A study published yesterday in Health Affairs, found that a small sales tax on soda did not significantly reduce consumption among children.

While the tax had some effect on children who are at a higher risk for obesity--low-income, African-American children--it is suggested that a much higher tax would have to be imposed to have an effect on all children.

With a small tax, "there was no significant change in consumption, and that's no surprise," says the study's lead researcher, Ronald Strum. "Small taxes have very small effects."
The study looked at 7,300 children enrolled in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, which has been gathering information about a national group of children for several years. The average sales tax observed in this research was 4.2 percent, ranging from 0 to 7 percent.

The Beverage Association was quick to point out the lack of correlation between a tax and consumption reduction.

An ABA statement said that the study "provides further evidence that, when it comes to reducing obesity, excise taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages will have no noticeable impact." But this study looked merely at sales taxes, which are significantly lesser in cost and visibility than an excise tax.

Research has shown that an excise tax has a significant effect on soda consumption. For example, one report in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a 10 percent increase in price led to an 8 percent average consumption reduction.

"A small tax won't do anything," says Kay Bruening, the nutrition science and dietetics department chair at Syracuse University. "It has to be a sizable tax, and it has to be an excise tax."

Strum and his team also extrapolated data based on an 18 percent excise tax on soda, which was proposed and then withdrawn in New York state. The results found that if the effects were linear, there would be a 20 percent reduction of excess BMI gain in children.

This calculated 20 percent reduction is "much bigger than any other intervention," Strum says.

"People need to be aware of [the tax]," he says. "A sales tax is not something you see at the shelf. It comes at the end, after you've made the [decision to] purchase.... The more visible the tax, the better."

ABA asserts that a tax in and of itself won't reduce obesity or make people healthier.

"Taxes don't make people healthy," says Christopher Gindlesperger, director of communications for ABA. "What does work to push back and combat obesity is balancing diet and exercise."

He points out that singling out one food won't fix the obesity epidemic, reporting that soda consumption has actually decreased over the past 10 years by 9.6 percent and beverage calories have decreased by 21 percent, while obesity rates have increased.

While Gindlesperger insists that soda is not the culprit for the excess weight gain, ABA has also removed full-calorie beverages in schools, replacing them with smaller packages and low- or zero-calorie options. As a result, overall calories in schools have dropped by 88 percent.

"What does work are education and proactive programs like the ones we're currently doing [to reinforce] nutrition education that happens in school, by providing lower-calorie and zero-calorie options," he says.

But ultimately, it comes down to only a sizable tax that will make a dent in the obesity epidemic.

"If reducing consumption were the goal, there's no point in considering a small tax; it will not change consumption," says Sturm. "You need a very substantial tax to fight obesity."

More Industry Headlines