Sugar marketing

Last updated

A Redpath Sugar advertisement. Redpath Sugar newspaper ad.png
A Redpath Sugar advertisement.

Sugar is heavily marketed both by sugar producers and the producers of sugary drinks and foods. Apart from direct marketing methods such as messaging on packaging, television ads, advergames, and product placement in setting like blogs, industry has worked to steer coverage of sugar-related health information in popular media, including news media and social media. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Sugar refiners and manufacturers of sugary foods and drinks have also sought to influence medical research and public health recommendations. [4] [5] The results of research on the health effects of sugary food and drink differ significantly, depending on whether the researcher has financial ties to the food and drink industry. [6] [7] [8] The authors of a 2016 review [6] of funding bias concluded that "This industry seems to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to create controversy and advance their business interests at the expense of the public's health".

History

In the early 1950s, sugar was marketed as a healthy substance that would help curb hunger and provide an energy boost. [9] More recent methods are necessarily less direct. Methods of marketing sugary products include: [10]

Influence on health information and guidelines

Sugar refiners and manufacturers of sugary foods and drinks have sought to influence medical research and public health recommendations, [4] [5] with substantial spending documented from the 1960s to 2016. [11] [12] [13] [14] The results of research on the health effects of sugary food and drink differ significantly, depending on whether the researcher has financial ties to the food and drink industry. [6] [7] [8] The authors of a 2016 review [6] of funding bias concluded that "This industry seems to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to create controversy and advance their business interests at the expense of the public's health". A 2013 review concluded that "unhealthy commodity industries should have no role in the formation of national or international NCD [ non-communicable disease ] policy". [15]

There have been similar efforts to steer coverage of sugar-related health information in popular media, including news media and social media. [1] [2] [3]

The Sugar Research Foundation, a trade association for the sugar industry, conceived, funded, and participated in an influential 1967 medical review. It was called "SRF Funds Project 226", and published as "Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease". [16] [11] While this took place in 1965–1967, it was documented in a 2016 JAMA Internal Medicine publication [11] which reviewed industry documents. Among the researchers who put their names to the 1967 review, David Mark Hegsted went on to write national nutrition guidelines, and Fredrick J. Stare was head of Harvard University's nutrition department. [17] Rules surrounding conflicts of interest in academic publishing were laxer then, helping the payment to go undeclared. Taking into account "other recent analyses of sugar industry documents", the 2016 review concludes that such actions were part of a wider industry-sponsored research program in the 1960s and 1970s. It also concludes that "Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies". [11]

Immediately afterwards, the same Sugar Research Foundation funded a study comparing sugar-fed and starch-fed rats. "SRF Funds Project 259: Dietary Carbohydrate and Blood Lipids in Germ-Free Rats" was funded from 1967 until 1971, when, after reporting preliminary results to the funders, it did not have its funding renewed. The research was never published. [18] [19]

The U.S. National Institute of Dental Research's 1971 National Caries Program was lobbied by the sugar industry, which substantially influenced the types of research the caries program called for. Research on food cariogenicity that could have harmed the sugar industry was omitted from funding priorities. The NIDR's public health task force on caries and an industry task force on caries had almost exactly the same members. The NIDR copied 78% of the industry groups' report into their own, with portions being copied verbatim. [12]

After the WHO recommended cutting sugar consumption to less than 10% of daily energy intake in 1990, the International Life Sciences Institute gained accreditation as a research organization the WHO and FAO. The institute was founded by parties including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and General Foods. Phillip James, head of the International Obesity Taskforce, considered that this accreditation increased industry influence over world health guidelines. [20]

The development of official European dietary guidelines [21] was influenced by European sugar industry groups, who in 2000 threatened to block the report if a recommendation to limit sugar consumption to less than 10% of daily energy intake were not removed. The medical experts felt forced change the recommendation, to one that sugar should not be eaten more than four times a day. [22]

Industry groups also criticized the evidence behind the World Health Organization 2003 recommended limit on free sugar consumption (again, to less than 10% of daily energy intake). [23] The US sugar industry additionally lobbied the US Congress to cut funding to the WHO. [24] [22]

