Search

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the recent letter to the editor regarding our paper "Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year after the Beverage Tax" [...].

Our objective was to describe the prevalence and changes in tobacco use and tobacco control policies in Latin American countries and cities before and after ratification of the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Country-level tobacco policy data came from reports on the global tobacco epidemic (World Health Organization, 2007-2014). Global Youth Tobacco Survey data, 2000-2011, came from six countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru), 31 cities and 132,065 students. Pre- and post-FCTC prevalence and relative changes were estimated. All countries showed improvements in tobacco control policies but Mexico and Peru showed the smallest improvements. In general, adolescents reduced their tobacco use, reported less exposure to smoking at home, more tobacco education, and more retailer refusals to sell them cigarettes. Adolescents reported smaller reductions in secondhand smoke exposure outside the home and no change in exposure to tobacco media/promotions. Pre-FCTC prevalence and relative changes during the post-FCTC period were more heterogeneous across cities than across countries. Despite overall improvements in tobacco policies and the decline in exposure to tobacco, policies related to media/promotions and secondhand smoke need strengthening. There was wide variation in adolescent exposure to tobacco between cities (within countries), which suggested major heterogeneity of policy implementation at the local level.

In January 2017, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) implemented an excise tax ($ 0.015/ounce) on sugar-sweetened and diet beverages. This study is a general population-based study to report on the longer-term impacts of the tax on within-person changes in consumption 12 months after implementation. A quasi-experimental difference-in-difference design was used to contrast Philadelphia vs. nearby comparison cities (Trenton, New Jersey; Camden, New Jersey; and Wilmington, Delaware) at baseline (December 2016-January 2017) vs. 12-month follow-up (December 2017-February 2018). A random-digit-dialing phone survey was administered to a population-based cohort. Analyses assessed changes in 30-day consumption frequency and ounces of sugar-sweetened and diet beverages (and a substitution beverage, bottled water) in the analytic sample (N = 515). After 12 months, relative to the comparison group, Philadelphians were slightly more likely to decrease their frequency of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (39.2% vs. 33.5%), and slightly less likely to increase their frequency of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (38.9% vs. 43.0%). The effects of the tax estimated in the adjusted difference-in-difference analysis were very small (for example, changes in monthly sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in Philadelphia relative to comparison cities was -3.03 times or -51.65 ounces) and confidence intervals were very wide. Results suggested that, one year after implementation, there was no major overall impact of the tax on general population-level consumption of sugar-sweetened or diet beverages, or bottled water. Future studies should test whether the tax's effect differs in vulnerable sub-populations.

It is known that the price of food influences the purchasing and consumption decisions of individuals; however, little work has examined if the price of healthier food relative to unhealthier food in an individual's neighborhood is associated with overall dietary quality while using data from multiple regions in the United States. Cross-sectional person-level data came from The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (exam 5, 2010-2012 n = 2765); a food frequency questionnaire assessed diet. Supermarket food/beverage prices came from Information Resources Inc. (n = 794 supermarkets). For each individual, the average price of select indicators of healthier foods (vegetables, fruits, dairy) and unhealthier foods (soda, sweets, salty snacks), as well as their ratio, was computed for supermarkets within three miles of the person's residential address. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios of a high-quality diet (top quintile of Healthy Eating Index 2010) associated with healthy-to-unhealthy price ratio, adjusted for individual and neighborhood characteristics. Sensitivity analyses used an instrumental variable (IV) approach. Healthier foods cost nearly twice as much as unhealthier foods per serving on average (mean healthy-to-unhealthy ratio = 1.97 [SD 0.14]). A larger healthy-to-unhealthy price ratio was associated with lower odds of a high-quality diet (OR = 0.76 per SD increase in the ratio, 95% CI = [0.64-0.9]). IV analyses largely confirmed these findings although-as expected with IV adjustment-confidence intervals were wide (OR = 0.82 [0.57-1.19]). Policies to address the large price differences between healthier and unhealthy foods may help improve diet quality in the United States., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

In the USA, little is known about local variation in retail cigarette prices; price variation explained by taxes, bans, and area-level socio-demographics, and whether taxes and hospitality bans have synergistic effects on smoking prevalence. Cigarette prices 2001-2011 from chain supermarkets and drug stores ( n = 2973) were linked to state taxes ( n = 41), state and county bar/restaurant smoking bans, and census block group socio-demographics. Hierarchical models explored effects of taxes and bans on retail cigarette prices as well as county smoking prevalence (daily, non-daily). There was wide variation in store-level cigarette prices in part due to differences in state excise taxes. Excise taxes were only partially passed onto consumers (after adjustment, $1 tax associated with $0.90 increase in price, p < 0.0001) and the pass-through was slightly higher in areas that had bans but did not differ by area-level socio-demographics. Bans were associated with a slight increase in cigarette price (after adjustment, $0.09 per-pack, p < 0.0001). Taxes and bans were associated with reduction in smoking prevalence and taxes had a stronger association when combined with bans, suggesting a synergistic effect. Given wide variation in store-level prices, and uneven state/county implementation of taxes and bans, more federal policies should be considered.