Costlier Cola Cuts Caloric Consumption

In a 20-year study, increased soda prices were associated with lower caloric intake and better insulin resistance in young adults. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Here in New York, the pending state budget includes one provision that’s probably making more news than the rest of the budget’s contents combined: a tax on nondiet soda and other high-calorie drinks. If the budget is passed by the legislature, sugary drinks would be slapped with an extra penny-per-ounce excise tax. The idea is to both raise money for the state—an estimated billion dollars a year—and motivate people to consume less soda. But do higher costs really get people to eat more healthfully?

A study published in the March 8th issue of the journal Archives of Internal Medicine [Kiyah Duffey et al, http://bit.ly/9ppe4O] says yes. Researchers tracked the eating habits and health of over 5,000 young adults for two decades. They found that a 10 percent increase in the price of soda was associated with a 7 percent decrease in soda calories consumed. Higher prices were also associated with lower total calorie intake, lower body weight and improved insulin resistance.

The higher tax is, of course, a political decision, not a scientific one. But the science does support the idea that such sin taxes accomplish their healthful intent.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe