Skip to main content

Table 1 Political and health context, regulations, content and reported impact; and institutional arrangements for the soda tax policies by country

From: The political economy of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation in Latin America: lessons from Mexico, Chile and Colombia

Themes Country
Mexico Chile Colombia
Context
 Political context Entering president in 2013 Major tax reform in October 2014 Tax reform project (SSB and tobacco tax). Peace referendum with FARC
  National obesity trends 37.8% overweight and 32.4% obesity among adults (70.2% combined prevalence)
36% overweight and obesity in children (5 to 10y) [1]
39.8% overweight and 34.4% obesity among adults (74.2% combined prevalence) [2] 37.7% overweight and 18.7% obesity among adults (55.8% combined prevalence)
24.4% overweight and obesity in children (5 to 10y) [3]
 SSB retail sales in 2013 [4] 184.9 l/capita 170.2 l/capita 81.5 l/capita
Regulatory instruments, content and reported impact
 Regulation used to frame the policy Fiscal reform (January 2014)
Obesity policy
Fiscal reform (October 2014) Obesity policy
Fiscal reform
 Type of tax and rate Excise tax of 20%/
Excise tax of 1 MXP/l (≈ 10%)
Two-tired
High sugar content (HSC): Ad Valormen 18% (>  6.25 g sugar/100 mL 20%)
Low sugar content (LSC): Ad Valorem 10% (<  6.25 g sugar/100 mL)
Excise tax 20%
None
 Earmarked tax No, but the Senate passed a resolution to allocate a proportion of the SSB to provide public schools with water fountains NO N/A
 Impact reported after the implementation on SSB purchases. Daily per capita purchases decreased by an average of 6% (− 12 mL/capita/day) of taxed SSB.
Low socioeconomic status households had an average decline between 9 and 17% compared with pre-tax monthly trends of 2013 [5].
Monthly per capita purchases of taxed HSC SSB decreased by 3.4% by volume (95% CI −5.9−−0.9%) and 4.0% by calories (95% CI −6.3−−1.9%)
The volume of household purchases of LSC SSB increased 10.7% (95% CI 7.5–13.9%)) [6].
NA
Framing the SSBs tax
 Framing the SSB tax rationale
 Framing the Earmarked tax revenue
Health related tax and revenue needs.
To improve water provision in schools and parks.
Health related tax and revenue needs.
To invest in a health reform.
Health related tax.
To invest in programs to reduce obesity trends.
 Normative values about the SSB Industry in the country TNCs and SSB producers provide employment and economic growth to the country’s GDP.
Partnerships with government.
Employment important for productivity, and economy of the country.
Investment in technology.
Inter sectorial relationships with broadcast industry.
Institutional arrangements and participation of non-state actors driving the SSB tax implementation
 Governmental entity leading the initiative Ministry of Finance (SHCP) Ministry of Finance (MHCP) Ministry of Health (MinSalud)
 Non-state actors participating on the policy debates* Ministry of Health (MoH), Academia (INSP
Civil Society Organizations
International organisations (Bloomberg philanthropies)
National industry and beverage consortiums
Transitional SSB producers
MoH, Academia
Civil Society Organisations
National consortium of non-alcoholic beverages
Transitional SSB producers
Academia
Civil Society Organisation
Media
Transitional SSB producers
*Outlined also in Fig. 2