gallons of syrup, per teaspoon of added sugar, per ounce, or gallons of beverage produced from the base product/mix).

(iii) What tax rate will affect consumption and obesity prevention-related revenue generation?

Given the link between SSB consumption and caloric intake,6, 7, 35 an SSB-specific tax would reduce SSB consumption more than a more broadly based beverage tax, as the SSB-only tax will encourage substitution to no/low calorie options.28, 33 Thus, SSB-specific taxes have the dual benefit of increasing the absolute price, while increasing the price of SSBs relative to no/low calorie beverages. At least one study has suggested that SSB-specific taxes might lead consumers to substitute to other, nontaxed high-calorie beverages (for example, full-fat milk) and, therefore, might have little effect on body weight.25 Yet, even if SSB-specific taxes had minimal impact on weight, they would reduce consumption of beverages with no nutritional value in favor of more nutritious or less caloric options. This would diminish some consequences of SSB consumption, including dental caries and diabetes.

We know that the larger the tax or relative price increase, the larger the impact on consumption, health-related outcomes and costs, and revenue generation (particularly in the beginning).12, 26 Public health experts have called for a $.01 / ounce tax on SSBs to reduce US consumption.11 Andreyeva and colleagues estimate that such a tax would reduce US SSB consumption by 24 per cent and generate over $79 billion in new revenue between 2010 and 2015, available for obesity prevention programming.28 An ad valorem tax equal to a 1 cent / ounce specific tax (for example, 20 per cent of the price) would have similar effects. A specific or ad valorem tax resulting in lower overall prices would have less of an effect on consumption, health outcomes, and revenues.

Examples of Beverage Taxation Approaches

We highlight here approaches to beverage taxation globally, presenting examples based on the type of tax: excise, sales, or VAT.

Approach 1: Excise or equivalent beverage taxes/fees

To date, no US jurisdiction has enacted an SSB-specific excise tax, although many have attempted to do so. Most proposals have included language that would dedicate a portion of the revenue generated to fund obesity prevention efforts.13, 36, 37 Seven states in the United States – Alabama, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia – and the cities of Chicago and Baltimore do, however, apply excise and equivalent taxes/fees to a broad spectrum of SSB and ASB beverage bottles, syrups, and powders/mixes at the manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, and/or retailer levels. No revenues have been dedicated to obesity prevention (see Table 4).20, 38, 39, 40
Table 4

Current nonsales taxes on beverages in the United States (as of 1 January 2013)

Jurisdiction and citation(s)

Taxable item

Types of beverages

Type of tax

Amount of tax

Taxable entitya

Alabama (ALA. CODE §§ 40-12-69, -70)


Soda water, carbonated drinks, fruit juices, flavored milk, soft drinks


Runs from: $40 state and $40 county tax for <16 bottles/min to $500 state and $500 county license tax for 150 bottles +/min $2.50/year



Bottles, cans, or other sealed containers

Carbonated or other soft drinks





Tap or dispensing

Soft drinks


Less than 5000 inhabitants: $10; 5000–15 000 people: $15; 15 000–25 000: $20; over 25 000: $25. All of these are in addition to another annual $2.50 retailer license tax $50/year; does not apply to bottlers who have paid annual bottler license tax for operating plants in the state (see above)




Carbonated or other soft drinks




Arkansas (ARK. CODE ANN. § 26-57-904)

Bottles powder/other base product

Soft drinks



M, W, D, Rb



Soft drinks



M, W, D, Rb

Rhode Island (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 44-44-3)

Case of beverage containers sold

Beverage containers; includes containers for: carbonated soft drinks, soda water, mineral water, and bottled water

Unspecified nonsales tax

$0.04/case (does not apply to reusable or refillable containers)


Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §67-5-402)


Bottled soft drinks: all nonalcoholic beverages, whether carbonated or not (for example, soda water, cola drinks, orangeade, grapeade, gingerale, and the like) and all bottled preparations commonly referred to as soft drinks; excludes fluid milk (with/without flavoring), 100 per cent juice or juice concentrate


1.9 per cent of gross receipts

M, R, I, D

Virginia (VA. CODE ANN. § 58.1-1702)


Carbonated soft drinks


Tax amount ranges from $50 for gross receipts ≤$100 000 to $33 000 for gross receipts >$50 million

W, D

Washington (WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 82.64.020)


Carbonated beverage syrup


$1/gal (fractional amounts taxed proportionally)

W, R

West Virginia (W. VA. CODE ANN. §§ 11-19-1, -2)


Soft drinks: all nonalcoholic beverages, whether carbonated or not or any and all preparations commonly referred to as ‘soft drinks’, which are closed and sealed in glass, paper, or any other type of container, envelope, package, or bottle, whether manufactured with or without the use of any syrup. The term ‘bottled soft drinks’ shall not include fluid milk to which no flavoring has been added, or natural undiluted fruit juice or vegetable juice


$0.01/16.9 ounce (or fraction thereof) or each ½ liter (or fraction thereof) $0.80/gal or part thereof $0.84/4L or part thereof $0.01/ounce or on each 28.35g

D, M, W, R, I




Dry mixture


Baltimore city (Balt. City. Code. 28 § 20-1)

Beverage containers

Fruit juice <10 per cent natural fruit juice content; RTD teas; any soda water, carbonated water, natural or artificial mineral water, or natural or spring water; any soft drink including cola, ginger ale, root beer, sasparilla, or any other carbonated or uncarbonated beverage referred to as a soft drink; excludes dairy products, nondairy milk substitutes, anything with >10 per cent fruit juice, and any beverage container ≥2L

Unspecified tax

$0.02/nonreusable container


Chicago city (Chicago City Code 3 § 45-01 et seq.)

Soft drinks sold at retail (including vending machines)

Soft drinks: any nonalcoholic beverage containing natural or artificial sweeteners including, but not limited to, soda, sport or energy drinks, sweetened tea, enhanced sweetened or flavored waters, drinks containing ≤50 per cent juice, and all other preparations commonly known as soft drinks; excludes beverages containing milk, milk substitutes, unsweetened teas, drinks with >50 per cent juice by volume, and unsweetened carbonated or uncarbonated water

Retailers’ occupation tax

$0.03 of gross receipts



Fountain soft drinks


Fountain soft drink tax

9 per cent of syrup price

Businesses selling syrup to retailers or retailers selling fountain soft drinks

aM=manufacturer, W=wholesaler, D=distributor, R=retailer, I=importer into the state

bIn Arkansas, retailers also are subject to the privilege tax if the items are purchased from an unlicensed distributor, manufacturer, or wholesale dealer.

Several countries, see Table 5, have adopted beverage excise or similar taxes/fees including, but not limited to, Algeria,41 Samoa,15, 18 Belgium,14 Denmark,14 Fiji,42 Finland,14 France,43 French Polynesia,15, 18 Guatemala,44 Hungary,41, 45 Latvia,14 Nauru,15, 18 and Norway (Customs Region Oslo and Akershus Information Office, personal communication, 25 October 2012). These taxes vary greatly by what beverages are taxed. Some tax only soft drinks, whereas others tax all sweetened beverages. They also vary by the type of tax applied (specific versus ad valorem). We do not know whether any country dedicates the revenues for obesity prevention.
Table 5

Examples of non-US beverage tax approaches

Country, effective date if newly enacted (superscript numbers are the reference list numbers)

Type of tax

Taxable beverage(s)

Ad valorem (in percentage)

Specific amount of tax ($ equivalent as of 17 October 2012)


Tax on sales volume of soft drink producers

Soft drinks



Finance Law 2012, effective from 1 January 2012

Samoa15, 18

Excise tax

Soft drinks


0.40 tala/liter ($0.17/liter)



Soft drinks (carbonated beverages), RTD teas and coffees, <90 per cent juice drinks




Excise tax on the person who releases the beverage for consumption on the Belgium market

Waters, including mineral and aerated waters, containing added sugars or other added sweeteners or flavorings


3.7184€ per hectoliter ($4.88 per hectoliter or $0.001/liter)



Carbonated beverages, <25 per cent fruit juice by volume

Ranges from 5 to 15 per cent depending on the province



Excise tax

Mineral water, lemonade, and ‘similar’ nonalcoholic beverages with sugar content of >0.5 g/100 ml


>0.5 g of sugar/100ml: DKK 1.58/liter ($0.28/liter)

Mineral water, lemonade, and ‘similar’ nonalcoholic beverages with sugar content of <0.5 g/100 ml

<0.5 g of sugar/100ml: DKK 0.57/ liter ($0.10/liter)


