The majority of the UK population is either overweight or obese. Health economists, nutritionists and doctors are calling for the UK to follow the example of other European countries and introduce a tax on soft drinks as a result of the perception that high intakes contribute to diet-related disease. We use a demand model estimated with household-level data on beverage purchases in the UK to investigate the effects of a tax on soft drink consumption. The model is a Quadratic Almost Ideal Demand System, and censoring is handled by applying a double hurdle. Separate models are estimated for low, moderate and high consumers to allow for a differential impact on consumption between these groups. Applying different hypothetical tax rates, we conclude that understanding the nature of substitute/complement relationships is crucial in designing an effective policy as these relationships differ between consumers depending on their consumption level. The overall impact of a soft drink tax on calorie consumption is likely to be small.

> Objective: To model the overall and income specific effect of a 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks on the prevalence of overweight and obesity in the UK.

> Design: Econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study.

> Setting: United Kingdom.

> Population: Adults aged 16 and over.

> Intervention: A 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks.

> Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes were the overall and income specific changes in the number and percentage of overweight (body mass index ≥25) and obese (≥30) adults in the UK following the implementation of the tax. Secondary outcomes were the effect by age group (16-29, 30-49, and ≥50 years) and by UK constituent country. The revenue generated from the tax and the income specific changes in weekly expenditure on drinks were also estimated.

> Results: A 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks was estimated to reduce the number of obese adults in the UK by 1.3% (95% credible interval 0.8% to 1.7%) or 180 000 (110 000 to 247 000) people and the number who are overweight by 0.9% (0.6% to 1.1%) or 285 000 (201 000 to 364 000) people. The predicted reductions in prevalence of obesity for income thirds 1 (lowest income), 2, and 3 (highest income) were 1.3% (0.3% to 2.0%), 0.9% (0.1% to 1.6%), and 2.1% (1.3% to 2.9%). The effect on obesity declined with age. Predicted annual revenue was £276m (£272m to £279m), with estimated increases in total expenditure on drinks for income thirds 1, 2, and 3 of 2.1% (1.4% to 3.0%), 1.7% (1.2% to 2.2%), and 0.8% (0.4% to 1.2%).

> Conclusions: A 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks would lead to a reduction in the prevalence of obesity in the UK of 1.3% (around 180 000 people). The greatest effects may occur in young people, with no significant differences between income groups. Both effects warrant further exploration. Taxation of sugar sweetened drinks is a promising population measure to target population obesity, particularly among younger adults.

The obesity epidemic and excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages have led to proposals of economics-based interventions to promote healthy eating in the United States. Targeted food and beverage taxes and subsidies are prominent examples of such potential intervention strategies. This paper examines the differential effects of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages by calories and by ounces on beverage demand.

To properly measure the extent of substitution and complementarity between beverage products, we developed a fully modified distance metric model of differentiated product demand that endogenizes the cross-price effects. We illustrated the proposed methodology in a linear approximate almost ideal demand system, although other flexible demand systems can also be used. In the empirical application using supermarket scanner data, the product-level demand model consists of 178 beverage products with combined market share of over 90%.

The novel demand model outperformed the conventional distance metric model in non-nested model comparison tests and in terms of the economic significance of model predictions. In the fully modified model, a calorie-based beverage tax was estimated to cost $1.40 less in compensating variation than an ounce-based tax per 3,500 beverage calories reduced. This difference in welfare cost estimates between two tax strategies is more than three times as much as the difference estimated by the conventional distance metric model.

If applied to products purchased from all sources, a 0.04-cent per kcal tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is predicted to reduce annual per capita beverage intake by 5,800 kcal.