Does a sugar tax cause alcohol sales to spike? The research doesn't give a decisive answer

February 8, 2018 by Robin Room And Heng Jiang, The Conversation
There’s no direct evidence that taxing sugary drinks will lead to more consumption of alcohol. Credit: Shutterstock

Consuming sugar-sweetened drinks is associated with a range of health issues including weight gain and obesity. These are risk factors for diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, strokes and certain cancers.

Taxing these drinks is an effective means of reducing their consumption and related health issues – as well as generating revenue for the government.

A recent study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community set out to test whether a sugar tax might impact on other behaviours affecting public health, along with whether such a tax would prompt people to choose no- or low-calorie drinks.

The researchers ended up finding an association between higher soft-drink and higher demand for some alcoholic beverages in terms of family food and drink purchases.

They did not find that a sugar tax, let alone higher soft drink prices, caused people to drink more lager, as news reports suggest. In fact, the study provided no direct evidence a sugar tax will lead alcohol sales to increase.

How was the study conducted?

In this study, researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine estimated elasticity of demand on non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks in the UK, based on households' response to price differences in .

They used existing consumer survey expenditure data collected between 2012 and 2013 from nearly 32,000 households.

Households recorded their individual groceries and drinks they had purchased and brought home using scanned bar codes (or manually entered them if there was no bar code). The researchers tracked how much the household spent, where they purchased, the day of purchase and volume of beverage purchased.

They didn't track consumption, or drinks which were bought and consumed elsewhere (for instance, in a bar or at a tuckshop), just the purchase of these products.

The researchers then compared how much one family bought and brought home of each beverage type when faced with a particular set of prices, against how much another family bought of each beverage type with a different set of prices.

What were the results?

The results were mixed, with variations between beverage types and income groups. There were several key outcomes.

In families where the price paid for high sugar-sweetened beverages such as Coke and Red Bull was higher, there were greater purchases of lager (such as Stella Artois, Beck's or Corona), but less purchasing of spirits.

Where the price paid for medium sugar-sweetened drinks (including Fanta, Sprite and Powerade) was higher, there were fewer purchases of beer, lager and wines, but more of spirits.

The amount of alcohol bought and drank outside of the home wasn’t taken into account in the study. Credit: Julia Nastogadka on Unsplash

Higher prices for diet or low sugar-sweetened drinks were associated with higher purchases of all alcoholic beverages except spirits, for which purchases were less.

Taking into account also relationships with other categories of drinks, the study concludes that a price increase for medium sugar-sweetened drinks would have the most significant positive impact from a public health perspective, given the drinks' impact on dietary sugar and energy intake.

How we should read the results

In principle, elasticity is about what happens over time when there is a change – such as a new tax – which results in a higher price.

But the study was not actually measuring the effects of change in price over time. Rather, it correlated how much one family bought of each beverage type when faced with a particular set of prices against how much another family bought of each beverage type with a different set of prices.

But because the study isn't actually measuring and correlating the change that elasticities would measure – a new tax and the change in consumption over time – it offers no direct evidence of what would happen in case of a change like a new tax, and should not be interpreted as having done so.

It is commonplace in economics to estimate elasticities this way, as a kind of modelling of what might happen with an actual price change, so it is not wrong for the authors to follow this common procedure. We just need to be careful how we interpret the results.

The study results indicate that an increase in the price of sugar-sweetened drinks potentially has both positive and negative impacts, from a public health perspective, on the consumption of alcoholic beverages. It suggests more nuanced price options across different ranges of beverages should be considered rather than a single tax only on high-sugar-sweetened beverages.

What else should we take into account?

The study's measure of the amount of alcoholic beverages purchased was the number of bottles/containers of alcohol purchased – not the total units of pure alcohol (standard drinks) purchased. The demand for alcohol may not be accurately measured given different alcoholic beverages have different alcohol strengths and are in different sizes of containers.

And while the study looked at relationships between prices of sugar-sweetened drinks and consumption of other non-alcoholic and , the impact on other sugary products was not taken into account. For instance, previous studies suggest higher prices of sugar-sweetened drinks may have people substituting their sugar intake through things like sweets.

The paper's unspoken contribution: counting the calories in alcoholic drinks

The paper takes for granted that the calories in count when thinking about avoiding obesity. But alcohol is often overlooked when we are thinking about calories and obesity.

And it is not easy for consumers to take the calories in alcohol drinks into account. Unlike for every other packaged food or drink sold in Australia, the caloric content does not have to be listed on the label of alcoholic beverages. So one important contribution of the article is to underline that, aside from being intoxicating, are also high in calories.

As the paper points out, a bottle of lager beer contains slightly more calories than a can of Coca-Cola. This means arguments for discouraging obesity with a tax on drinks might well be directed at alcohol content as well as sugar content.

Explore further: Sugary drinks more affordable across the globe

Related Stories

Sugary drinks more affordable across the globe

May 4, 2017
(HealthDay)—Sugar-sweetened beverages have become more affordable worldwide, making the fight against obesity even more difficult, a new study suggests.

Smarter, slimmer alcoholic drinks

January 10, 2018
(HealthDay)—Wine and spirits are tallied in the "empty calories" column because they lack any nutritional benefits. Add cream or soda to make a mixed drink and you can more than double the caloric damage.

Taxing the dose of calories in sugary drinks could help reduce obesity

July 16, 2015
A tax on sugary drinks that depends on the number of calories or amount of sugar per liter could help fight obesity, suggests new research published in Social Science & Medicine. While a few countries are already trialing ...

Exchanging one sugar-sweetened soft drink or beer with water is associated with lower incidence of obesity

May 18, 2017
New research presented at this year's European Congress on Obesity shows that replacing one serving of sugar-sweetened soft drink or one beer a day with a glass of water could reduce the risk of becoming obese by 20%. The ...

Kids' sugary drink habits start early

January 26, 2017
(HealthDay)—Despite health messages to limit sodas and other sugary beverages, most American children drink them often, new government statistics show.

Soft drink tax could improve health of the nation

March 2, 2015
An excise tax on sugar-sweetened drinks would be an effective way to improve the health of heavy consumers, new research shows.

Recommended for you

Calcium and Vitamin D supplements are not associated with risk of heart attacks

February 16, 2018
New research from the University of Southampton has found no association between the use of calcium or vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular events such as heart attacks.

Study shows options to decrease risk of motor vehicle crashes for adolescent drivers

February 16, 2018
Adolescents who receive comprehensive and challenging on-road driving assessments prior to taking the license test might be protected from future motor vehicle crashes, according to a University of Alabama at Birmingham study ...

Being a single dad can shorten your life: study

February 15, 2018
The risk of dying prematurely more than doubles for single fathers compared to single mothers or paired-up dads, according to a study of Canadian families published Thursday.

Keeping an eye on the entire ageing process

February 15, 2018
Medical researchers often only focus on a single disease. As older people often suffer from multiple diseases at the same time, however, we need to rethink this approach, writes Ralph Müller.

Study suggests possible link between highly processed foods and cancer

February 14, 2018
A study published by The BMJ today reports a possible association between intake of highly processed ("ultra-processed") food in the diet and cancer.

Gov't says health costs to keep growing faster than economy

February 14, 2018
U.S. health care spending will keep growing faster than the overall economy in the foreseeable future, squeezing public insurance programs and employers who provide coverage, the government said Wednesday.

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.