Are you suggesting that people will simply buy more units, at a higher total price? That would be a novel result in economic history.
Local taxes on soda in American cities have demonstrably lowered sales of those drinks, in those jurisdictions. Buyers are sensitive to price. In fact, demand for sugary drinks is highly elastic. A tax of just 1¢/oz in Oakland caused a 27% decline in sales, without countervailing increases of sales in neighboring markets without the tax.
There are substitute goods, but the fact remains that they simply don't have the distribution and marketing that soda has. You can eat a bag of marshmallows but there are no marshmallow vending machines, that I am aware of.
Ease of access is largely irrelevant when people need to eat either way so they can just make larger portions, eat a few extra chips when snacking etc.
Don’t get me wrong obesity does relate to the overall abundance of calories, my point is that singling out soda or candy isn’t going to do much by itself.
There are direct observations of the link between workplace soda availability and waist circumference. You can wave these away as "not long term" I guess, but it's the best evidence available.
The fact they didn’t mention a weight reduction or BMI changes suggests they didn’t observe any changes in weight / BMI.
I’ve looked into this a while ago and while consumption falls no studies showed a change in weight from soda bans. Unless you have something more recent?
> Lmao it’s Oakland. In many cases you can just walk a block to the next city. That doesn’t actually prove anything.
From the PLOS article: "There were no detectable changes in purchases of untaxed beverages or sweet snacks or purchases in border areas surrounding cities."
From the post you replied to: "without countervailing increases of sales in neighboring markets without the tax."
It's imperative to recognize the distinction between 'undetectable' and 'nonexistent.' The mere fact that variations were indiscernible does not negate their existence. Rather, it underscores the diffusion of individuals across diverse channels, which may inherently obfuscate discernible patterns. This does not serve as incontrovertible evidence, but merely a testament to the complexity of data distribution among various outlets.
Even geographically the assertion is nonsense. The fraction of Oakland that lies within walking distance of retail outlets that are not in Oakland is small. Only the far north and far south enjoy this situation.