Import duty excise tax and VAT

Fruit juices

Fruit juices only: 15 per cent VAT


Waters (including mineral and aerated)

All other beverages listed subject to 15 per cent VAT and 15 per cent import excise duty

Containing added sugars or sweeteners or flavorings and other nonalcoholic beverages excluding fruit juices


Excise tax on warehousers, registered consignees and persons importing taxable goods from outside the European Union or receive them in the course of business activity from another member state

Soft drinks, fruit juices, lemonade


0.95€/kg or 0.11€/liter ($1.25/kg or $0.14/liter)


Excise tax

Beverages with added sugars and ASBs


7.16€/100 liters ($9.39/100 liters or $0.094 / liter)

Loi de finances pour 2012, Article 26 and 27, effective from 1 January 2013

French Polynesia15, 18

Production (excise) tax and consumption (import) taxes

Sweetened drinks


60 fran/liter ($0.66)


Specific tax/fee on the distribution and preparation

Carbonated beverages (including sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened) and mixes or concentrates used to prepare carbonated beverages


Carbonated beverages: Q 0.18/liter ($0.02/liter)

Isotonic beverages or sports drinks

Isotonics/sports drinks: Q 0.012/liter ($0.015/liter)

Fruit juices or nectars and yogurt beverages

Fruit juices/nectars: Q 0.10/liter ($0.013/liter)

Bottled water (of <4 liters)

Bottled water: Q 0.08/liter ($0.01/liter)

Hungary38, 42

Public health product tax (~excise tax)

Soft drinks (>8g sugar/100 ml)


Soft drinks: 5 forints/liter ($0.024/liter)

Act CIII of 2011, effective from 9 January 2011

Energy drinks (>10 mg caffeine/100 ml)

Energy drinks: 250 forints ($1.18/liter)

Pre-packaged sugar-sweetened products (>25–40g added sugar/100g depending on product)

Pre-packaged sugar-sweetened products: 100 forints/kg ($0.47/liter)



Soft drinks, fruit juices (including fresh-squeezed) sold in stores, vending machines, and ‘take-away’ businesses

23 (standard VAT)



Excise tax on importers, approved warehousekeepers, registered consignor, registered consignee

Water and mineral water with added sugar or other sweetener or flavoring and other nonalcoholic beverages with added sugars or sweeteners


5.2 LVL/100 liters ($9.80/100 liters or $0.098/liter)

Nauru15, 18

Sugar ‘levy’

Imported carbonated soft drinks, cordials, flavored milks, and drink mixes containing sugar



Norway (Customs Region Oslo and Akershus Information Office, personal communication, 25 October 2012)

Excise duty (imports and domestic production)

Nonalcoholic beverages containing added sugar or artificial sweeteners


NOK 2.85/liter ($0.50)

Other European Union countries46


VAT taxes on mineral watersa, lemonade, and fruit juices

VAT ranges from 3 per cent in Lithuania to 24 per cent in Romania


aThese other countries may specifically tax soft drinks/carbonated beverages; however, the Europa documentation does not specifically detail the types of beverages subject to the VAT other than mineral waters, lemonade, and fruit juices.

Approach 2: Sales taxes on beverages

The second approach applies a sales tax, a percentage of the retail price. We are not aware of any government that applies a sales tax only to SSBs. Sales taxes are generally applied to both SSBs and ASBs as in states in the United States that currently apply small taxes to sodas, soft drinks, and other beverages (see Table 1). These sales taxes use several approaches, including (i) sales taxes applying to all items sold; (ii) by not including soft drinks (or similar beverages) in the sales tax exemption for food products; or (iii) as sales taxes applying to a wide variety of beverages. (Additional information on state taxes and definitions is available at

Approach 3: VAT on beverages

We know of no government with a SSB-specific VAT, a VAT, or VAT-like tax (for example, GST or HST), but many tax a broad range of beverages (see Table 5). Australia,46 Canada47, Fiji42 Ireland,48 and other European Union countries49 all apply a VAT or VAT-like tax (for example, GST or HST) to beverages. These VAT and VAT-like taxes are applied ad valorem, like the excise and sales taxes, but no country currently restricts the VAT to SSBs.

