Did Philadelphia’s Soda Tax Help Kids Lose Weight?

by Jon Scaccia December 2, 2024

When Philadelphia implemented its soda tax in 2017, many hoped it would be a game-changer in the fight against childhood obesity. The logic seemed simple: tax sugary drinks, reduce consumption, and improve health outcomes for kids.

But did it work?

A new study provides some surprising answers, challenging assumptions and sparking questions about the most effective strategies to combat pediatric obesity.

The Promise of the Soda Tax

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are often singled out as a major culprit in childhood obesity. Packed with empty calories and contributing to nearly 40% of kids’ added sugar intake, SSBs seemed like an obvious target for public health intervention.

Philadelphia’s soda tax—a 1.5-cents-per-ounce levy on sugary and artificially sweetened drinks—was part of a broader global trend. By 2017, more than half of the world’s population lived in areas with SSB taxes. In Philadelphia, the tax led to a 30% price increase and a 25-35% decline in sales of taxed beverages. Soda consumption among high school students dropped by nearly one serving per week. These findings suggested the tax could influence pediatric weight outcomes. However, as the study reveals, the reality is more nuanced.

What the Study Found

Researchers analyzed electronic health records from a pediatric health system to compare weight trends in children aged 2-18 before and after the soda tax’s implementation. They used a rigorous approach called difference-in-differences modeling to compare kids in Philadelphia to a control group from surrounding counties.

The results were clear: two years after the tax took effect, there was no significant change in body mass index (BMI) or obesity prevalence among Philadelphia’s children compared to the control group. Even in subgroup analyses by age, race, Medicaid status, and baseline weight, the differences observed were small, inconsistent, and clinically insignificant.

For instance, while White children and older teens showed slight decreases in BMI, these changes were minimal—amounting to less than a pound of difference over two years.

Why Didn’t the Tax Work as Expected?

The findings challenge assumptions about the straightforward relationship between soda taxes and obesity. Here are some potential reasons why the tax didn’t lead to measurable weight changes:

1. Substitution Effects: While soda consumption decreased, kids might have replaced soda with other high-calorie beverages like 100% fruit juice, which was not taxed.
2. Cross-Border Shopping: Families could have bought soda in neighboring counties where the tax didn’t apply, diluting its impact.
3. Short Timeframe: Obesity is influenced by long-term habits and environmental factors. Two years may not have been enough to observe significant changes in weight outcomes.
4. Complex Causes of Obesity: Obesity is a multifaceted issue influenced by genetics, physical activity, and access to healthy foods—not just soda consumption.
5. Broader Social Determinants: Philadelphia’s children, particularly those in low-income neighborhoods, face systemic barriers to healthy living. Improving weight outcomes may require addressing these broader determinants.

Lessons Learned: A Holistic Approach to Public Health

The study underscores a critical point: addressing pediatric obesity requires more than isolated policies. While soda taxes can reduce sugary drink consumption, they are unlikely to single-handedly reverse obesity trends. Instead, comprehensive, multi-pronged strategies are needed, like:

• Expand Tax Coverage: Include other high-calorie, low-nutrition products like powdered drink mixes to reduce substitution effects.
• Invest Tax Revenue Wisely: Philadelphia’s soda tax funds pre-kindergarten programs and park renovations, which could have long-term health benefits. Ensuring these projects are fully implemented and accessible to low-income families is essential.
• Promote Healthy Alternatives: Subsidizing water, milk, or healthier beverage options could make it easier for families to choose nutritious drinks.
• Target Broader Systems: Tackling food deserts, improving physical activity opportunities, and addressing systemic inequities could create environments that support healthy behaviors.

The Bigger Picture: Reducing Sugar Isn’t Just About Weight

It’s important to note that reducing sugary drink consumption has health benefits beyond weight control. Excess sugar intake is linked to metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and dental caries, all of which can affect children’s long-term health. Even without immediate weight changes, cutting back on soda is a step in the right direction.

What’s Next?

The study leaves us with more questions than answers. Future research could explore:

• Long-Term Effects: Will weight outcomes change over a longer period as healthy habits solidify?
• Equity Impacts: Are soda taxes disproportionately affecting certain communities, and how can those effects be reduced?
• Comprehensive Policies: What combination of interventions—such as taxes, subsidies, and education—works best to improve pediatric health?

Join the Conversation

What do you think about the findings? Should cities like Philadelphia continue to implement soda taxes, or should they focus on other strategies? How can we address the broader societal factors driving childhood obesity? Share your thoughts in the comments or on social media.

Empower Your Network – Subscribe and Share!

Unlock key insights with ‘This Week in Public Health.’ Subscribe for free and share to drive change as part of a dedicated community. If you liked this blog, please share it! Your referrals help This Week in Public Health reach new readers.