8/13/2023 0 Comments Do not duplicate key berkeley ca![]() 16: policy characteristics, context (inner and outer setting of the implementing organization), and implementation process (including communication and engagement). We developed interview guides based on prior retailer feedback, 11 beverage industry claims that SSB taxes raise food prices (amounting to a “grocery tax”), 12 stakeholder response to excise taxes of other products, 13,14 and select constructs of frameworks by Frieden 15 and Damschroder et al. Table 1 describes the sample and gives interview dates and topics. Of 26 distributors invited, 5 participated (7 refused, 14 were unreachable the latter included large distributors). ![]() Finally, we invited a random sample of 35 self-distributors (i.e., stores and restaurants buying drinks from stores outside Berkeley to sell in Berkeley or making in-house SSBs) 16 participated (8 declined, 11 were unreachable). We also interviewed staff from an independently owned supermarket and university dining (n = 2). From stores sampled for a prior study, 11 we invited all independent stores (except 1 selling few SSBs) and 1 store from each drugstore, supermarket, and convenience chain (n = 22) 16 participated (3 declined, 3 were unreachable). ![]() We invited staff of the city’s finance, legal, and public health offices, tax administrator, and SSBPPE commissioners for interviews all participated (n = 9). Therefore, we conducted key-informant interviews and record review, informed by implementation science frameworks, to characterize the implementation process, barriers and facilitators, and lessons learned for achieving public health impact.įrom June 2015 to April 2017, we conducted semistructured interviews with city staff, its tax administrator, SSB distributors, Berkeley retailers, and SSBPPE commissioners. Lessons learned from Berkeley could inform the success of future taxes. 10 To our knowledge, no other study has examined implementation of an SSB tax. Given the growing interest in SSB taxes, 9 it is critical to use implementation science to identify barriers, facilitators, and resources required to translate taxation policy into public health outcomes. 5 These results are consistent with findings of lower consumption and sales of taxed beverages following enactment of beverage taxes in Mexico (in 2013), 6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2016), 7 and Seattle, Washington (2017). Within 1 year, SSB consumption declined in Berkeley’s lower-income neighborhoods, 3,4 and SSB purchasing dropped 10% in supermarkets. 1 Since Berkeley’s implementation, the evidence base for SSB taxation has strengthened. 2 However, to promote revenue allocations aligned with public health, the ordinance established an SSB Product Panel of Experts (SSBPPE) to advise the city on funding “programs to further reduce consumption … consequences.”Īs of fall 2019, 8 US jurisdictions had implemented SSB taxes. This was a strategic decision made by SSB tax proponents and City Council to keep the vote threshold at a simple majority California requires a two thirds vote for earmarked taxes. Although SSB taxes evoke higher support when revenues are designated for health or education, Berkeley’s measure appropriated revenues to the general fund. Artificially sweetened beverages are not taxable. The ordinance levied a $0.01 per ounce excise tax on SSB distribution. Further research is needed to understand long-term facilitators and barriers to sustaining public health benefits of Berkeley’s tax and how those differ from facilitators and barriers in jurisdictions facing significant industry-funded repeal efforts.īerkeley, California became the first US jurisdiction to pass a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax 1 in 2014 via referendum, which garnered 76% of the vote. The policy package, context, and implementation process facilitated translating policy into public health outcomes. Revenue allocations totaled more than $9 million for public health, nutrition, and health equity through 2021.Ĭonclusions. No retailer reported raising food prices, indicating that Berkeley’s SSB tax did not function as a “grocery tax,” as industry claimed. Early and robust outreach about the tax and programs funded can promote and sustain public support, reduce friction, and facilitate beverage price increases on SSBs only. Lessons included the importance of thorough and timely communications with distributors and retailers, adequate lead time for implementation, advisory commissions for revenue allocations, and funding of staff, communications, and evaluation before tax collection begins. We interviewed city stakeholders and SSB distributors and retailers (n = 48) from June 2015 to April 2017 and analyzed records through January 2019. To identify lessons learned from implementation of the nation’s first sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) excise tax in 2015 in Berkeley, California.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |