Junk Food Tax Research Articles

US Policies ThatDefine Foods for Junk Food Taxes, 1991-2021.

Suboptimal diet is a substantial contributor to weight gain, cardiometabolic diseases, and certain cancers. Junk food taxes can raise the price of the taxed product to reduce consumption and the revenue can be used to invest in low-resource communities. Taxes on junk food are administratively and legally feasible but no definition of "junk food" has been established. To identify legislative and regulatory definitions characterizing food for tax and other related purposes, this research used Lexis+ and the NOURISHING policy database to identify federal, state, territorial, and Washington DC statutes, regulations, and bills (collectively denoted as "policies") defining and characterizing food for tax and related policies, 1991-2021. This research identified and evaluated 47 unique laws and bills that defined food through one or more of the following criteria: Product Category (20 definitions), Processing (4 definitions), Product intertwined with Processing (19 definitions), Place (12 definitions), Nutrients (9 definitions), and Serving Size (7 definitions). Of the 47 policies, 26 used more than one criterion to define food categories, especially those with nutrition-related goals. Policy goals included taxing foods (snack, healthy, unhealthy, or processed foods), exempting foods from taxation (snack, healthy, unhealthy, or unprocessed foods), exempting homemade or farm-made foods from state and local retail regulations, and supporting federal nutrition assistance objectives. Policies based on Product Categories alone differentiated between necessity/staple foods on the one hand and nonnecessity/nonstaple foods on the other. In order to specifically identify unhealthy food, policies commonly included a combination of Product Category, Processing, and/or Nutrient criteria. Explanations for repealed state sales tax laws on snack foods identified retailers' difficulty pinpointing which specific foods were subject to the tax as a barrier to implementation. An excise tax assessed on manufacturers or distributors of junk food is a method to overcome this barrier and may be warranted.

Hand-to-mouth Consumption and Calorie Consciousness: Consequences for Junk-food Taxation

Junk-food taxes have mixed effects on obesity and junk-food consumption. We build a theoretical model to explain empirical results and better understand how to address the obesity crisis. In our framework, hand-to-mouth consumers make an intertemporal choice between junk-food consumption and weight loss. Their choice depends on calorie consciousness, which is influenced by perceived after-tax relative prices and educational attainment. Thus, a junk-food tax modifies consumers’ intertemporal choice both through their budget constraint and calorie consciousness. As a result, the effect of the tax on body weight reflects competing income, intertemporal substitution, and calorie-consciousness effects. The model explains empirical observations such as the recent rise in obesity and differences in weight outcomes for different income levels. The model explains circumstances under which junk-food taxes can be effective or ineffective to reduce body weight as well as differences in elasticities of high-calorie food consumption for high- and low-income earners.

The Navajo Nation Healthy Diné Nation Act: A Two Percent Tax on Foods of Minimal-to-No Nutritious Value, 2015-2019.

Our study summarizes tax revenue and disbursements from the Navajo Nation Healthy Diné Nation Act of 2014, which included a 2% tax on foods of minimal-to-no nutritional value (junk food tax), the first in the United States and in any sovereign tribal nation. Since the tax was implemented in 2015, its gross revenue has been $7.58 million, including $1,887,323 in 2016, the first full year. Revenue decreased in absolute value by 3.2% in 2017, 1.2% in 2018, and 4.6% in 2019, a significant downward trend (P = .02). Revenue allocated for wellness projects averaged $13,171 annually for each local community, with over 99% successfully disbursed and more rural areas generating significantly less revenue. Our results provide context on expected revenue, decreases over time, and feasibility for tribal and rural communities considering similar policies.

The effect of food taxes and subsidies on population health and health costs: a modelling study

One possible policy response to the burden of diet-related disease is food taxes and subsidies, but the net health gains of these approaches are uncertain because of substitution effects between foods. We estimated the health and cost impacts of various food taxes and subsidies in one high-income country, New Zealand. In this modelling study, we compared the effects in New Zealand of a 20% fruit and vegetable subsidy, of saturated fat, sugar and salt taxes (each set at a level that increased the total food price by the same magnitude of decrease from the fruit and vegetable subsidy), and of an 8% so-called junk food tax (on non-essential, energy-dense food). We modelled the effect of price changes on food purchases, the consequent changes in fruit and vegetable and sugar-sweetened beverage purchasing, nutrient risk factors, and body-mass index, and how these changes affect health status and health expenditure. The pre-intervention intake for 340 food groups was taken from the New Zealand National Nutrition Survey and the post-intervention intake was estimated using price and expenditure elasticities. The resultant changes in dietary risk factors were then propagated through a proportional multistate lifetable (with 17 diet-related diseases) to estimate the changes in health-adjusted life years (HALYs) and health system expenditure over the 2011 New Zealand population's remaining lifespan. Health gains (expressed in HALYs per 1000 people) ranged from 127 (95% uncertainty interval 96-167; undiscounted) for the 8% junk food tax and 212 (102-297) for the fruit and vegetable subsidy, up to 361 (275-474) for the saturated fat tax, 375 (272-508) for the salt tax, and 581 (429-792) for the sugar tax. Health expenditure savings across the remaining lifespan per capita (at a 3% discount rate) ranged from US$492 (334-694) for the junk food tax to $2164 (1472-3122) for the sugar tax. The large magnitude of the health gains and cost savings of these modelled taxes and subsidies suggests that their use warrants serious policy consideration. Health Research Council of New Zealand.

Hand-to-Mouth Consumption and Calorie Consciousness: Consequences for Junk-Food Taxation

Junk-food taxes have had mixed effects on obesity and junk-food consumption. We build a theoretical model to explain those empirical results and better understand how to address the obesity crisis. In our framework, hand-to-mouth consumer's make an intertemporal choice between food consumption and weight loss. Their choice depends on calorie consciousness, which is determined by relative prices and educational attainment. Thus, a junk-food tax modifies consumer's intertemporal choices both through their budget constraint and calorie consciousness. As a result, the effect of the tax on overweight reflects competing income, intertemporal substitution, and calorie consciousness effects. The model explains empirical observations such as the recent rise in obesity and differences in weight outcomes for different income levels. The model explains circumstances under which junk-food taxes can be effective or ineffective to reduce overweight, as well as differences in price-elasticities of high-calorie food consumption for high and low income earners.

The productivity gains associated with a junk food tax and their impact on cost-effectiveness.

ObjectiveTo estimate the productivity impacts of a policy intervention on the prevention of premature mortality due to obesity.MethodsA simulation model of the Australian population over the period from 2003 to 2030 was developed to estimate productivity gains associated with premature deaths averted due to an obesity prevention intervention that applied a 10% tax on unhealthy foods. Outcome measures were the total working years gained, and the present value of lifetime income (PVLI) gained. Impacts were modelled over the period from 2003 to 2030. Costs are reported in 2018 Australian dollars and a 3% discount rate was applied to all future benefits.ResultsPremature deaths averted due to a junk food tax accounted for over 8,000 additional working years and a $307 million increase in PVLI. Deaths averted in men between the ages of 40 to 59, and deaths averted from ischaemic heart disease, were responsible for the largest gains.ConclusionsThe productivity gains associated with a junk food tax are substantial, accounting for almost twice the value of the estimated savings to the health care system. The results we have presented provide evidence that the adoption of a societal perspective, when compared to a health sector perspective, provides a more comprehensive estimate of the cost-effectiveness of a junk food tax.

Me'akai in Tonga: Exploring the Nature and Context of the Food Tongan Children Eat in Ha'apai Using Wearable Cameras.

Unhealthy food consumption is a key driver of the global pandemic in non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The Government of Tonga has prioritised NCD prevention due to the very high rates of NCDs in the Kingdom. This research examines the nature and context of the me’akai (food) consumed by Tongan children in Ha’apai using wearable cameras. Thirty-six randomly selected 11-year-old children used wearable cameras to record their lives for three days, as part of the wider Kids’Cam Tonga project. Images were analysed to assess the participants’ food consumption according to a new data analysis protocol for Tonga. Core foods were defined as including breads and cereals, fresh fruit, vegetables, meat and alternatives, and staple vegetables. Non-core food types included confectionery, unhealthy snack foods, edible ices, and processed meat. Tongan researchers led the research in partnership with the Government of Tonga. Overall, children were observed to have consumed a mean of 4.5 (95% CI 3.3, 6.7) non-core and 2.3 (95% CI 1.8, 2.9) core foods per 10 h day, excluding mixed meals. Unhealthy snack foods, confectionary, and cookies, cakes, and desserts were the most commonly consumed non-core foods, and fresh fruit was the most frequently consumed core food. Snacking was the most frequent eating episode observed, with children snacking on non-core foods four times a day (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5 to 6.2) compared to 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.6) core food snacks per day. Most commonly, children were observed eating at home, at school, and on the road while out walking. The most common sources of food were the home, other children, and the supermarket. On average, children consumed one purchased product per day, almost all (90%) of which were non-core. Children were also observed eating an average of just less than one mixed meal per day. Less than half (45.2%) of all mixed meals observed were traditional foods. This research illustrates the presence, and likely dominance, of energy-dense nutrient-poor (EDNP) foods in the diet of these Tongan children. It highlights a transition from a traditional diet and suggests that these children live in an obesogenic environment, one that promotes obesity as a normal response to an abnormal environment. The findings support efforts by the Government of Tonga for the implementation of a healthy School Food Policy, junk food taxes, and initiatives to ban the importation of EDNP foods. This study has relevance for other Pacific Island nations and all nations concerned with addressing obesity and other diet-related NCDs.

The use of commercial food purchase data for public health nutrition research: A systematic review.

BackgroundTraditional methods of dietary assessment have their limitations and commercial sources of food sales and purchase data are increasingly suggested as an additional source to measuring diet at the population level. However, the potential uses of food sales data are less well understood. The aim of this review is to establish how sales data on food and soft drink products from third-party companies have been used in public health nutrition research.MethodsA search of five electronic databases was conducted in February-March 2018 for studies published in peer-reviewed journals that had used food sales or purchase data from a commercial company to analyse trends and patterns in food purchases or in the nutritional composition of foods. Study quality was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.ResultsOf 2919 papers identified in the search, 68 were included. The selected studies used sales or purchase data from four companies: Euromonitor, GfK, Kantar and Nielsen. Sales and purchase data have been used to evaluate interventions, including the impact of the saturated fat tax in Denmark, the soft drink and junk food taxes in Mexico and supplemental nutrition programmes in the USA. They have also been used to identify trends in the nutrient composition of foods over time and patterns in food purchasing, including socio-demographic variations in purchasing.ConclusionFood sales and purchase data are a valuable tool for public health nutrition researchers and their use has increased markedly in the last four years, despite the cost of access, the lack of transparency on data-collection methods and restrictions on publication. The availability of product and brand-level sales data means they are particularly useful for assessing how changes by individual food companies can impact on diet and public health.

Legal and Administrative Feasibility of a Federal Junk Food and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax to Improve Diet.

To evaluate legal and administrative feasibility of a federal "junk" food (including sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs]) tax to improve diet. To assess food definitions and administration models, we systematically searched (1) PubMed (through May 15, 2017) for articles defining foods subject to taxes, and legal and legislative databases as well as online for (2) US federal, state, and tribal junk food tax bills and laws (January 1, 2012-February 28, 2017); SSB taxes (January 1, 2014-February 28, 2017); and international junk food tax laws (as of February 28, 2017); and (3) federal taxing mechanisms and administrative methods (as of February 28, 2017). Articles recommend taxing foods by product category, broad nutrient criteria, specific nutrients or calories, or a combination. US junk food tax bills (n = 6) and laws (n = 3), international junk food laws (n = 2), and US SSB taxes (n = 10) support taxing foods using category-based (n = 8), nutrient-based (n = 1), or combination (n = 12) approaches. Federal taxing mechanisms (particularly manufacturer excise taxes on alcohol) and administrative methods provide informative models. From legal and administrative perspectives, a federal junk food tax appears feasible based on product categories or combination category-plus-nutrient approaches, using a manufacturer excise tax, with additional support for sugar and graduated tax strategies.

Do high vs. low purchasers respond differently to a nonessential energy-dense food tax? Two-year evaluation of Mexico's 8% nonessential food tax

It is unclear whether response to a nonessential food tax varies across time or for high vs. low-consuming households. The objective is to examine whether the effect of Mexico's 2014 8% nonessential energy-dense foods tax increased in the second year post-implementation and whether it differentially affected households by pre-tax purchasing pattern. We used longitudinal data on Mexican household food purchases (n=6089 households) from 2012 to 2015. Households were classified based on median pre-tax purchases: low untaxed/low taxed (“low”), low untaxed/high taxed (“unhealthy”), high untaxed/low taxed (“healthy”), and high untaxed/high taxed (“high”) purchasers. Fixed effects models tested whether observed post-tax purchases differed from the counterfactual, or what would have been expected based on pre-tax trends. Post-tax declines in the % taxed food purchases increased from −4.8% in year one to −7.4% in year two, yielding a 2-year mean decline of 6.0% beyond the counterfactual (p<0.01). Post-tax change in % taxed food purchases varied by pre-tax purchasing level. Healthy purchasers showed no post-tax change in % taxed food purchases beyond the counterfactual, while unhealthy, low and high purchasers decreased (−12.3%, −5.3% and −4.4%, respectively) (p<0.01). The positive effect of Mexico's junk food tax continued in the second year, and households with greater preferences for taxed foods showed a larger decline in taxed food purchases.

Obesity prevention strategies: could food or soda taxes improve health?

Evidence shows that one of the main causes for rising obesity rates is excessive consumption of sugar, which is due in large part to the high sugar content of most soda and juice drinks and junk foods. Worryingly, UK and global populations are consuming increasing amounts of sugary drinks and junk foods (high in salt, sugar and saturated fats). However, there is raised public awareness, and parents in particular want something to be done to curb the alarming rise in childhood obesity. Population-wide policies (i.e. taxation, regulation, legislation, reformulation) consistently achieve greater public health gains than interventions and strategies targeted at individuals. Junk food and soda taxes are supported by increasing evidence from empirical and modelling studies. The strongest evidence base is for a tax on sugar sweetened beverages, but in order to effectively reduce consumption, that taxation needs to be at least 20%. Empirical data from a number of countries which have implemented a duty on sugar or sugary drinks shows rapid, substantial benefits. In the UK, increasing evidence from recent scientific reports consistently support substantial reductions in sugar consumption through comprehensive strategies which include a tax. Furthermore, there is increasing public support for such measures. A sugar sweetened beverages tax will happen in the UK so the question is not 'If?' but 'When?' this tax will be implemented. And, crucially, which nation will get there first? England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales?

Did the junk food tax make the Hungarians eat healthier?

I analyse whether the introduction of the unhealthy food tax lead to significant improvements in the dietary habits of the Hungarian population. I focus on the consumption of processed and unprocessed food before and after the tax was levied on a range of food high in salt and sugar. Using data from a large scale household panel data set, I estimate the consumed quantities of processed food to decrease by 3.4% due to the unhealthy food tax, while the consumed quantities of unprocessed food increased by 1.1%. The lowest income groups were the most responsive to the introduction of the tax. Despite data limitations, the results indicate moderate improvement in population diet that is likely to be attributable to the tax.

Taxing Junk Food to Counter Obesity

We examined the advantages and disadvantages of implementing a junk food tax as an intervention to counter increasing obesity in North America. Small excise taxes are likely to yield substantial revenue but are unlikely to affect obesity rates. High excise taxes are likely to have a direct impact on weight in at-risk populations but are less likely to be politically palatable or sustainable. Ultimately, the effectiveness of earmarked health programs and subsidies is likely to be a key determinant of tax success in the fight against obesity.

A constructive critique of public health arguments for anti-obesity soda taxes and food taxes

This Article constructively critiques the two arguments that public health advocates have made in support of anti-obesity soda taxes or junk food taxes. Part II discusses and critiques the first argument, an economic externalities argument that government should tax soda or junk food to internalize the disproportionately high health care costs of obesity. Part II also explores alternative economic internalities argument for food or soda taxes, with a focus on incomplete information, bounded rationality, and bounded willpower. Part III discusses and critiques the second argument made by public health advocates, that government should adopt anti-obesity measures to improve population-wide health. This Part considers the appropriate scope of public health law interventions with respect to behavioral risk factors (for example, diet), comments on empirical evidence offered by public health advocates to support proposed soda taxes, and cautions public health advocates to consider possible unintended consequences of anti-obesity proposals.Obesity policy debates present a conflict of fundamental values, such as health, fairness, efficiency, and autonomy. Part IV attempts to reconcile these values and responds to the “personal responsibility” objection to soda taxes and food taxes. Part V considers various factors that would affect behavioral responses to proposed soda taxes and food taxes and addresses concerns that such taxes would be regressive and thus unfair to low-income consumers. This Part also explores the tax design implications of the literature on tax salience and on asymmetric paternalism and libertarian paternalism. Part VI suggests the way forward for public health advocates, including a proposal to enact a tax on nutritionally poor foods and drinks, paired with a salient benefit. In addition, this Part recommends enactment of a federal system of food classification, based on nutrient profiling methods, along with a federal system of front-of-package nutritional labeling.

On with the pennies, off with the pounds? The use of taxation policies in obesity prevention

Kate Timmins, University of Leeds summarizes the evidence and issues surrounding food taxation as a preventative measure for obesity The Danish government caused controversy in 2010 when it introduced a 'fat tax' - a food tax based on fat content.1 Romania in the same year proposed a 'junk food tax'2 and both Australia and Canada have launched taxes on sugarsweetened beverages.3 The idea of the 'sin tax' is not new. Fiscal policies have been exploited widely to combat rates of alcohol and tobacco use and have been acclaimed for their effectiveness.3,4 Governments have also welcomed such strategies for their revenue-making potential. Stemming the rising rate of obesity is in our interest. With many associated adverse health outcomes, the costs to healthcare are set to rise. The idea behind taxation policies lies in the theory that cost of diet contributes to the 'obesogenic' environment. Food price trends appear to have been less favourable for energy-dilute foods such as fruits and vegetables, than for energy-dense foods such as soft drinks or oils.6 This is bolstered by evidence of an inverse relationship between the energy density of a food and its price per unit of energy.7,8 In addition, observational evidence suggests that people who consume healthier9 or more energy-dilute diets8 tend to have higher food expenditures. The discussion of pricing effects also clearly needs to draw upon theories of consumer behaviour. The apparently 'irrational' decision to overeat can be explained by a number of considerations, one of which may be a bias towards present rather than future outcomes.10 The manipulation of food prices could change the decision-making environment, perhaps by increasing the costs pertinent to the present.11 Already, guidance suggests a role for pricing strategies in chronic disease prevention.12 Despite little direct evidence of an effect of calorie cost on weight status, a small body of evidence has examined the consequences of price reductions on the purchase of healthier foods. An intervention in schools found that varying discounts on lower-fat vending machine snacks elicited proportionate improvements in sales.13 The Supermarket Healthy Options Project (SHOP)14 was a large, randomized trial in a New Zealand supermarket. In the intervention group, a 12.5% discount was applied to foods classified as healthy. While this led to a significant increase in the purchase of healthy foods at six months (10%-11%), no observable effect was noted on any of the nutritional outcomes measured. In the laboratory, a study of hypothetical meal selections15 showed that the price increase of high-calorie foods did lead to a decreased demand for calories, but only when participants had no explicit calorie information. Such evidence is suggestive of an effect, although it does not address the potential relationship with bodyweight. Understandably, given its recent implementation in Denmark and Romania, there are no studies yet as to the effectiveness of taxation as a policy for obesity prevention. Conclusions must be extrapolated from observations of trends in price, purchasing and bodyweight, or from modelling studies based on such data. Inferences derived from other healthcare arenas where fiscal measures have proved a success, such as tobacco control, are inappropriate for food, a basic consumption good.16 A review of the literature concerning economic instruments in curtailing food consumption17 concluded that, although findings were suggestive, the evidence was tenuous and an effect could not be established. Dietary surveys conducted after changes in food subsidies and taxes in China suggested that price increases led to decreased intake of that food and increased consumption of substitutes, with observable effects on macronutrient intake.18 Furthermore, studies suggest a link between adolescent BMI and fast food or fruit and vegetable prices by area.19 However, national-level studies in the USA suggest time trends in food prices and obesity do not correspond. …

HEADS UP

HEADS UP