Rachel Prowse and Kayla Crichton describe what happened when Newfoundland and Labrador applied a sugary drink tax, which was discontinued this summer.

__________________________________________

If you asked a friend, “is healthy eating important?” chances are they would say yes. But if you asked, “how should we promote healthy eating?” you’d likely hear a dozen different answers.

Generally, we agree on the goal (healthy eating), but we disagree on how to achieve it. Some advocate for education and personal responsibility, while others support policy and environmental changes. This tension reflects the nature of “wicked problems” – complex problems with multiple interpretations that evolve as efforts are made to address them.  As a result, researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and the public are constantly navigating attitudes, opinions, and evidence.

Most people want to eat well but the goal is complicated by the fact that eating habits are shaped by far more than personal choice; they are influenced by culture, income, environments, and policy. That’s why when a policy like Newfoundland and Labrador’s (NL) sugary drink tax was introduced, it was more than just a conversation about sugar. Evidently, it has brought to light some complex realities behind how we eat.

Photo Credit: Oregon State University/flickr. Image Description: A photo of a spoonful of sugar.

With NL introducing the first such tax in Canada, we had the opportunity to investigate this fiscal policy in the Canadian context and explore the real life impact of a sugary drink tax. Our study aimed to answer the question – how did the sugary drink tax in NL impact the prices, purchases, and consumption of taxable beverages one year after its implementation?

In NL, diet and health are ongoing challenges. The province has higher rates of overweight/obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure than the national average. NL also ranks among the highest in sugary drink intake and has some of the lowest intakes of plain water and milk. To make matters worse, one in four households experience food insecurity. Much is expected to be gained by population-level interventions to support healthy eating in NL.

Despite overwhelming beliefs that regular soda is somewhat or very unhealthy in 95% of our study sample, only about half were in favour of the sugary drink tax, with many skeptical about its effectiveness.

What did we find?

1. Sales of sugary drinks decreased in NL.

We found that per capita purchasing of taxed sugary drinks decreased more in NL (-12%) after the tax was implemented, compared to the Maritime provinces (-7%) where there was no tax on sugary drinks.

2. Consuming any taxed sugary drink in a given week decreased, but not equally for everyone.

After the tax was introduced, people were 24% less likely to drink taxed sugary drinks in a given week, after controlling for other factors. However, those in better socioeconomic positions (food secure, incomes above the poverty threshold) tended to reduce intakes more.

3. Diet beverages and non-taxed sugary drinks are possible alternative beverage options.

We saw increases in sales of diet beverage options (+4%) in NL with no change in the Maritime provinces (+0.3%), as well as a significant increase in the volume of diet beverages consumed (490 mL/week) in NL between pre-tax and post-tax periods.

Also, the likelihood of consuming any other sugary drinks that were not subject to the NL tax (e.g. made-to-order smoothies and coffees, chocolate milk, yogurt drinks) significantly increased by 52% after the tax was implemented, after controlling for other factors.

4. The tax modestly increased prices of sugar drinks, but its cost was not very visible on shelf tags in stores.

The sugary drink tax was not explicitly displayed on shelf price tags for 75% of taxable beverages. Without clear price changes, an invisible or absorbed sugary drink tax will simply rely on consumer awareness and knowledge to shift behaviour.

So what?

While we observed positive impacts on beverage purchasing and consumption patterns associated with the tax, its impact was limited. This is because many sugary drinks were not included in the tax (e.g. 100% fruit juice, chocolate milk, made-to-order drinks), the tax rate was relatively low and was not tiered between higher and lower sugary drinks, and the tax was not clearly visible in stores.

But the limited effectiveness of the NL sugary drink tax does not mean that such taxes fail; we must remember that real-life taxes exist within a complex system of political, economic, and social factors that impact how the tax is designed and implemented, and its effects on behaviour and health.

Although more research is needed to understand the impacts of sugary drink taxes on vulnerable populations, such taxes are believed to support human rights to health. Sugary drink taxes work best when combined with other health promotion efforts to improve diet and health equity, which can be funded through tax revenues. In fact, people with the lowest incomes would gain the most health benefits from sugary drink taxes. While some worry about the financial burden of the tax, these concerns must be balanced with the significant health benefits it can bring.

As of July 1, 2025, the NL sugary drink tax has been removed, with the NL Premier citing unaffordability. For the average single consumer of taxed sugary drinks who consumes 3L per week, the tax was equal to $0.60/week or $31.20/year. Of course, those with lower income or food insecurity, consume more sugary drinks and pay almost twice as much as those with better incomes or food security, but this equates to a difference of approximately $20 per year.

Over its time, the NL sugary drink tax generated over $11 million in revenue per year, said to be reinvested in health promotion initiatives (a physical activity tax credit, an infant nutrition supplement, school food programs, and a continuous glucose monitoring pilot). These programs arguably have more value than $20 per person.

Now what?

The NL sugary drink tax was cut short before real benefits could be realized. While early signs showed promise, meaningful change takes time, especially when tackling a problem as complex as eating. Disagreements over whether education or policy is the right approach highlight the challenges of solving “wicked problems.” In such cases, progress requires not only collaboration across sectors, but also the courage from policymakers to lead with evidence, even when it means pushing back against divided public opinion.

__________________________________________

Rachel Prowse is a Registered Dietitian and an Assistant Professor of Nutrition and Dietetics in the Division of Population Health and Applied Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, at Memorial University.

Kayla Crichton is a second-year medical student in the Doctor of Medicine (MD) Program, Faculty of Medicine, at Memorial University.