THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT TAXATION OF SOFT DRINKS HAS REDUCED OBESITY AND NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES (NCDs)
The claimed health goal of a tax on soft drinks is to reduce obesity and associated non-communicable diseases such as diabetes. However, no studies have provided clear, consistent evidence on the effectiveness of those taxes in reducing sugar intake or positively impacting health outcomes. This is what concludes an article from 2023 in the Annual Review of Resource Economics1: “The literature provides no consistent evidence that SSB taxes have incentivized increased purchases of healthier beverages and caused overall SSB consumption to decrease.”
Research shows that while taxes aimed at reducing purchases of soft drinks may have a short-term impact on sales, purchasing behaviour returns to near pre-tax levels over an extended time (Euromonitor International, Passport: “Sin Tax In Food And Beverages – Strategies, Outcomes and Learnings”, December 2016).
It is considered that even high levels of soda tax may not impact population weight as weight loss requires reducing total calorie intake and burning more calories by being active. Markets with soft drinks taxes such as Mexico, Finland, Chile, the United Kingdom, France and Ireland are still facing growing obesity problems and have not provided evidence of public health benefits.
A few examples:
- A 2025 study from Tax Foundation Europe provided evidence on the ineffectiveness of soft drink taxation in driving health improvements. The study delves into case studies from several European countries that have implemented soft drink taxes over the years in an effort to achieve health-related goals. Yet, even after years of implementation, these soft drink taxes have failed to deliver health benefits in these countries, where obesity rates continue to rise.
- A recent study demonstrated that taxation is not necessary to impact sugary soft drinks consumption. On the contrary, larger, or at least similar, declines in the proportion (%) of adolescents drinking sugary soft drinks daily have been reported in countries which have not introduced a soft drink tax, compared to similar countries with soft drinks taxes. This study compared data from 6 European countries which introduced a soft drinks tax between 2001-2002 and 2017-2018 with data from neighbouring comparison countries which had not introduced a tax. Daily sugary soft drink consumption was found to have declined in Poland (no tax), but not in Hungary (with tax); declined in Italy (no tax), but not in France (with tax); experienced a larger decline in the Netherlands (no tax) compared to Belgium (with tax); experienced a larger decline in Spain (no tax) compared to Portugal (with tax); experienced a similar decline in Sweden (no tax) compared to Finland (with tax). Latvia was the only country where the proportion of adolescents drinking sugary soft drinks daily declined post-tax compared to its neighbhour – Lithuania (no tax).
- Overall, obesity rates in the UK remain among the highest in Europe, even after a soft drinks tax introduction in 2018. Despite a study claiming that the introduction of the 2018 UK soft drinks levy had a temporal association with a reduction in obesity among 10-11-year-old girls in England, this study only focused on one segment of the British population, cannot provide evidence for a causal link, and there was no association between the levy and changes in obesity in boys or younger children. Any apparent stabilisation of obesity rates in the country is recognised as being the result of the combination of a wide array of weight management programmes and public health initiatives.
- A 2025 study from Tax Foundation Europe provided evidence on the ineffectiveness of soft drink taxation in driving health improvements. The study delves into case studies from several European countries that have implemented soft drink taxes over the years in an effort to achieve health-related goals. Yet, even after years of implementation, these soft drink taxes have failed to deliver health benefits in these countries, where obesity rates continue to rise.
- A recent study demonstrated that taxation is not necessary to impact sugary soft drinks consumption. On the contrary, larger, or at least similar, declines in the proportion (%) of adolescents drinking sugary soft drinks daily have been reported in countries which have not introduced a soft drink tax, compared to similar countries with soft drinks taxes. This study compared data from 6 European countries which introduced a soft drinks tax between 2001-2002 and 2017-2018 with data from neighbouring comparison countries which had not introduced a tax. Daily sugary soft drink consumption was found to have declined in Poland (no tax), but not in Hungary (with tax); declined in Italy (no tax), but not in France (with tax); experienced a larger decline in the Netherlands (no tax) compared to Belgium (with tax); experienced a larger decline in Spain (no tax) compared to Portugal (with tax); experienced a similar decline in Sweden (no tax) compared to Finland (with tax). Latvia was the only country where the proportion of adolescents drinking sugary soft drinks daily declined post-tax compared to its neighbhour – Lithuania (no tax).
- Overall, obesity rates in the UK remain among the highest in Europe, even after a soft drinks tax introduction in 2018. Despite a study claiming that the introduction of the 2018 UK soft drinks levy had a temporal association with a reduction in obesity among 10-11-year-old girls in England, this study only focused on one segment of the British population, cannot provide evidence for a causal link, and there was no association between the levy and changes in obesity in boys or younger children. Any apparent stabilisation of obesity rates in the country is recognised as being the result of the combination of a wide array of weight management programmes and public health initiatives.
- In Ireland, while the tax on soft drinks has accelerated the reformulation of products, there is no clear evidence that rates of obesity and overweight have fallen. Actually, in teenagers (13-18 years old), intake of sugar-sweetened soft drinks has fallen by 60% (from 213 g/d in 2005/6 to 84 g/d in 2019/20). Over the same time period, the proportion of teenagers who are overweight (including obesity) has increased from 18 to 24%.
- In Catalonia, a soft drink tax was introduced in 2017, but since then obesity rates have continued to increase, according to the latest Catalonian Health Survey ESCA: in 2018, 14,9% of adults were obese, rising to 15.3% in 2023, and obesity rates among children increased from 10.6% in 2018 to 13.7% in 2023.
- An October 2020 report from the International Monetary Fund and the OECD on taxation in Chile analysed, among others, the effects of the tax on soft drink intake. The report highlights how this type of tax is generally adopted for health objectives, but their desired impact on obesity rates remains ambiguous.
- In Ireland, while the tax on soft drinks has accelerated the reformulation of products, there is no clear evidence that rates of obesity and overweight have fallen. Actually, in teenagers (13-18 years old), intake of sugar-sweetened soft drinks has fallen by 60% (from 213 g/d in 2005/6 to 84 g/d in 2019/20). Over the same time period, the proportion of teenagers who are overweight (including obesity) has increased from 18 to 24%.
- In Catalonia, a soft drink tax was introduced in 2017, but since then obesity rates have continued to increase, according to the latest Catalonian Health Survey ESCA: in 2018, 14,9% of adults were obese, rising to 15.3% in 2023, and obesity rates among children increased from 10.6% in 2018 to 13.7% in 2023.
- An October 2020 report from the International Monetary Fund and the OECD on taxation in Chile analysed, among others, the effects of the tax on soft drink intake. The report highlights how this type of tax is generally adopted for health objectives, but their desired impact on obesity rates remains ambiguous.
Global institutions and several countries have rejected the taxation of soft drinks as an effective approach to improving health outcomes
The United Nations (UN) has held two high-level meetings2 to establish a roadmap for the best policy recommendations on health-related issues for Member States, and in both instances the UN rejected taxation of soft drinks as an effective health policy recommendation.
Taxation of soft drinks was also rejected as an effective policy recommendation in February 2021 by the UN Committee on World Food Security in their “Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems for Nutrition”.
In 2017, the WHO identified 16 best buy-interventions (out of 88 evaluated) and a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) did not qualify as best buy. Since then, WHO has updated and revised its list of best buys several times, extending it from 16 to 28. Still, in its latest update from 2024, a tax on SSBs failed to meet WHO’s own cost-effectiveness threshold to move it into the best buy category of recommended interventions. More recently, WHO Europe has identified 25 ’’quick buys’’ (out of 49 interventions) that can help countries deliver public health impact within 5 years. SSB taxation is, again, not included in these ‘’quick buys’’.
The message at global level is clear: countries should better focus on non-monetary policy interventions which are more likely to lead to positive health outcomes. This message is also supported at country level: The Norwegian government for example abolished its excise tax on non-alcoholic beverages in its 2021 budget, following Iceland and Denmark in abolishing such taxes.
Swipe the table left or right to see the full information
| GLOBAL FORA CONSIDERATION OF SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGE (SSB) TAX |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FORUM | DATE | CONSIDERED | ACCEPTED | FINAL OUTCOME |
| WHO Identifies “Best Buy” Public Health Interventions | 2017 | YES | NO | SSB TAX NOT INCLUDED |
| WHO Global High-Level Conference on NCDs – Montevideo Roadmap | Oct 2017 | YES | NO | SSB TAX NOT INCLUDED |
| WHO Independent High-Level Commission on NCDs | June 2018 | YES | NO | SSB TAX NOT INCLUDED |
| UN High-Level Meeting on NCDs | Sept 2018 | YES | NO | SSB TAX NOT INCLUDED |
| UN Global Health & Foreign Policy Resolution | Dec 2018 | YES | NO | SSB TAX NOT INCLUDED |
| UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage | Sept 2019 | YES | NO | SSB TAX NOT INCLUDED |
| WHO Expands List of “Best Buy” Public Health Interventions | May 2023 | YES | NO | SSB TAX NOT INCLUDED |
| WHO further updates list of “Best Buys” for the prevention and control of NCDs | 2024 | YES | NO | SSB TAX NOT INCLUDED |
| WHO Europe launches list of “Quick Buys” for prevention and control of NCDs | March 2025 | YES | NO | SSB TAX NOT INCLUDED |
Product substitution has important implications for the total health effects of food and drink taxes
- In Berkeley, Californian researchers found the soft drinks tax led to an increase of 26 calories per day as consumers shifted towards more calorific beverages such as milkshakes and smoothies which were not taxed.
- A modelling study carried out in 2017 in the UK also showed the potential effect of increasing the price of sugar-sweetened beverages on alcoholic beverage purchases. The results suggested that an increase in the price of high-sugar drinks could lead to an increase in the purchase of lager, while an increase in the price of diet/low-sugar drinks could increase purchases of beer, cider and wines. Overall, the effects of price rises were greatest in the low-income group.
- A review of 47 studies on beverage taxes commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Health found that “studies using sound methods report reductions in (sugar) intake that are likely too small to generate health benefits and could easily be cancelled out by substitution of other sources of sugar or calories”.
1 A New Wave of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: Are They Meeting Policy Goals and Can We Do Better? Kristin Kiesel, Hairu Lang, and Richard J. Sexton, Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2023.
2 2018 UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) and the 2019 UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage (UHC).