What can be learned from others about sweetened beverage taxes and taxes on unhealthy food? What can be learned from others about sweetened beverage taxes and taxes on unhealthy food?

Policy Snapshot

In 2018, South Africa became the first Sub-Saharan African country to implement a sugary beverage tax (called Health Promotion Levy)—a victory that came after years of research, coalition-building and strategic media advocacy to counter intense industry opposition.

Policy Timeline

2013: Research Identifies Tax as Cost-Effective Solution

• PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost-Effective Lessons for System Strengthening South Africa), a research-to-policy unit at the University of Witwatersrand, identified a sugary beverage tax as a “best buy” to address rising rates of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.
• PRICELESS SA engaged government and civil society stakeholders to build the case for action.

2016: Coalition Forms and Government Signals Intent to Tax Sugary Beverages

• Civil society organizations formed the Healthy Living Alliance (HEALA) coalition to campaign for a tax of 20% or higher.
• The finance minister announced plans to introduce a sugary beverage tax, releasing a policy paper reflecting PRICELESS SA’s proposal.
• HEALA launched widespread mass media campaigns highlighting health harms of sugary beverages. Evaluations showed the campaigns increased public understanding and boosted tax support by nearly 10%.

An ad in support of the sugary drink tax by HEALA. Learn more at heala.org.

2016-2017: Building a Multi-Faceted Campaign

• HEALA members spoke at public hearings and voiced support to decision-makers.
• Advocates mobilized grassroots support through social media and delivered 2,000 petition signatures to Parliament.
• Industry launched opposition campaign claiming the tax would not work and would cost jobs, while privately threatening decision-makers.
• Advocates countered with scientific evidence from other countries demonstrating taxes reduced consumption without hurting employment.

December 2017: Parliament Passes Tax

• Parliament passed the sugary beverage tax and the president signed it into law.

April 2018: Tax Takes Effect but With Reduced Rate

• The Health Promotion Levy took effect at 11%—nearly half the evidence-based 20% recommendation—due to industry claims about economic losses.

2025: Advocacy Continues

• HEALA and partner organizations continue advocating to increase the tax to 20%.

Protestors call for a 20% tax on sugary beverages outside parliament in Johannesburg. Learn more at heala.org.

Policy Snapshot

In 2023, Colombia became one of the first countries worldwide to tax both sweetened beverages and ultra-processed products. It was not an easy path: The victory that came after multiple failed legislative attempts, years of civil society advocacy and successful navigation of legal challenges from the food and beverage industry.

Policy Timeline

2014-2015: First Tax Attempts Made

• The Health Minister announced his intention to include a sugar-sweetened beverage tax alongside tobacco tax increases in the National Development Plan.
• The proposal failed to advance due to a strong industry lobby.

 2015-2016: Industry Censorship and Failed Legislative Attempt

• Postobón, the country’s largest beverage company, filed a legal complaint against an evidence-based, public health information campaign about sugary beverages developed by the civil society organization Educar Consumidores, timed with a 20% tax being considered by congress.
• A government agency sided with the industry, pulled the ad and prohibited public discussion, threatening fines for violations.
• Educar Consumidores and allies launched legal challenges.
• The sugar-sweetened beverage tax proposal was dropped from a larger tax reform package due to industry pressure, while tobacco taxes successfully increased.

2017: Another Legislative Rejection and Constitutional Court Victory

• A tax reform package with an 18% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages was debated in Congress but was rejected due to industry pressure.
• The Court ruled consumers have the right to public health information, removing the legal threat intended to silence advocates.

2017-2022: Sustained Advocacy and Political Will

• Civil society organizations (Red PaPaz, CAJAR and others) conducted advocacy to build support, including seven media campaigns reaching ~14 million people, secured 70+ Congressional signatures and gathered 10,000+ signatures from the public.
• New president Gustavo Petro introduced a tax reform to raise billions for social programs to address inequality; sweetened beverage and ultra-processed food taxes comprised about 10% of projected revenue. Most Colombians (65%) approved the reform.

2022: Tax Reform Approved

• Congress approved the tax reform—making Colombia one of the first countries globally to tax ultra-processed products.
• The food and beverage industry launched legal challenges claiming procedural irregularities and violation of principles of equality, economic freedom and free competition.

2023: Tax Survives Constitutional Challenge

• Academic and civil society organizations across the region submitted amicus briefs supporting the decision.
• The Constitutional Court unanimously declared the tax constitutional, concluding it reasonably served public health objectives and proportionately limited free enterprise rights. The tax took effect Nov. 1, 2023.

Source:

The United States offers an example of the potential for taxing sweetened beverages at the local level, with eight local jurisdictions successfully adopting such taxes. A common theme: Taxes that succeeded were built around community values and priorities, and they engaged grassroots coalitions in the process.

Image source: Quinn Dombrowski, Flickr.

Framing and coalition:

Berkeley was the first U.S. city to pass a sugar-sweetened beverage tax, with a broad community coalition advocating for the tax from the start under the campaign banner “Berkeley vs. Big Soda.” Facing heavy industry counter-funding, the campaign framed the tax as a fight between community health and corporate exploitation, focusing on the beverage industry’s predatory marketing to historically underserved communities, high rates of diabetes and obesity in affected neighborhoods, and the opportunity to reinvest in community health programs. The grassroots coalition organized thousands of volunteers, held community meetings and went door-to-door speaking with neighbors.

Revenue governance:

The measure established an expert advisory panel to recommend how the city should fund programs to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. This built-in accountability mechanism—and the fact that funds were visibly reinvested in programs like school gardening, cooking education and community health outreach—sustained public support.

Framing

Philadelphia had failed twice to pass a sweetened beverage tax when proposals focused solely on health outcomes. The defining strategic shift was reconceptualizing the tax as a revenue measure anchored to a popular priority: investment in youth, and specifically pre-K education. A citywide poll found that 84% of Philadelphians considered pre-K education “very important.”

This underscores the importance of understanding local priorities—because, in some cases, prioritizing them over health outcomes alone can make the difference between a policy passing or failing, while still delivering meaningful public health benefits.

Revenue and transparency

Between 2017 and 2022, nearly 40% of the tax’s total revenue ($158 million) funded pre-K, opening thousands of seats across the city. The City Controller released quarterly data updates and a fully searchable database of all revenue and expenditures, broken down by fiscal year and program, creating a public record of how funds were spent.

Framing

Seattle’s campaign framed the tax around two priorities with strong cross-community support: food equity and early childhood development. Community advocacy organizations successfully secured ordinance-level requirements directing revenue toward food and nutrition security programs in communities most impacted by sweetened beverages, chronic disease and health inequities.

Revenue governance

A key innovation was the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board, which was given authority to advise on revenue allocation. This board—combining public health and food access experts with community representatives from populations most impacted by diet-related chronic disease—helped ensure that money went where the community said it should go.

Evaluation and transparency

Seattle committed to a five-year independent evaluation of the tax’s impacts, publishing 13 reports and five peer-reviewed publications from 2017 to 2023, openly acknowledging both what worked and what remained uncertain. The evaluation found that prices of taxed beverages increased by almost the full amount of the tax, with no detectable impact on food prices, small business revenues or store closures.