Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34608610›Full record

SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2022

The Cost Effectiveness of Taxation of Sugary Foods and Beverages: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

Siyuan Liu, Paul J Veugelers, Chunhao Liu, Arto Ohinmaa

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Who pays and Who benefits? A distributional health-economic evaluation of strengthening the UK soft drinks industry levy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. To tax or not to tax? That's the sugar-coated question.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Siyuan LiuPopulation Health Intervention Research Unit, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0255-8847
Paul J VeugelersPopulation Health Intervention Research Unit, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8996-0822
Chunhao LiuSchool of Economics, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Arto OhinmaaPopulation Health Intervention Research Unit, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. arto.ohinmaa@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7094-1573
University of Alberta · CAAlberta Health Services · CAYork University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith increasing concerns about the health consequences and economic burden of excess sugar consumption, a sugar tax is increasingly considered an effective policy to curb sugar consumption. However, little is known about the cost effectiveness of sugar taxes. To inform policy decision makers, we systematically reviewed and analyzed the evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of sugar taxation.

methodsWe systematically searched six databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Google Scholar) to identify relevant journal articles. Two reviewers independently scanned and selected all retrieved studies. Only studies that evaluated sugar taxes and applied economic evaluation methods were included. The quality of included studies was assessed using established standards.

resultsFifteen good-quality studies that originated from six countries (the US, Australia, South Africa, Canada, the UK, and Mexico) were included. These studies revealed that sugar tax improved health-related quality of life. Savings from avoided health care costs and revenue from the sugar taxes (totalling US$87 to US$167,799 million) exceeded intervention costs (US$5 to US$2177 million). Each of the 15 studies concluded that sugar tax constitutes a cost-effective intervention that led to cost savings.

conclusionsSugar tax is a practical and cost-effective policy option to reduce the health and economic burden resulting from excess sugar consumption. The impact of sugar taxes depends on the target population, time horizons, and other parameters. Economic evaluations of taxation of a broader set of sugary products and economic evaluations that combine sugar taxation with other interventions are important to inform further action to curb sugar consumption.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeTaxesBeveragesCost-Benefit AnalysisCost SavingsHumans

Identifiers

PMID34608610
OpenAlexW3204271218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.