Introduction Economic evaluations of public health interventions like sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes face difficulties similar to those previously identified in other public health areas. This stems from challenges in accurately attributing effects, capturing outcomes and costs beyond health, and integrating equity effects. This review examines how these challenges were addressed in economic evaluations of SSB taxes. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of SSB taxes focused on addressing obesity in adults, published up to February 2021. The methodological challenges examined include measuring effects, valuing outcomes, assessing costs, and incorporating equity. Results Fourteen economic evaluations of SSB taxes were identified. Across these evaluations, estimating SSB tax effects was uncertain due to a reliance on indirect evidence that was less robust than evidence from randomised controlled trials. Health outcomes, like quality-adjusted life years, along with a healthcare system perspective for costs, dominated the evaluations of SSB taxes, with a limited focus on broader non-health consequences. Equity analyses were common but employed significantly different approaches and exhibited varying degrees of quality. Conclusion Addressing the methodological challenges remains an issue for economic evaluations of public health interventions like SSB taxes, suggesting the need for increased attention on those issues in future studies. Dedicated methodological guidelines, in particular addressing the measurement of effect and incorporation of equity impacts, are warranted.

BackgroundStudies of the associations between soft drinks and the risk of cancer showed inconsistent results. No previous published systematic reviews and meta-analysis has investigated a dose-response association between exposure dose and cancer risk or assessed the certainty of currently available evidence. Therefore, we aim to demonstrate the associations and assessed the certainty of the evidence to show our confidence in the associations.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to Jun 2022, to include relevant prospective cohort studies. We used a restricted cubic spline model to conduct a dose-response meta-analysis and calculated the absolute effect estimates to present the results. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsForty-two articles including on 37 cohorts enrolled 4,518,547 participants were included. With low certainty evidence, increased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 17% greater risk of breast cancer, a 10% greater risk of colorectal cancer, a 30% greater risk of biliary tract cancer, and a 10% greater risk of prostate cancer; increased consumption of artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs)re per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 16% greater risk of leukemia; increased consumption of 100% fruit juice per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 31% greater risk of overall cancer, 22% greater risk of melanoma, 2% greater risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and 29% greater risk of thyroid cancer. The associations with other specific cancer were no significant. We found linear dose-response associations between consumption of SSBs and the risk of breast and kidney cancer, and between consumption of ASBs and 100% fruit juices and the risk of pancreatic cancer.ConclusionsAn increment in consumption of SSBs of 250 mL/day was positively associated with increased risk of breast, colorectal, and biliary tract cancer. Fruit juices consumption was also positively associated with the risk of overall cancer, thyroid cancer, and melanoma. The magnitude of absolute effects, however, was small and mainly based on low or very low certainty of evidence. The association of ASBs consumption with specific cancer risk was uncertain.

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs), and 100% fruit juices are frequently consumed and have been documented that they could lead to serious disease burden. However, inconsistent evidence on the association between SSBs, ASBs, and 100% fruit juices consumption and mortality have been presented. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO were systematically searched. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis and dose-response meta-analysis to assess the association and calculated the pooled hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval. And we evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Thirteen studies with 1,539,127 participants proved eligible. An SSB-consumption increase per 250 mL/day was associated with a 4% greater risk of all-cause mortality (5 more per 1000 persons; low certainty) and 8% greater risk of cardiovascular disease mortality (3 more per 1000 persons; low certainty). ASB-consumption increase per 250 mL/day demonstrated a 4% greater risk of all-cause mortality (5 more per 1000 persons; low certainty) and 4% greater risk of cardiovascular disease mortality (2 more per 1000 persons; low certainty). The association of SSBs and ASBs with cancer mortality was not significant, with a very low certainty of evidence. There was evidence of a linear dose-response association between SSB intake and cancer mortality, as well as between ASB intake and all-cause mortality and cancer mortality. We observed a non-linear dose-response association between ASB intake and CVD mortality and SSB intake and all-cause and CVD mortality. Low certainty of evidence demonstrated that per 250 mL/day consumption increase in SSBs and ASBs had a small impact on all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality but not on cancer mortality. The association of 100% fruit juice consumption with all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality was uncertain.

Sweetened beverage (SB) taxes have recently been introduced to prevent obesity by several governments, but limited information on related policy adoption processes hampers further diffusion. We investigated the agenda-setting and decision-making phases of SB tax reforms in Berkeley and Philadelphia (where it was successfully adopted), and Cook County (where it was repealed). A web-based survey, semi structured stakeholder interviews, and a local media coverage analysis were used to collect information. Findings were structured and analyzed using the health policy triangle of Buse, Mays and Walt. Six general lessons emerged. First, the policy was coupled to existing high-agenda items (e.g., financing pre-kindergarten in Philadelphia). Second, policy framing had to align prevailing political sentiments, as expressed in media (e.g., ‘Berkeley vs. Big Soda’ echoed skepticism of corporate influence in politics). Third, existing tax policies and political decision-making rules were important (e.g., confusion how the SB tax related to state and federal taxes fueled Cook County opposition). Fourth, the tax structure required technical and political considerations during policy formulation (e.g., artificially-sweetened beverages were included in Philadelphia to counteract arguments that the tax was regressive). Fifth, it was important to build an advocacy coalition upfront (e.g., the Berkeley coalition was constructed prior to announcing the attempt). Sixth, successful advocacy coalitions were locally grounded and influenced local media (e.g., the Cook County opposition engaged local retailers).

Taxation of energy-dense foods (EDFs) and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is increasingly of interest as a novel public health and fiscal policy instrument. However academic interest in policy determinants has remained limited. We address this paucity by comparing the policy content and policy context of EDF/SSB taxes witnessed in 13 case studies, of which we assume the tax is sufficiently high to induce behavioural change. The observational and non-randomized studies published on our case studies seem to indicate that the EDF/SSB taxes under investigation generally had the desired effects on prices and consumption of targeted products. The revenue collection of EDF/SSB taxes is minimal yet significant. Administrative practicalities in tax levying are important, possibly explaining why a drift towards solely taxing SSBs can be noted, as these can be demarcated more easily, with levies seemingly increasing in more recent case studies. Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that EDF/SSB taxes have the potential to improve health, fiscal needs more often seem to lay their policy foundation rather than public health advocacy. A remarkable amount of conservative/liberal governments have adopted these taxes, although in many cases revenues are earmarked for benefits compensating regressive income effects. Governments voice diverse policy rationales, ranging from explicitly describing the tax as a public health instrument, to solely explicating revenue raising