this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
333 points (98.0% liked)

News

37030 readers
2266 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sales of sugary drinks fell dramatically across five U.S. cities, after they implemented taxes targeting those drinks – and those changes were sustained over time. That's according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Health Forum.

Researchers say the findings provide more evidence that these controversial taxes really do work. A claim the beverage industry disputes.

The cities studied were: Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., and Boulder, Colo. Taxes ranged from 1 to 2 cents per ounce. For a 2-liter bottle of soda, that comes out to between 67 cents to $1.30 extra in taxes.

Kaplan and his colleagues found that, on average, prices for sugar-sweetened drinks went up by 33.1% and purchases went down by basically the same amount – 33%.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In the first part, findings, it says this:

" In this cross-sectional study, SSB taxes in Boulder, Colorado; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Oakland, California; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington, were associated with a 33.1% composite increase in SSB prices (92% pass-through of taxes to consumers) and a 33% reduction in purchase volume, without increasing cross-border purchases"

So there wasn't an increase in sales volume in other areas (cross borders).

[–] EfficientEffigy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nice, then good to know!

What I was thinking is people need to be aware of the serous health issues from drinking a lot of soda to ease down on it but I guess any steps that help reduce its consumption are great.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A lot of people think "ah Ill nab a soda on the way, its only $2"

So when its "only" $3.50, $4.25, $6, it gets a lot harder to make those passing "ah fuck it" purchases while youre out and about doing other things.

Its not like alcohol, where you make a point to obtain it for a designated drinking time and so will go out of your way to fulfill an errand. Its a passing convenience that you do less often when it becomes less convenient

[–] EfficientEffigy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Sadly there is also a lot of people who buy it regularly. Was just with some relatives over the holidays and they have full stack packs of coke for the day to day.

This segment is who I would think go out of their way to avoid the taxes.

You bring an excellent point and probably it is in that segment where the reduced consumption is when the taxes are higher.