The European Union’s VAT Directive requires member states to apply a standard rate of at least 15 per cent, but allows a reduced rate for certain categories of goods and services (for example, nonalcoholic beverages are eligible for a reduced VAT).50 Data from 1 July 2012 indicate that VAT rates applied to SSBs such as lemonade and fruit juices (unspecified) vary greatly by European Union member countries – ranging from a low of 3 per cent in Luxembourg to a high of 27 per cent in Hungary (with a mean and median VAT of 16 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively).49 No data exist on whether the VAT applies to other SSBs or ASBs in European Union countries, although mineral waters are taxed at the same rate as lemonade and fruit juices in all member countries except for Cyprus, Poland, and Portugal: Cyprus applies a 17 per cent VAT on mineral water but only a 5 per cent VAT on lemonade and fruit juices; Poland applies a 23 per cent VAT on mineral water and lemonade but only a 8 per cent VAT on fruit juices; and Portugal applies a 6 per cent VAT on mineral water but a 23 per cent VAT on lemonade and fruit juices.49


Governments have several beverage taxation options. In addition to choosing the type and the amount of the tax to apply (both of which will differentially affect price, consumption, health, and revenue outcomes), governments must also decide what types and forms of beverages to tax. From a public health perspective, governments should consider the options that will lead to the greatest overall price increases for SSBs while incentivizing or making healthy options (such as bottled water and 100 per cent juice) more affordable in comparison to SSBs.11, 26, 28 Ultimately, the type of tax (specific excise tax), how broadly it is applied (all SSBs rather than just some), and how large it is (enough to raise the price significantly) will determine its impact. Ideally, the SSB taxes will be large enough to generate substantial initial revenue for obesity prevention programs, reduce SSB consumption, and improve health outcomes.

Of course, the proposals will remain just that (proposals) unless the public health and advocacy communities find ways to counter the stiff political and financial opposition from the beverage industry. (We described above recent actions in Denmark and California.) Two key strategies that may help garner support is to: (i) frame policies as revenue-generating and (ii) identify health care expenditure savings (for example, reduced insurance claims for diabetes) resulting from such taxes.51 In 2011, France took this approach and passed a beverage tax that was expected to raise 280 million euros ($389 million) in 2012 alone, with one-half of the funds slated for obesity prevention and the remainder to lower social taxes on farm labor.52 At the same time, 2012 polling data from California indicated that 57 per cent of voters polled said that, if approved by the majority of the state’s voters, they would support giving local governments the authority to tax products like alcohol, tobacco, junk foods, or sweetened beverages to help pay for obesity prevention programs.53 In Vermont, 2011 polling data indicated that 49 per cent of those polled supported a tax on SSBs as one approach to the state’s budget deficit.54 Yet, a 2012 US national poll from Harris Interactive indicated that only 38 per cent of those polled would support a new tax on soft drinks with a high sugar content for improving health and safety.55 Clearly, the public is divided on its support for this issue.

Research is needed to dispel industry-sponsored claims that there will be substantial regional job losses due to SSB taxes.56 Tobacco companies made similar misleading arguments in opposition to tobacco taxes, but they were subsequently refuted by independent research.57

It is critical that proposals for beverage taxes be carefully crafted and advanced. Without policy proposals on the decisional agenda, the possibility of such taxes and the associated revenue generation and broader public health impacts will diminish to nonexistant.



Support for this manuscript was provided through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Bridging the Gap Program at the University of Illinois at Chicago (PI: Frank Chaloupka) and through the National Institutes of Health grant numbers 1R01HL096664 (PI: Lisa Powell) and 1R01DK089096 (PI: Jamie Chriqui).


  1. Vartanian, L.R., Schwartz, M.B. and Brownell, K.D. (2007) Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Public Health 97 (4): 667–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hawkes, C. (2002) Marketing activities of global soft drink and fast food companies in emerging markets: A review. In: Globalization, Diets, and Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  3. Woodward-Lopez, G., Kao, J. and Ritchie, L. (2011) To what extent have sweetened beverages contributed to the obesity epidemic? Public Health Nutrition 14: 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, G. (2006) Foods contributing to energy intake in the US: Data from NHANES III and NHANES 1999–2000. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 17 (3–4): 439–447.Google Scholar
  5. Welsh, J.A., Sharma, A.J., Grellinger, L. and Vos, M.B. (2011) Consumption of added sugars is decreasing in the United States. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 94: 726–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Wang, Y.C., Bleich, S.N. and Gortmaker, S.L. (2008) Increasing caloric contribution from sugar-sweetened beverages and 100% fruit juices among US children and adolescents, 1988–2004. Pediatrics 121 (6): e1604–e1614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bleich, S.N., Wang, Y.C., Wang, Y. and Gortmaker, S.L. (2009) Increasing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages among US adults: 1988–1994 to 1999–2004. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89 (1): 372–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haffner, R. (2010) Carbonates hold untapped opportunities for global growth. EuroMonitor International (cited 9 April 2011),
  9. Cradock, A.L. et al (2011) Effect of school district policy change on consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages among high school students, Boston, Massachusetts, 2004–2006. Preventing Chronic Disease 8 (4): A74.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, D.B., Bruemmer, B., Lund, A.E., Evens, C.C. and Mar, C.M. (2009) Impact of school district sugar-sweetened beverage policies on student beverage exposure and consumption in middle schools. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine 45 (3): S30–S37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brownell, K.D. et al (2009) The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. The New England Journal of Medicine 361 (16): 1599–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chaloupka, F.J., Powell, L.M. and Chriqui, J.F. (2011) Sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity: The potential impact of public policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30 (3): 645–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. (2012) Legislation database (cited 19 March 2012),
  14. European Commission Taxation and Customs Union. (2012) Taxes in Europe Database, v.2,, accessed 17 October 2012.
  15. Thow, A.M., Quested, C., Juventin, L., Kun, R., Khan, A.N. and Swinburn, B. (2011) Taxing soft drinks in the Pacific: Implementation lessons for improving health. Health Promotion International 26 (1): 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IceNews. (2010) Finland imposes a tax hike on sugary delights. 27 September (cited 18 April 2011),
  17. The Copenhagen Post Online. (2009) Sweet tax? 4 November (cited 17 November 2010),
  18. Mytton, O.T., Clarke, D. and Rayner, M. (2012) Taxing unhealthy food and drinks to improve health. British Medical Journal 344,, accessed on 4 January 2013.
  19. Thow, A.M., Heywood, P., Leeder, S. and Burns, L. (2011) The global context for public health nutrition taxation. Public Health Nutrition 14 (1): 176–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chriqui, J.F., Eidson, S.S., Bates, H., Kowalczyk, S. and Chaloupka, F.J. (2008) State sales tax rates for soft drinks and snacks sold through grocery stores and vending machines, 2007. Journal of Public Health Policy 29 (2): 226–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finkelstein, E.A., Zhen, C., Nonnemaker, J. and Todd, J.E. (2010) Impact of targeted beverage taxes on higher- and lower-income households. Archives of Internal Medicine 170 (22): 2028–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sturm, R., Powell, L.M., Chriqui, J.F. and Chaloupka, F.J. (2010) Soda taxes, soft drink consumption, and children's body mass index. Health Affairs 29 (5): 1052–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Powell, L.M., Chriqui, J.F. and Chaloupka, F.J. (2009) Associations between state-level soda taxes and adolescent body mass index. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine 45 (3): S57–S63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fletcher, J.M., Frisvold, D. and Tefft, N. (2009) Can soft drink taxes reduce population weight? Contemporary Economic Policy 28 (1): 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fletcher, J.M., Frisvold, D.E. and Tefft, N. (2010) The effects of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and weight outcomes. Journal of Public Economics 94 (11–12): 967–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Powell, L.M., Chriqui, J.F., Khan, T., Wada, R. and Chaloupka, F.J. (2013) 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 14: 110–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, T.A., Biing-Hwan, L. and Jonq-Ying, L. (2010) Taxing Caloric Sweetened Beverages: Potential Effects on Beverage Consumption, Calorie Intake, and Obesity. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Report no: ERR-100.Google Scholar
  28. Andreyeva, T., Chaloupka, F.J. and Brownell, K.D. (2011) Estimating the potential of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce consumption and generate revenue. Preventive Medicine 52 (6): 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. EW News Desk Team. (2012) Denmark scraps controversial ‘fat tax’ after a year. Economy Watch, 12 November (cited 14 January 2013),
  30. The Copenhagen Post. (2012) Fat tax repealed 10 November (cited 14 January 2013),
  31. Zingale, D. (2012) Gulp! The high cost of Big Soda’s victory. Los Angeles Times (cited 9 December 2012),,0,3586912.story.
  32. European Commission. (2011) Directorate-general Taxation and Customs Union Tax Policy: What is VAT? (cited 29 June 2011),
  33. Powell, L.M. and Chriqui, J.F. (2011) Food taxes and subsidies: Evidence and policies for obesity prevention. In: J. Cawley (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Obesity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. World Health Organization. (2010) WHO Technical Manual on Tobacco Tax Administration. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  35. Wang, Y.C., Ludwig, D.S., Sonneville, K. and Gortmaker, S.L. (2009) Impact of change in sweetened caloric beverage consumption on energy intake among children and adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 163 (4): 336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shields, J. (2010) Nutter proposes 2-cent-per-ounce sweet drink tax., 4 March (cited 6 March 2010),
  37. Paterson, D.A. (2010) State of New York 2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book. State of New York (cited 19 January 2010),
  38. Illinois Department of Revenue. (2010) Chicago Soft Drink Tax. Publication 116, June (cited 10 July 2010),
  39. Bridging the Gap. (2010) Soda/Snack Taxes, 1 January (cited 18 November 2010),
  40. Beverage Container Tax. (2010) Article 28, sec. 20-1–20-13. Baltimore City Code,, accessed 17 October 2012.
  41. Coalition Poids (2011). Taxation Abroad. Author (cited 17 October 2012),
  42. Fiji Revenue and Customs Authority. (2011) HS 2012 Tariff, Chapter 22: Beverages, Spirits and Vinegar. Author, 30 December (cited 17 October 2012),
  43. Constitutional Council of France. (2011) Lois de finances pour 2012. Loi no. 2011-1977, Titre 1, Article 26 and 27. Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise
  44. El Congreso de la República de Guatemala (2002). De las tarifas, la liquidacion y el pago del impuesto, Decreto Número 09-2002, Capitulo VI. Inter-American Center of Tax Administrators, 13 February (cited 17 October 2012),
  45. Hungary House of the Nation (2011) Act CIII of 2011 on the Public Health Product Tax. Author, October (cited 11 October 2011),
  46. Australian Taxation Office (2012) GST and Food. Author, April (cited 17 October 2012),
  47. Canada Revenue Agency (2011) GST/HST Rates. Author, 15 April (cited 17 October 2012),
  48. Irish Tax and Customs (2012) Food & Drink VAT Tax. Author (cited 17 October 2012),
  49. European Commission (2012). European Commission Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union Tax Policy. VAT Rates applied in the member states of the European Union, 1 July (cited 17 October 2012),
  50. European Commission Taxation and Customs Union (2010). Council directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010 amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax with regard to the duration of the obligation to respect a minimum standard rate. Europa: Euro-Lex 12 July (cited 19 October 2012),
  51. Chaloupka, F.J., Wang, Y.C., Powell, L.M., Andreyeva, T., Chriqui, J.F. and Rimkus, L.M. (2011) Estimating the potential impact of sugar-sweetened and other beverage excise taxes in Illinois, April. Prevent Obesity Illinois (cited 31 December 2011),
  52. Reuters (2011) France backs tax on soft drinks, 21 October (cited 14 January 2013),
  53. Field Research Corporation (2012) Field poll: Unhealthy eating, lack of physical activity seen as greatest health risk facing California kids. Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, 4 April (cited 14 January 2013),
  54. University of Vermont Center for Rural Studies. (2011) Vermont sugar-sweetened beverage tax study. Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity (cited14 January 2013),
  55. Harris Interactive (2012) Many Americans ambivalent over laws aimed at healthy living: Poll. Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, 12 March (cited 14 January 2013),
  56. Hahn, R. (2009) The potential economic impact of a U.S. excise tax on selected beverages. No Food Taxes, (cited 14 January 2013),
  57. Warner, K.E., Fulton, G.A., Nicolas, P. and Grimes, D.R. (1996) Employment implications of declining tobacco product sales for the regional economies of the United States. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 275 (16): 1241–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamie F Chriqui
    • 1
  • Frank J Chaloupka
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lisa M Powell
    • 1
    • 3
  • Shelby S Eidson
    • 4
  1. 1.Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Policy and AdministrationSchool of Public Health, University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Center for Health Policy and Legislative Analysis at The MayaTech CorporationSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations