Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
, 15 (7), e1002596

Evaluating the 2014 Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax in Chile: An Observational Study in Urban Areas

Observational Study

Evaluating the 2014 Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax in Chile: An Observational Study in Urban Areas

Ryota Nakamura et al. PLoS Med.


Background: In October 2014, Chile implemented a tax modification on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) called the Impuesto Adicional a las Bebidas Analcohólicas (IABA). The design of the tax was unique, increasing the tax on soft drinks above 6.25 grams of added sugar per 100 mL and decreasing the tax for those below this threshold.

Methods and findings: This study evaluates Chile's SSB tax, which was announced in March 2014 and implemented in October 2014. We used household-level grocery-purchasing data from 2011 to 2015 for 2,836 households living in cities representative of the urban population of Chile. We employed a fixed-effects econometric approach and estimated the before-after change in purchasing of SSBs controlling for seasonality, general time trend, temperature, and economic fluctuations as well as time-invariant household characteristics. Results showed significant changes in purchasing for the statistically preferred model: while there was a barely significant decrease in the volume of all soft drinks, there was a highly significant decrease in the monthly purchased volume of the higher-taxed, sugary soft drinks by 21.6%. The direction of this reduction was robust to different empirical modelling approaches, but the statistical significance and the magnitude of the changes varied considerably. The reduction in soft drink purchasing was most evident amongst higher socioeconomic groups and higher pretax purchasers of sugary soft drinks. There was no systematic, robust pattern in the estimates by household obesity status. After tax implementation, the purchase prices of soft drinks decreased for the items for which the tax rate was reduced, but they remained unchanged for sugary items, for which the tax was increased. However, the purchase prices increased for sugary soft drinks at the time of the policy announcement. The main limitations include a lack of a randomised design, limiting the extent of causal inference possible, and the focus on purchasing data rather than consumption or health outcomes.

Conclusions: The results of subgroup analyses suggest that the policy may have been partially effective, though not necessarily in ways that are likely to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet-related health. It remains unclear whether the policy has had a major, overall population-level impact. Additionally, because the present study examined purchasing of soft drinks for only 1 year, a longer-term evaluation-ideally including an assessment of consumption and health impacts-should be conducted in future research.

Trial registration: Identifier: NCT02926001.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


Fig 1
Fig 1. Volume (mL) of soft drink products purchased from January 2011 to December 2015.
(A) All beverages, (B) high-tax products, (C) low-tax category, (D) no-tax category. Aggregated mean volume of soft drinks purchased from January 2011 to December 2015. The grey vertical dotted line in the figure refers to the announcement of the IABA tax policy in March 2014, whereas the red vertical dotted line is for the implementation of the policy in October 2014. Source: authors’ analysis of the Kantar WorldPanel data for urban households in Chile. IABA, Impuesto Adicional a las Bebidas Analcohólicas.

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 6 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. WHO. Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014.
    1. Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, Jane-Llopis E, Abrahams-Gessel S, Fathima S, Feigl AB, et al. The global economic burden of non-communicable diseases Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2011.
    1. Suhrcke M, Nugent RA, Stuckler D, Rocco L. Chronic disease: an economic perspective London: The Oxford Health Alliance, 2006.
    1. Kelly T, Yang W, Chen CS, Reynolds K, He J. Global burden of obesity in 2005 and projections to 2030. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32(9):1431–7. - PubMed
    1. GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2287–323. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00128-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data

Grant support

The submitted work was financially supported by the Research Council UK ( and Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica of Chile ( under grant MR/N026640/1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.