When the WHO updated the recommendations, a decade later in 2013, it commissioned two reviews, and found support for both the earlier recommendation and a new, stricter one, half as high as the old limit. [25] This also met with industry opposition. The WHO began requiring anyone submitting formal comments on the proposal to fill out a conflict-of-interest form. [26]

In 2011, the competing Corn Refiners Association (which makes sugar syrups [lower-alpha 1] ) and the Sugar Association became involved in a lawsuit against one another, which continued as of 2015. [28] In the course of this lawsuit, numerous internal documents were made public. These revealed funding of over $10 million to James Rippe for health research and media outreach, and a combined $4 million to Citizens for Health and Center for Consumer Freedom, which publicly opposed one another's views on the healthiness of the rival products without acknowledging their funding (such shilling is legal in the US following the Citizens United ruling). [2] [29] [27]

In 2015, it was reported that Coca-Cola had paid millions to promote controversial health messages related to sweet drinks, ranging from academic research to social media posts, since 2008. The money went to researchers, dietitians, health experts, research organizations, and professional associations, among others. [1] [8]

Following this media attention, Coca-Cola released information on almost $120 million U.S. dollars given out to medical, health and community organizations between 2010 and 2015. [30] These include $29 million for academic research; the largest donation was $7.5 million to Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical Research Center. [31] Coca-Cola has now announced that it will "pull back" (reporter's phrasing) from funding health experts and obesity research, in order to improve its transparency. [31]

Labelling

Sugar is added to ingredients lists under dozens of different names, [32] which, where ingredients lists are in order from largest to smallest quantity, can let sugars appear spuriously lower on the ingredients list. [33]

2016 US nutritional labelling changes

In 2016, the FDA enacted new requirements for US nutrition labels, which include calorie count in larger type and a separate line for added sugars. [34] By July 2018 most manufacturers will need to use the new label.

The new FDA requirements were initially proposed in 2014, they met with strong opposition from sugar and sugary food producers. Industry claimed the new rule lacked any scientific justification. [34] Many specific companies also wrote letters requesting certain products to be exempt from the rule. The head of Ocean Spray Cranberries wrote a letter to the FDA explaining that cranberries without sugar are "unpalatable" and claimed that they needed to be an exception to the bill. The American Beverage Association wanted the measurement on the back of their labels to be in grams instead of teaspoons, saying that teaspoon measurements would carry a negative connotation that misrepresents the factual nature of nutritional information.[ citation needed ]

The changes had bipartisan support; George W. Bush supported the FDA in its request for the legislation, and, after it was enacted under Barack Obama, said that the government had "got this right". [34] [35]

Campaigns to lower sugar consumption

A community campaign in Howard County, Maryland, used the media to influence the attitudes and behaviors about the relationship between sugary drinks and obesity. The "Howard County Unsweetened" campaign used social media, television ads, in-person marketing, and community organizations to encourage people to drink less sugary drinks, and promoted water as a substitute. [36] [37] This campaign was modeled after a study done in Portland, Oregon that found community based interventions were successful in influencing consumers likelihood of purchasing sugary drinks in supermarkets. Researchers associated sugary drinks with obesity, heart disease, and diabetes to influence the attitudes of the consumers and the purchasing behaviors of consumers.[ citation needed ]

Sugar taxes

Sugar taxes have been used to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks, often in combination with public information campaigns.

A 2010 study of a sugar taxes in the US found that they decreased consumption of taxed drinks, but increased the consumption of untaxed high-calorie drinks, removing the benefit. [38]

In Mexico, sugary drink consumption dropped after a public health campaign including a sugar tax came in in 2014, and dropped further a year later. [39] [40] A 2015 tax in Berkeley, California, had a similar effect, [41] [42] although overall grocery spending did not decline. [43] In 2016, the far larger city of Philadelphia brought in a sugar tax to fund children's programs. [44] [45]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Note: corn syrups are common in the US, as government market intervention makes them cheaper than granulated sugar; [27] outside the US, it is uncommon

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Soft drink</span> Sweetened non-alcoholic drink, often carbonated

A soft drink is any water-based flavored drink, usually but not necessarily carbonated, and typically including added sweetener. Flavors used can be natural or artificial. The sweetener may be a sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, fruit juice, a sugar substitute, or some combination of these. Soft drinks may also contain caffeine, colorings, preservatives and other ingredients.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugar</span> Sweet-tasting, water-soluble carbohydrates

Sugar is the generic name for sweet-tasting, soluble carbohydrates, many of which are used in food. Simple sugars, also called monosaccharides, include glucose, fructose, and galactose. Compound sugars, also called disaccharides or double sugars, are molecules made of two bonded monosaccharides; common examples are sucrose, lactose, and maltose. White sugar is a refined form of sucrose. In the body, compound sugars are hydrolysed into simple sugars.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugar substitute</span> Sugarless food additive intended to provide a sweet taste

A sugar substitute is a food additive that provides a sweetness like that of sugar while containing significantly less food energy than sugar-based sweeteners, making it a zero-calorie or low-calorie sweetener. Artificial sweeteners may be derived through manufacturing of plant extracts or processed by chemical synthesis. Sugar substitute products are commercially available in various forms, such as small pills, powders, and packets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diet soda</span> Type of sugar-free or artificially sweetened soda

Diet or light beverages are generally sugar-free, artificially sweetened beverages with few or no calories. They are marketed for diabetics and other people who want to reduce their sugar and/or caloric intake.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Healthy diet</span> Type of diet

A healthy diet is a diet that maintains or improves overall health. A healthy diet provides the body with essential nutrition: fluid, macronutrients such as protein, micronutrients such as vitamins, and adequate fibre and food energy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center for Science in the Public Interest</span> American consumer advocacy group

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit watchdog and consumer advocacy group that advocates for safer and healthier foods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High-fructose corn syrup</span> Processed corn syrup

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), also known as glucose–fructose, isoglucose and glucose–fructose syrup, is a sweetener made from corn starch. As in the production of conventional corn syrup, the starch is broken down into glucose by enzymes. To make HFCS, the corn syrup is further processed by D-xylose isomerase to convert some of its glucose into fructose. HFCS was first marketed in the early 1970s by the Clinton Corn Processing Company, together with the Japanese Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, where the enzyme was discovered in 1965.

A fat tax is a tax or surcharge that is placed upon fattening food, beverages or on overweight individuals. It is considered an example of Pigovian taxation. A fat tax aims to discourage unhealthy diets and offset the economic costs of obesity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diet and obesity</span> Effect of diet on obesity


Diet plays an important role in the genesis of obesity. Personal choices, food advertising, social customs and cultural influences, as well as food availability and pricing all play a role in determining what and how much an individual eats.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugary drink tax</span> Tax or surcharge on soft drinks

A sugary drink tax, soda tax, or sweetened beverage tax (SBT) is a tax or surcharge designed to reduce consumption of sweetened beverages. Drinks covered under a soda tax often include carbonated soft drinks, sports drinks and energy drinks. This policy intervention is an effort to decrease obesity and the health impacts related to being overweight. The tax is a matter of public debate in many countries and beverage producers like Coca-Cola often oppose it. Advocates such as national medical associations and the World Health Organization promote the tax as an example of Pigovian taxation, aimed to discourage unhealthy diets and offset the growing economic costs of obesity.

Funding bias, also known as sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, funding publication bias, and funding effect, refers to the tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies. Funding bias has been associated, in particular, with research into chemical toxicity, tobacco, and pharmaceutical drugs. It is an instance of experimenter's bias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Lustig</span> Endocrinologist, professor

Robert H. Lustig is an American pediatric endocrinologist. He is Professor emeritus of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where he specialized in neuroendocrinology and childhood obesity. He is also director of UCSF's WATCH program, and president and co-founder of the non-profit Institute for Responsible Nutrition.

White hat bias (WHB) is a purported "bias leading to the distortion of information in the service of what may be perceived to be righteous ends", which consist of both cherry picking the evidence and publication bias. Public health researchers David Allison and Mark Cope first discussed this bias in a 2010 paper and explained the motivation behind it in terms of "righteous zeal, indignation toward certain aspects of industry", and other factors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Added sugar</span> Caloric sweeteners added to food and beverages

Added sugars or free sugars are sugar carbohydrates added to food and beverages at some point before their consumption. These include added carbohydrates, and more broadly, sugars naturally present in honey, syrup, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates. They can take multiple chemical forms, including sucrose, glucose (dextrose), and fructose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sweetened beverage</span> Type of beverage

A sweetened beverage is any beverage with added sugar. It has been described as "liquid candy". Consumption of sweetened beverages has been linked to weight gain, obesity, and associated health risks. According to the CDC, consumption of sweetened beverages is also associated with unhealthy behaviors like smoking, not getting enough sleep and exercise, and eating fast food often and not enough fruits regularly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coming Together (advertisement)</span> 2013 Coca-Cola Company advertisement

Coming Together is a 2-minute ad created and distributed by the Coca-Cola Company and launched on the night of January 14, 2013, on several cable networks.

The Australian paradox is an observation of diverging trends in sugar consumption and obesity rates in Australia. The term was first used in a 2011 study published in Nutrients by Professor Jennie Brand-Miller, in which she and co-author Dr Alan Barclay reported that, in Australia, "a substantial decline in refined sugars intake occurred over the same timeframe that obesity has increased."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugar industry</span> Enterprises dealing with sugar

The sugar industry subsumes the production, processing and marketing of sugars. Globally, most sugar is extracted from sugar cane and sugar beet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugar Association</span> American sugar industry trade association

The Sugar Association is a trade association for the sugar industry of the United States. Its members include nearly 142,000 growers, processors and refiners of sugar beet and sugarcane plants.

Dean-David Schillinger is an American general internist and former Chief of the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Division of General Internal Medicine at San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH). In 2006, he founded the UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations, whose mission is to advance health in poor communities. His research focuses on health communication for vulnerable populations, and the prevention and control of type 2 diabetes.

References

  1. 1 2 3 O’Connor, Anahad (9 August 2015). "Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away From Bad Diets". Well. Retrieved 24 March 2018.
  2. 1 2 3 Lipton, Eric (11 February 2014). "Rival Industries Sweet-Talk the Public". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  3. 1 2 Sifferlin, Alexandra (10 October 2016). "Soda Companies Fund 96 Health Groups In the U.S." Time. Retrieved 24 March 2018.
  4. 1 2 Mozaffarian, Dariush (2 May 2017). "Conflict of Interest and the Role of the Food Industry in Nutrition Research". JAMA. 317 (17): 1755–1756. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3456. ISSN   0098-7484. PMID   28464165.
  5. 1 2 Anderson, P.; Miller, D. (11 February 2015). "Commentary: Sweet policies" (PDF). BMJ. 350 (feb10 16): –780–h780. doi:10.1136/bmj.h780. ISSN   1756-1833. PMID   25672619. S2CID   34501758.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Schillinger, Dean; Tran, Jessica; Mangurian, Christina; Kearns, Cristin (20 December 2016). "Do Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Cause Obesity and Diabetes? Industry and the Manufacture of Scientific Controversy" (PDF). Annals of Internal Medicine. 165 (12): 895–897. doi:10.7326/L16-0534. ISSN   0003-4819. PMC   7883900 . PMID   27802504 . Retrieved 21 March 2018.(original url, paywalled: Author's conflict of interest disclosure forms)
  7. 1 2 Bes-Rastrollo, Maira; Schulze, Matthias B.; Ruiz-Canela, Miguel; Martinez-Gonzalez, Miguel A. (2013). "Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews". PLOS Medicine. 10 (12): –1001578. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578 . PMC   3876974 . PMID   24391479.
  8. 1 2 3 O’Connor, Anahad (31 October 2016). "Studies Linked to Soda Industry Mask Health Risks". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  9. ↑ "8 Insane Vintage Ads That Make Sugar Seem Like A Health Food". Business Insider. Retrieved 11 December 2017.
  10. ↑ Bailin, Deborah; Goldman, Gretchen; Phartiyal, Pallavi (2014). Sugar-coating science: How the Food Industry Misleads Consumers on Sugar (Report). Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 3 September 2018.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Kearns, C. E.; Schmidt, L. A; Glantz, S. A (2016). "Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents". JAMA Internal Medicine. 176 (11): 1680–85. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394. PMC   5099084 . PMID   27617709.
  12. 1 2 Kearns, Cristin E.; Glantz, Stanton A.; Schmidt, Laura A. (10 March 2015). Simon Capewell (ed.). "Sugar Industry Influence on the Scientific Agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research's 1971 National Caries Program: A Historical Analysis of Internal Documents". PLOS Medicine. 12 (3): –1001798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798 . ISSN   1549-1676. PMC   4355299 . PMID   25756179.
  13. ↑ Flint, Stuart W. (1 August 2016). "Are we selling our souls? Novel aspects of the presence in academic conferences of brands linked to ill health". J Epidemiol Community Health. 70 (8): 739–740. doi:10.1136/jech-2015-206586. ISSN   0143-005X. PMID   27009056. S2CID   35094445 . Retrieved 25 March 2018.(second issn: 1470-2738)
  14. ↑ Aaron, Daniel G.; Siegel, Michael B. (January 2017). "Sponsorship of National Health Organizations by Two Major Soda Companies". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 52 (1): 20–30. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.010. ISSN   0749-3797. PMID   27745783.
  15. ↑ Moodie, Rob; Stuckler, David; Monteiro, Carlos; Sheron, Nick; Neal, Bruce; Thamarangsi, Thaksaphon; Lincoln, Paul; Casswell, Sally (23 February 2013). "Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries". The Lancet. 381 (9867): 670–679. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62089-3. ISSN   0140-6736. PMID   23410611. S2CID   844739.
  16. ↑ original publication referred to, not cited as an information source: McGandy, Robert B.; Hegsted, D.M.; Stare, F. J. (27 July 1967). "Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease". New England Journal of Medicine. 277 (4): 186–192. doi:10.1056/NEJM196707272770405. ISSN   1533-4406. PMID   5339697.
  17. ↑ O'Connor, Anahad (12 September 2016). "How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2017.
  18. ↑ Kearns, Cristin E.; Apollonio, Dorie; Glantz, Stanton A. (21 November 2017). "Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer: An historical analysis of internal documents". PLOS Biology. 15 (11): –2003460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003460 . ISSN   1545-7885. PMC   5697802 . PMID   29161267.
  19. ↑ O’Connor, Anahad (21 November 2017). "Sugar Industry Long Downplayed Potential Harms". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2 September 2018.
  20. ↑ Barbara Sibbald (10 June 2003). "Sugar industry sour on WHO report". CMAJ. 168 (12): 1585. PMC   156706 . PMID   12796354.
  21. ↑ Kafatos, Anthony; Codrington, Caroline A. (2 January 2007). "Nutrition and diet for healthy lifestyles in Europe: the 'Eurodiet' Project". Public Health Nutrition. 2 (3a): 327–328. doi: 10.1017/S1368980099000439 . PMID   10610068.
  22. 1 2 Boseley, Sarah (21 April 2003). "Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO". the Guardian.
  23. ↑ Ydstie, John; Marion, Nestle (24 April 2003). "Sugar Industry Takes on the World Health Organization". NPR.org.
  24. ↑ Boseley S. (2003). "Political context of the World Health Organization: sugar industry threatens to scupper the WHO". Int J Health Serv. 33 (4): 831–3. doi:10.2190/u0mw-wm82-n5bh-e20c. PMID   14758862. S2CID   7287748.
  25. ↑ Mann, J.; Fleck, F. (1 November 2014). "The science behind the sweetness in our diets". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 92 (11): 780–781. doi:10.2471/BLT.14.031114. ISSN   0042-9686. PMC   4221767 . PMID   25378738.
  26. ↑ Owens, Brian (11 March 2014). "Storm brewing over WHO sugar proposal". Nature. 507 (7491): 150. Bibcode:2014Natur.507..150O. doi: 10.1038/507150a . PMID   24622183.
  27. 1 2 "Stealth Lobbying Used to Tout Sugar Over Rival Corn Syrup". Bloomberg.com. 18 September 2012. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  28. ↑ "Western Sugar Litigation Case History". 9 November 2015. Archived from the original on 9 November 2015.
  29. ↑ Hamburger, Tom (12 February 2014). "'Soft lobbying' war between sugar, corn syrup shows new tactics in Washington influence: Inside the secretive war between sugar and corn syrup". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  30. ↑ O’Connor, Anahad (22 September 2015). "Coke Discloses Millions in Grants for Health Research and Community Programs". Well. Retrieved 11 May 2018.
  31. 1 2 O'Connor, Anahad (28 September 2015). "Coke Spends Lavishly on Pediatricians and Dietitians". Well. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  32. ↑ "Different Words for Sugar on Food Labels" . Retrieved 2 September 2018.
  33. ↑ Boston, 677 Huntington Avenue; Ma 02115 +1495‑1000 (5 August 2013). "Added Sugar in the Diet". The Nutrition Source. Retrieved 3 September 2018.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  34. 1 2 3 Tavernise, Sabrina (20 May 2016). "F.D.A. Finishes Food Labels for How We Eat Now". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2017.
  35. ↑ Tavernise, Sabrina (27 February 2014). "New F.D.A. Nutrition Labels Would Make 'Serving Sizes' Reflect Actual Servings". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2 September 2018.
  36. ↑ Schwartz, Marlene B.; Schneider, Glenn E.; Choi, Yoon-Young; Li, Xun; Harris, Jennifer; Andreyeva, Tatiana; Hyary, Maia; Vernick, Nicolette Highsmith; Appel, Lawrence J. (1 May 2017). "Association of a Community Campaign for Better Beverage Choices With Beverage Purchases From Supermarkets". JAMA Internal Medicine. 177 (5): 666–674. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9650. ISSN   2168-6106. PMC   5470385 . PMID   28264077.
  37. ↑ "Sugary drink sales drop nearly 20 percent after multi-faceted campaign". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2 September 2018.
  38. ↑ Fletcher, Jason M.; Frisvold, David E.; Tefft, Nathan (1 December 2010). "The effects of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and weight outcomes" (PDF). Journal of Public Economics. 94 (11): 967–974. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.09.005. ISSN   0047-2727.
  39. ↑ Colchero, M. Arantxa; Rivera-Dommarco, Juan; Popkin, Barry M.; Ng, Shu Wen (2 August 2017). "In Mexico, Evidence Of Sustained Consumer Response Two Years After Implementing A Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax". Health Affairs. 36 (3): 564–571. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1231. PMC   5442881 . PMID   28228484.
  40. ↑ O'Connor, Anahad (6 January 2016). "Mexican Soda Tax Followed by Drop in Sugary Drink Sales". Well. Retrieved 2 September 2018.
  41. ↑ "Berkeley soda tax takes a big gulp out of sugary-drink sales". Reuters. 19 April 2017. Retrieved 2 September 2018.
  42. ↑ Silver, Lynn D.; Ng, Shu Wen; Ryan-Ibarra, Suzanne; Taillie, Lindsey Smith; Induni, Marta; Miles, Donna R.; Poti, Jennifer M.; Popkin, Barry M. (18 April 2017). "Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study". PLOS Medicine. 14 (4): –1002283. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283 . ISSN   1549-1676. PMC   5395172 . PMID   28419108.
  43. ↑ Boseley, Sarah (18 April 2017). "First US sugar tax sees soft drink sales fall by almost 10%, study shows". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2 September 2018.
  44. ↑ "Philadelphia becomes first major US city with a soda tax". The Guardian. 16 June 2016. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2 September 2018.
  45. ↑ Boseley, Sarah (18 April 2017). "First US sugar tax sees soft drink sales fall by almost 10%, study shows". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2 September 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.