Fiscal policies can affect what consumers choose to buy. Taxes are designed to raise prices to steer people away from unhealthy options, while subsidies reduce the cost of healthier choices. A number of jurisdictions in the U.S. have passed taxes on sweetened beverages. In contrast to taxes, subsidies lower the prices of certain products, such as fruits, vegetables, and school meals, making them more affordable for consumers and families. Evaluation of policies across cities, states, and other jurisdictions can inform the implementation of effective fiscal policies nationwide.
Study Summaries
State-Funded Universal School Meals: Impact on Household Food Spending and Purchases
Policy Effective Date: Various
Purpose: To assess how state-funded universal school meal programs influence household food purchases, including shifts in grocery spending and the composition of foods purchased, particularly healthier items and child-targeted food categories.
Methods: Household scanner data on food and beverage purchases for households with at least one child aged 5-18. Outcomes that will be assessed include measures of total food expenditures, including shares allocated to lunch and breakfast items, fruits and vegetables, snack foods, dairy, and healthy vs. unhealthy items; and quantity of healthy foods, including fruits, vegetables, low-fat meats, and other items classified as healthy under USDA food group categories.
Location: California, Maine, Nevada, Minnesota, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico, and Vermont (intervention); other states (comparison)
Research Leads: University of Connecticut
Impact of Loss of Universal Free School Meals on Childhood BMI
Policy Effective Date: Various
Purpose: To assess the impact of losing access to universal free school meals on child body mass index (BMI) among low-income and middle-income children attending lower-poverty and higher-poverty schools.
Methods: Data on children’s BMI are drawn from electronic health records from a network of 1,239 community health centers (CHCs) and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). These data are linked with data on local school characteristics obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics.
Location: California, Massachusetts, and Nevada (intervention); other states (comparison)
Research Leads: University of California, Riverside
SNAP Nutrition Incentive Evaluation
Policy Effective Date: Staggered implementation from 2023-2024
Purpose: To understand the impact of a federal SNAP fruit and vegetable incentive on SNAP participants’ fruit and vegetable consumption and overall diet.
Methods: SNAP participants completed two 24-hour dietary recalls and a survey asking about their demographics, access to food, shopping behaviors, and food/nutrition security before and after the SNAP fruit and vegetable incentive program went into effect.
Location: Four intervention and four comparison grocery stores in California, Colorado, Missouri, and Ohio
Research Leads: Center for Nutrition & Health Impact and University of Illinois Chicago
Implementation Assessment of the Eat Well, Be Well SNAP Incentive Program
Policy Effective Date: January 23, 2024
Purpose: To identify successes and opportunities for improvement in the implementation of a statewide SNAP incentive program.
Methods: Researchers interviewed government officials, community agency members, grocery store employees, and SNAP participants about their experiences with the incentive program. Researchers obtained purchasing data to examine how much SNAP participants used the incentives.
Location: Rhode Island
Research Leads: Brown University, University of Rhode Island, and University of Illinois Chicago
Evaluation of the Eat Well, Be Well SNAP Incentive Program
Policy Effective Date: January 23, 2024
Purpose: To understand the impact of a statewide SNAP fruit and vegetable incentive program on adult and child SNAP participants’ diets.
Methods: SNAP participants completed a food frequency questionnaire and a survey asking about their demographics, access to food, shopping behaviors, and food/nutrition security. Additionally, SNAP participants completed a survey asking about their children’s dietary intake, demographics, home food environment, eating behaviors, and food parenting practices. Surveys were completed before and after the SNAP incentive went into effect.
Location: Rhode Island (intervention) and Connecticut (comparison)
Research Leads: Brown University, University of Rhode Island, and University of Illinois Chicago
Evaluation of the Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax
Policy Effective Date: January 1, 2018
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of the Seattle Sweetened Beverage tax on prices, demand, substitution, sugar sold, and cross-border shopping.
Methods: This evaluation drew on universal product code (UPC)-level retail scanner data on prices of taxed beverages sold, volume of taxed and untaxed non-alcoholic beverages sold, volume of alcoholic beverages sold, sales of sweets and snacks, and grams of sugar sold from beverages, sweets and standalone sugar. Scanner data on volume of taxed beverages were also assessed in a 2-mile buffer around the intervention and comparison cities. Data were analyzed one-year pre- and two-years post-tax implementation.
Location: Seattle, WA (intervention) and Portland, OR (comparison)
Research Leads: University of Illinois Chicago
Evaluation of Labor Market Impacts of Sweetened Beverage Taxes in the United States
Policy Effective Date: Philadelphia, PA: January 1, 2017; San Francisco, CA: January 1, 2018
Purpose: To examine the impact of local-level sweetened beverage taxes on employment in key industries that sell sweetened beverages, as well as on net total employment.
Methods: Evaluations drew on monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data from 2012 to 2019, encompassing all jobs, private sector jobs, and employment in specific industries (e.g., limited-service restaurants and convenience stores).
Location: San Francisco, CA (intervention); Multiple U.S. counties (comparison)
Research Leads: University of Illinois Chicago
Evaluation of the Implementation and Repeal of the Cook County Sweetened Beverage Tax
Policy Effective Date: Effective August 2, 2017, and repealed effective December 1, 2017
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of the Cook County sweetened beverage tax on changes in prices and volume sold of both taxed and untaxed beverages, along with the extent of cross-border shopping of taxed beverages. Additionally, this evaluation also assessed changes following the repeal of the tax.
Methods: This evaluation drew on multiple sources of data, including universal product code (UPC)-level retail scanner data on prices and volume sold of taxed and untaxed non-alcoholic beverages. Scanner data from surrounding areas were also assessed. The retail scanner data were assessed pre-tax and post-tax during the 4-months that the tax was in place and 8-months post-tax repeal. Store audit data were also collected and assessed pre-tax and 3-months post-tax implementation.
Location: Cook County, IL (intervention) and St. Louis County and city, MO (comparison)
Research Leads: University of Illinois Chicago
Evaluation of the Oakland Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax
Policy Effective Date: July 1, 2017
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of the Oakland sugar-sweetened beverage tax on prices, demand, substitution, cross-border shopping, and store marketing.
Methods: This evaluation drew on multiple sources of data, including universal product code (UPC)-level retail scanner data on prices and volume of taxed and untaxed non-alcoholic beverages sold. Scanner data from surrounding areas were also assessed. Additionally, this evaluation utilized price and marketing data from store and fast-food restaurant audits. Both the retail scanner and audit data were analyzed pre-tax and up to 2 years post-tax implementation.
Location: Oakland, CA (intervention) and Sacramento, CA (comparison)
Research Leads: University of Illinois Chicago