Soda Sales Fall Again in Mexico s Second Year of Taxation

Health Aff (Millwood). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 Mar 1.

Published in final edited form equally:

PMCID: PMC5442881

NIHMSID: NIHMS856266

Sustained consumer response: bear witness from 2-years after implementing the sugar sweetened beverage tax in Mexico

M. Arantxa Colchero

¹Center for Health Systems Research, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

Juan A. Rivera

^twoMiddle for Enquiry on Diet and Health, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

Barry M. Popkin

³Section of Nutrition and Carolina Population Center, University of N Carolina at Chapel Loma, CB #8120, 137 East Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Shu Wen Ng

³Department of Nutrition and Carolina Population Center, University of Due north Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB #8120, 137 East Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Abstract

In the first year of a 1 peso per liter excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, there was a half dozen% reduction in purchases of taxed beverages in Mexico. This paper estimates changes in potable purchases 2 years after revenue enhancement implementation.

We used household store purchase data for 6,645 households from January 2012 to Dec 2015. Changes in purchases of taxed and untaxed beverages in the post-revenue enhancement years were estimated using two split models: comparing 2014 with predicted volumes (counterfactual) based on pre-tax (2012-2013) trends, and comparison 2015 with the same counterfactual.

Purchases of taxed beverages decreased by 8.ii% over the two years on average (-5.v% in 2014; -9.7% in 2015). The lowest socioeconomic group had the largest decreases in taxed beverages in both years. Untaxed beverage purchases increased two.1% in the post-taxation period.

In Mexico, lower purchases of taxed beverages was sustained and grew in the 2nd year of the tax.

Keywords: tax, saccharide-sweetened beverages, United mexican states

Introduction

In 2012, the prevalence of overweight and obesity in United mexican states reached 70% among adults and xxx% among children (1, 2). Although obesity and all related chronic illness are the result of a multitude of causes, evidence shows that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) is associated with weight gain, diabetes and other chronic diseases (three-eight).

Added sugars in Mexico represent on boilerplate 12.five% of total energy intake (nine). This is college than the World Wellness Organization'due south recommended limit of added saccharide intake at 10% or less (10). SSB solitary account for 70% of added sugar in Mexico (9.8% of total energy intake on boilerplate (11), and therefore SSB is a logical target for lowering added sugar intake.

To reduce the consumption of SSB, the Mexican government implemented an excise tax of 1 Mexican peso per liter to all non-alcoholic beverages with added sugar (including powdered SSB based on their reconstitution and flavored/sweetened dairy products that are not milks) starting on 1^st January 2014 (12). The regulation allows for the tax to be adapted when the cumulative inflation rate in Mexico reaches x% (13).

Earlier bear witness for 2014 showed that in urban areas, the tax passed completely to prices on boilerplate, and there were no significant changes in prices of untaxed beverages, except for nutrition sodas whose price increased but represent a low proportion of untaxed beverages (fourteen) and that on boilerplate, in that location was a 6% refuse in purchases of taxed beverages and a 4% increase in untaxed beverages purchases in 2014 (fifteen).

After these initial peer reviewed inquiry papers were published, there were statements in the printing claiming that the SSB tax did not reduce purchases of these products in 2015 (16), as it did in 2014. Subsequent investigations into the approaches used by these groups reveal that they used amass sales measures, ignored significant increases in population size, changes in age composition, among other problems (17-xix).

A few studies have already noted that when one adjusts for these various factors aggregate sales per capita show a decline in the second twelvemonth of the tax (17-19); yet these data do non provide the rigorous assay needed to empathize how households overall and of various socioeconomic groups respond to the tax. In add-on, these analyses cannot account for other critical factors that might affect household beverage purchases. Information technology is also important to note that because the cumulative Mexican aggrandizement rate has not reached 10% (cumulative inflation over the ii years was vi.3%)(xx)-a level which triggers an inflation adjustment equally noted above-, it is possible that the gradual effects of inflation eroded the tax value over fourth dimension. Too, information technology is possible that over a longer menses of time, some Mexican households adjusted their handbasket of purchases to allow them to increment SSB purchases (21) or, on the reverse, past habit formation people could reduce consumption more in the long run than in the short run (22).

Although some countries/cities have proposed or implemented taxes to SSB (France, Finland, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, the Great britain as well every bit some cities in the US such every bit Berkeley, Albany, San Francisco, Oakland, California; Bedrock, Colorado; Melt county, Illinois) evidence of changes in purchases or consumption is scarce. Contempo results from the short term changes in SSB intake in Berkeley show a reduction in the frequency of consumption amongst lower income households (23).

This paper attempts to control for many of these critical issues by conducting a longitudinal analysis of a panel of Mexican urban households to judge changes in purchases from stores of taxed and untaxed beverages two years after the implementation of the SSB taxation. We analyzed the change by socioeconomic grouping and past drinkable categories.

Methods

Information

We used monthly household shop buy data from Nielsen'southward Mexico Consumer Panel Services betwixt January 2012 and December 2015 that includes a sample of 6,645 households in Mexico living in 53 cities, representing cities that have populations from 50,000 to 8.nine million inhabitants. For each household in the survey, the data include data on food and beverages purchased from stores and socio-demographic variables. Information collection on purchases is based on data that households have to continue: receipts from purchases in stores, empty packages of food and beverages purchased and daily reports/diaries. Therefore, information contains potable purchases from a variety of stores, markets and whatsoever other vendors so long as it has a barcode and or packaging that provides information about the product (e.g., brand, size). The data practise not include information on fountain drinks or hot drinks from food service locations or potable/tap water consumed.

We systematically classified products into potable categories in 2016 based on production descriptions and sources available on the internet and in stores. In this report we focus on taxed and untaxed beverages. The ii categories for taxed beverages were carbonated sodas and non-carbonated SSBs (including powders in its reconstituted form based on the label), and the three categories for untaxed beverages were carbonated drinks such as diet sodas; sparkling, yet, or patently water; unsweetened dairy beverages and substitutes, and other untaxed drinks, including unsweetened fruit juices. From these we summed the monthly volume each household purchased in each of the potable categories beyond each of the 48 months. Then we calculated the volume per capita per mean solar day for interpretability.

Empirical estimation

Nosotros used the aforementioned model employed to evaluate changes in purchases in 2014 (xv) with two adjustments. Showtime, the model at present controls for aggrandizement, which is relevant for the medium term evaluation, as the tax has not been adjusted for inflation yet. Second, the new approach estimates the association of the tax and purchases in two divide models for each of the mail-tax years to allow comparisons to the pre-tax catamenia. The separate models also ensure that the boosted 2015 information does not bias the predicted values (up or down).

We model changes in monthly volume of purchases (ml/capita/day) of taxed and untaxed beverages. The Consumer Panel Services did not collect information on purchases of dairy products from the full sample earlier Oct 2012 (personal communication); therefore, we excluded data for dairy beverages (untaxed) in order to have comparable time periods for taxed and untaxed beverages. Estimations for untaxed beverages including dairy are presented in the supplemental cloth. We log transformed the dependent variable every bit the distribution of purchases was skewed and was not normally distributed. All non-purchases were kept when log transforming past calculation a small value of 1 ml/capita/day to all aught purchases.

Non-reported of buy of products within a potable category tin can occur due to misreporting. This variability in the probability of missing purchase data, needs to be accounted for. For each beverage category with more than ten% household reporting no purchases (taxed sodas, taxed non-soda SSBs, taxed dairy beverages, untaxed water, untaxed diary and other untaxed beverages), we first ran longitudinal probit models for the probability of reporting purchasing (or the probability of missing data). We derived the inverse probability weights (IPW), as the changed of the predicted values from these models. Thus, higher IPWs are given to household-calendar month observations with lower probability of reporting purchasing so that these nether-represented observations are appropriately reflected in the analyses. The IPWs are included in the fixed effects model to predict changes in purchases using areg, blot in Stata (24) as IPWs can alter over time for any given household.

We estimated stock-still furnishings regression adjusting for variables that alter with time: almanac measures of socio-demographic characteristics of the households (household size and composition, educational activity of the head of the household and 3 groups of socioeconomic status) and macroeconomic variables such as state quarterly unemployment rates (25), minimum daily salary (26). We adjusted for monthly inflation using the consumer price index from prices collected in 46 cities in Mexico (20) for each corresponding twelvemonth, calendar month and city (or city in the aforementioned country). We also included month dummies to accommodate for seasonality instead of quarters as previously estimated (BMJ), to better represent the seasonality, particularly for certain months (December 2014- Feb 2015), when a decline was significantly larger than observed in previous years, specially for untaxed beverages.

Nosotros ran divide models for each post-taxation year using the pre-revenue enhancement period for comparison with both post-revenue enhancement years: model one compares 2012-2013 with 2014; model 2 compares 2012-2013 with 2015. Within each model, nosotros compared the predicted post-tax book of beverages purchased obtained from the model with the predicted volume that would have been if the tax was not implemented from pre-taxation trends (the counterfactual). The counterfactual for each yr was predicted from replacing the dummy variable for the revenue enhancement with zero for all observation only allowing all other observed variables (including all other time measures) to vary. Nosotros conducted the analysis for the total sample and stratified the model past socioeconomic status and type of drinkable (taxed sodas, taxed non-soda SSB, taxed dairy beverages, withal bottled water, untaxed dairy beverages and other untaxed beverages).

The analytical sample for this report included 270,782 households-month observations for the flow betwixt January 2012 and December 2015 from 6,645 households (average of 40.vii months of information per household out of the maximum of 48.

There are some limitations to this research. As in all non-experimental studies, causality cannot be established as other changes are occurring concurrent with the tax. Nosotros attempted to overcome this by adjusting for contextual economical factors and time trends, but while these adjustments brand the results more than plausible, they may have been bereft. Another attribute to consider is the concurrent introduction of an viii% ad valorem taxation to nonessential energy dumbo food that has shown to be associated with purchases (27). It is also possible that differential changes in purchases of taxed beverages may result non only due to the elastic nature of the demand for SSB, but information technology could as well be the result of more awareness about the negative effect of SSBs on health (10) and of recommendations by WHO/PAHO to reduce the intake of SSBs through taxes and other policies (28) or the potential effect of other regulations implemented past the Government such as the regulation of unhealthy food and beverages in schools and fractional regulation of marketing targeted to children (29, 30). Conversely, an increase in industry strategies (campaigns, promotions, marketing) in the post-revenue enhancement period (31) may take attenuated the true contained effect of the tax.

Other limitations include the incomplete data on dairy beverage purchases earlier October 2012, limiting the overall event of the taxation on untaxed beverage purchases. As well, the data only represents consumers in cities with more than 50,000 residents; we do not have data from smaller cities and rural areas.

Finally, average purchases in household surveys tend to exist underestimated compared to other sources. For example, the average per capita purchase per twenty-four hours of taxed beverages in the purchase data in 2012 was 224.7ml compared to 345.2ml in Euromonitor (off-trade sales, which measures sales from stores and excludes food service sales such as from fountain drinks)(32). However, the trends in underreporting comparing Nielsen food purchase and Euromonitor information between 2012 and 2015 did not change over time.

Results

Descriptive results

Appendix exhibits A1 and A2 in the supplemental materials shows the monthly weighted unadjusted mean for taxed beverages and untaxed beverages (excluding dairy) from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015 (33).

Meanwhile, Appendix showroom A3 of the supplemental material compares the survey weighted measures for head of the household educational activity and region between the Nielsen Consumer Panel Service and the nationally representative National Income and Expenditure Survey and population projections for 2014 (33).

Adjusted analyses of purchases

Exhibit ane shows the adjusted predicted and counterfactual values for 2014 and 2015 from the two separate models for taxed beverages. Results bear witness an average turn down in taxed beverages of -5.5% in 2014, and -9.7% in 2015 compared to the counterfactual, resulting in an average decline of -7.6% for the unabridged mail service-tax menstruation (exhibit 2 shows the relative values (%) for all months).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is nihms856266f1.jpg

Absolute values (ml/capita/day) of counterfactuals (predicted in the absence of the taxation) and post-tax volumes of taxed beverages

Source: Authors' own analyses and calculations based on data from Nielsen though its Mexico Consumer Panel Service (CPS) for the food and beverage categories for January 2012–Dec 2015 (The Nielsen Company, 2016). Nielsen is not responsible for and had no role in preparing the results reported herein.

Notes: Models adjusted for household size and limerick, seasonality, education of the caput of the household, household socioeconomic status and macroeconomic variables. Monthly counterfactual estimated based on pre-taxation trends.

Differences in absolute values comparison the mail service-revenue enhancement periods with the counterfactuals were all statistically significant at p<0.01.

Exhibit 2

Monthly relative differences (%) between counterfactuals (predicted in the absence of the tax) and postal service-tax volumes of taxed beverages and untaxed beverages excluding dairy

Month/yr	Taxed beverages	Untaxed beverages excluding dairy
2014
Jan	-0.8%^*	10.2%^*
February	-0.4%^*	nine.3%^*
March	-1.6^*	eight.4%^*
April	-2.7%^*	7.5%^*
May	-3.9%^*	6.half-dozen%^*
June	-5.0%^*	5.vii%^*
July	-6.1%^*	4.8%^*
Baronial	-7.3%^*	iii.9%^*
September	-8.four%^*	3.one%^*
October	-ix.four%^*	two.2%^*
November	-10.v%^*	1.4%^*
December	-xi.half dozen%^*	0.5%^*
2014 Average	-v.5%	5.3%

2015
January	-ten.8%^*	-4.4%^*
February	-10.6%^*	-3.8%^*
March	-x.four%^*	-3.2%^*
April	-10.2%^*	-2.6%^*
May	-10.0%^*	-2.0%^*
June	-nine.viii%^*	-1.3%^*
July	-nine.vi%^*	-0.vii%^*
August	-9.4%^*	-0.1%^*
September	-nine.2%^*	-0.five%^*
October	-ix.0%^*	1.2%^*
Nov	-8.viii%^*	1.eight%^*
December	-8.five%^*	ii.4%^*
2015 Average	-9.7%	-1.0%
Average 2014-2015	-seven.6%	ii.one%

Exhibit three shows the adjusted predicted and counterfactual values for 2014 and 2015 from split up models for untaxed beverages. Results bear witness an increase in untaxed beverage purchased of v.iii% in 2014 and -one.0% in 2015, which gives an average increase of 2.1% in the entire mail service-taxation period (exhibit 4 shows the relative values (%) for all months).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is nihms856266f2.jpg

Absolute values (ml/capita/day) of counterfactuals (predicted in the absence of the tax) and post-tax volumes of untaxed beverages excluding dairy

Source: Authors' own analyses and calculations based on data from Nielsen though its Mexico Consumer Panel Service (CPS) for the food and potable categories for January 2012–December 2015 (The Nielsen Visitor, 2016). Nielsen is not responsible for and had no role in preparing the results reported herein.

Notes: Models adjusted for household size and composition, seasonality, education of the caput of the household, household socioeconomic status and macroeconomic variables. Monthly counterfactual estimated based on pre-revenue enhancement trends.

Differences in absolute values comparing the post-tax periods with the counterfactuals were all statistically significant at p<0.01. Excludes dairy beverages due to incomplete data from Jan -September 2012.

Showroom 4

Absolute (ml/capita/twenty-four hour period) and relative differences (%) between counterfactuals and post-tax volumes of taxed and untaxed beverage purchases stratified past SES

SES Level	2014	2015	Average
Taxed Beverages
Lowest
Absolute difference	-18.eight^*	-29.3^*	-24.0
Relative difference	-nine.0%	-14.3%	-eleven.7%
Center
Absolute departure	-12.8^*	-23.3^*	-eighteen.0
Relative divergence	-5.9%	-11.7%	-8.viii%
Highest
Absolute departure	-6.nine^*	-8.ii^*	-vii.half-dozen
Relative difference	-four.4%	-v.6%	-v.one%
All
Absolute difference	-10.vi^*	-17.2^*	-xiii.9
Relative departure	-five.5%	-9.seven%	-7.half dozen%

Untaxed Beverages
Everyman
Absolute divergence	15.9^*	-46.3^*	-15.2
Relative divergence	2.4%	-5.9%	-ane.eight%
Middle
Accented difference	48.five^*	-eight.viii	xix.9
Relative deviation	5.half dozen%	-1.2%	2.1%
Highest
Accented difference	39.1	-11.ix	13.half dozen
Relative difference	iv.five%	-1.five%	1.2%
All
Absolute difference	43.2	-7.0	eighteen.1
Relative difference	5.iii%	-one.0%	2.i%

Exhibit 4 shows the absolute and relative difference in adjusted volumes of taxed and untaxed beverages in the post-tax period compared to the counterfactual by socioeconomic status. For taxed beverages, all groups experienced significant declines but reductions in accented and relative terms were larger amongst the everyman socioeconomic group (-18.eight ml/solar day/capita, -9.0% in 2014 and -29.3ml/24-hour interval/capita, -xiv.3% in 2015) compared to the middle and highest socioeconomic groups. The differences betwixt socioeconomic groups are statistically significant (confidence intervals do non overlap). For untaxed beverages, the center socioeconomic group had the largest positive increase in purchases in 2014. Overall untaxed drink purchases fell slightly in year ii, such that the overall increase over the two post-taxation years was only 2.i%

Appendix showroom 4 of the supplemental material presents the results of the model for untaxed beverages including dairy (33).

Appendix exhibit A5 shows the results of changes in purchases for taxed and untaxed beverages by blazon of drink (33).

Conclusions

We estimated changes in purchases of taxed and untaxed beverages two years later the SSB excise tax was implemented in Mexico. For taxed beverages, we found an average refuse of -7.6% in purchases over the two post-tax years compared to what would have happened if the taxation were non implemented. The reduction was larger in 2015 compared to 2014 (-9.7% and -5.5%, respectively). For untaxed beverages nosotros institute an boilerplate increase of two.1% over the two mail service-taxation years. Similar to previously published findings for 2014 (xiii), all three socioeconomic groups studied reduced purchases of taxed beverages in 2015, but absolute and relative reductions were larger among the households in the low socioeconomic condition.

Although the model presented in this paper adapted for inflation and included monthly dummies for seasonality, results for taxed beverages are very like compared to previous findings for just 2014 lone (fifteen). Results for the two years are very similar to a recent analysis using sales information from the Monthly Surveys of the Manufacturing Industry that shows a 7.3% reduction in sales of SSB two years after the implementation of the tax compared to 2007-2013 (19). Although sales data are less likely to underestimate bodily consumption, the data used in the current study allows a better nomenclature of taxed and untaxed beverages and the possibility to suit and stratify for variables at the household level that are associated with purchases. These findings provide empirical evidence to model-based price elasticity studies of SSB demand in the United States showing higher price elasticity in the long run compared to the short run (22). Economics studies of tobacco and other highly preferred addiction-forming items where enquiry imply that the long-term bear on of a price change will be much larger than the short-term effect for tobacco, booze and illicit drugs (34-38). The college reduction in purchases in the second twelvemonth of the taxation suggests that this may be truthful for SSB purchases also.

Nosotros found that taxed sodas had a very pocket-sized pass up compared to not-soda SSBs, which was consistent with the starting time twelvemonth results (15). These findings could partly exist explained by the higher prices and college toll elasticities of not-soda SSBs compared to sodas (39). Consumers may accept substituted for cheaper sodas given their large toll variations (14). Moreover, the reduction in purchases of taxed sodas beverages may exist underestimated if purchases of smaller package sizes (which showed a larger increase in price than larger packages after the tax) are not well reported in the information, as these may exist consumed on the go and thus may be underreported by the key household informant equally is true for diet surveys too.

For untaxed beverages excluding dairy, previous findings showed a ii% increase in 2014 (15), which was lower than the v.iii% increase shown in this paper. The difference is that in the quondam study, dairy and other untaxed beverages were excluded and in this paper only dairy was the category excluded because data was collected simply since October 2012. Other beverages represent virtually v% of full untaxed beverage purchases and show a big increase in the postal service-tax period as shown in Table S2.

Nosotros found a drop for untaxed beverages in 2015, mainly linked to a very large decrease in purchases of untaxed beverages the Dec 2014-Feb 2015 flow. In contrast, aggregated per capita sales data for the land shows an increasing trend of not-SSB beverages since 2001 that connected through 2015 (32). In addition, analyses of the Monthly Surveys of the Manufacturing Industry show an increase in the production sales of still bottled h2o of 5.2% in the mail service-tax period compared to 2007-2013, which may reflect that consumers in Mexico are substituting for not-SSBs such as water (19). Each data sources has its limitations, which may be the crusade of the discrepancies between aggregate per capita sales data per capita and data on purchases from the panel. Analysis of future years of data may clarify the discrepancy.

Overall these results contradict industry reports of a decline in the effect of the tax afterwards the first year of implementation. We show that there was a further reduction in SSB purchases in 2015 across the reduction in 2014. Moreover, both the absolute and relative reduction was highest among lower socioeconomic households. Future analysis of a national diet survey conducted in 2016 will allow us to understand shifts in a number of cardiometabolic measures between 2012 and 2016 as well every bit examine shifts in dietary patterns. Together with farther future analyses of food purchase data these analyses volition provide a improve understanding of the longer term implications of the Mexican SSB excise tax.

International Agencies such equally the Globe Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization have recommended implementing taxes to discourage the consumption of unhealthy food and beverages though increases in relative prices (28, 40). The results of the evaluation of the taxation in Mexico revealed reductions in SSB purchases of viii.2% on average over the first 2 years. These reductions in consumption could have positive impacts on health outcomes and reductions in health intendance expenses every bit shown in a recently published simulation model (41). Decreases in purchases were college among households of lower socioeconomic condition which could lead to higher health care savings for the country likewise as for individuals. Given this sustained outcome of the tax on purchases and based on results showing that responses to prices of cigarettes (cost elasticities) monotonically increment with prices (42, 43), higher impacts could exist achieved by increasing the revenue enhancement at to the lowest degree to two pesos/liter (20% increase in price). Internationally, findings from Mexico can encourage other countries to use financial policies to reduce the consumption of unhealthy options along with other interventions to reduce the burden of chronic diseases.

Supplementary Fabric

Supplemental materials

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Donna Miles for exceptional assist with the data management. We as well thank the very helpful comments from Frank Chaloupka and Harold Alderman from our evaluation advisory committee.

Sources of Support: This back up comes primarily from the Bloomberg Philanthropies (grants to University of North Carolina and to the Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública), with back up from the NIH R01DK108148, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant 71698), and the Carolina Population Heart and its NIH Middle grant (P2C HD0550924). Funders had no direct role in the study design, analysis or manuscript grooming.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: None of the authors have disharmonize of interests of whatsoever type with respect to this manuscript.

References

1. Barquera S, Campos-Nonato I, Hernandez-Barrera L, Pedroza A, Rivera-Dommarco JA. Prevalence of obesity in Mexican adults 2000-2012. Salud publica de Mexico. 2013;55(2):S151–lx. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Rivera JA, de Cossio TG, Pedraza LS, Aburto TC, Sanchez TG, Martorell R. Childhood and adolescent overweight and obesity in Latin America: a systematic review. The lancet Diabetes & endocrinology. 2014;2(4):321–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Despres JP, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages and chance of metabolic syndrome and blazon 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes intendance. 2010;33(eleven):2477–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84(ii):274–88. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Te Morenga L, Mallard S, Mann J. Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. Bmj. 2013;346:e7492. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American journal of public health. 2007;97(4):667–75. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

seven. Perez-Escamilla R, Obbagy JE, Altman JM, Essery EV, McGrane MM, Wong YP, et al. Dietary energy density and body weight in adults and children: a systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Diet and Dietetics. 2012;112(5):671–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Earth Cancer Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Washington DC: AICR; 2007. [Google Scholar]

9. Sanchez-Pimienta TG, Batis C, Lutter CK, Rivera JA. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Are the Main Sources of Added Sugar Intake in the Mexican Population. J Nutr. 2016;146(9):1888S–96S. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Aburto TC, Pedraza LS, Sanchez-Pimienta TG, Batis C, Rivera JA. Discretionary Foods Have a High Contribution and Fruit, Vegetables, and Legumes Have a Depression Contribution to the Total Energy Intake of the Mexican Population. J Nutr. 2016;146(9):1881S–7S. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Colchero MA, Salgado JC, Unar-Munguia M, Molina M, Ng Southward, Rivera-Dommarco JA. Changes in Prices After an Excise Revenue enhancement to Sweetened Sugar Beverages Was Implemented in United mexican states: Bear witness from Urban Areas. PloS one. 2015;x(12):e0144408. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Colchero MA, Popkin BM, Rivera JA, Ng SW. Beverage purchases from stores in United mexican states under the excise revenue enhancement on saccharide sweetened beverages: observational study. The BMJ. 2016;352:h6704. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Guthrie A, Esterl Mike. Despite Tax, Mexico Soda Sales Popular --- Two years subsequently a levy of nearly x% sparked a decline, the numbers are rising once once again. Wall Street Journal. 2016 May 4; [Google Scholar]

17. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública. Why information technology is not possible to make determinations on the usefulness of the revenue enhancement on carbohydrate sweetened beverages in United mexican states during 2015 using raw sales information. 2016 Bachelor from: https://world wide web.insp.mx/epppo/blog/4063-taxation-sugar-sweetened-beverages.html.

19. Colchero MA, Guerrero-Lopez CM, Molina M, Rivera JA. Beverages Sales in United mexican states before and subsequently Implementation of a Sugar Sweetened Drink Tax. PloS one. 2016;11(9):e0163463. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Leicester A, Level P LR. Tax and benefit policy: insights from behavioral economics. The Institute for Financial Studies; London: 2012. [Google Scholar]

22. Zhen C, Wohlgenant 1000, Karns South, Kaufman P. Habit formation and demand for sugar-sweetened beverages. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2010;22 [Google Scholar]

23. Falbe J, Thompson Hour, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Impact of the Berkeley Excise Taxation on Sugar-Sweetened Drinkable Consumption. American periodical of public wellness. 2016;106(ten):1865–71. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Stata Corp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCopr LP; 2013. [Google Scholar]

26. Comisión Nacional de los salarios mínimos. Tabla de salarios mínimos generales y profesionales por áreas geográficas [Minimum wages: general and professional person past geogrpahic location] 2015 Bachelor from: www.conasami.gob.mx/t_sal_mini_prof.html.

27. Batis C, Rivera JA, Popkin BM, Taillie LS. Showtime-Year Evaluation of Mexico's Tax on Nonessential Free energy-Dense Foods: An Observational Written report. PLoS medicine. 2016;13(seven):e1002057. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Gobierno de la República. Estrategia Nacional para la Prevención y el Control del Sobrepeso, la Obesidad y la Diabetes [National Strategy for the Prevention and Control of Overweight, Obesity and Diabetes] México: 2013. [Google Scholar]

30. Théodore FL, Tolentino-Mayo L, Hernández-Zenil E, Bahena L, Velasco A, Popkin B, et al. Pitfalls of the self-regulation of advertisements directed at children on Mexican tv set. Pediatr Obes. 2016:due north/a–n/a. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Euromonitor. Euromonitor International'south Passport Global Market. [cited 2013];2015 Available from: http://world wide web.euromonitor.com/

33. To access the Appendix, click on the Appendix link in the box to the right of the article online.

34. Jensen JD, Smed S. The Danish tax on saturated fat – Brusque run effects on consumption, substitution patterns and consumer prices of fats. Food Policy. 2013;42(0):18–31. [Google Scholar]

35. Becker GS, Potato KM. A theory of rational addiction. J Polit Econ. 1988;96(4):675–700. [Google Scholar]

36. Grossman 1000, Chaloupka, Frank J. The need for cocaine past immature adults: a rational habit approach. J Health Econ. 1998;17(4):427–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Gruber J, Koszegi B. Is addiction "rational"? Theory and evidence. Q J Econ. 2001;116(iv):1261–303. [Google Scholar]

38. Guindon GE, Paraje GR, Chaloupka FJ. The impact of prices and taxes on the use of tobacco products in Latin America and the Caribbean area. American journal of public wellness. 2015;105(iii):e9–19. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Colchero MA, Salgado JC, Unar-Munguia M, Hernandez-Avila Chiliad, Rivera-Dommarco JA. Toll elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in United mexican states. Econ Hum Biol. 2015;19:129–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xl. World Wellness Arrangement. Fiscal policies for diet and prevention of noncommuicable diseases: technical meeting report. Geneva: 2016. [Google Scholar]

41. Sanchez-Romero LM, Penko J, Coxson PG, Fernandez A, Mason A, Moran AE, et al. Projected Touch of Mexico'due south Carbohydrate-Sweetened Beverage Tax Policy on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Affliction: A Modeling Study. PLoS medicine. 2016;13(11):e1002158. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Tauras JA, Pesko MF, Huang J, Chaloupka F, Farrely MC. The effect of cigarrete prices on cigarette sales: exploring heterogeneity in price elasticities at high and low prices. NBER Working Paper Series. 2016 Working Paper 22251. [Google Scholar]

43. Pesko MF, Tauras JA, Huang J, Chaloupka F. The influence of geography and measurement in estimating cigarette price resposiveness. NBER Working Paper Serial. 2016 Working Paper 22296. [Google Scholar]

weltysude1980.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5442881/