In October 2025, LDI Senior Fellow Christina Roberto, PhD testified before Philadelphia City Council’s Committee on Labor and Civil Service on the topic of Philadelphia’s sugar sweetened beverage tax. 

Dr. Roberto’s testimony highlighted the positive health impacts of Philadelphia’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax, noting that the policy has led to reduced sales of taxed beverages at major food retailers, along with improvements in dental health and declines in adult obesity rates.

You can watch Dr. Roberto’s testimony, which begins at 2:02:10, here.

Views expressed by the researchers are their own and do not necessarily represent those of the University of Pennsylvania Health System (Penn Medicine) or the University of Pennsylvania.

---

Testimony before the Committee on Labor and Civil Services Regarding Resolution No. 250028

Christina A. Roberto, PhD

Mitchell J. Blutt and Margo Krody Blutt Presidential Professor of Health Policy

Director, Center for Food and Nutrition Policy

Senior Fellow, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics

University of Pennsylvania

Introduction

Good morning. My name is Christina Roberto of the University of Pennsylvania. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today regarding Resolution No. 250028 introduced by Councilmember Harrity.

I am a Professor of Health Policy and Fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute who has studied people’s eating habits and food and nutrition policies for 20 years. My testimony today represents my professional views and not those of the University of Pennsylvania or Penn Medicine. Over the last 8 years, I have led multiple studies of the Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax. This research shows that the tax has improved health, particularly for the lowest income Philadelphians. Repealing this tax would be devastating for the City and its residents. There are many positive benefits of the sweetened beverage tax in terms of what it funds in the City, but my brief comments will focus on the benefits I’ve studied directly.

Claims that the tax has caused job loss and forced grocery stores to close are not supported by science.

We studied unemployment claim filings in Philadelphia compared to those in other untaxed Pennsylvania counties one year before and after the tax. We saw no change in unemployment claims overall or in industries affected by the tax, such as supermarkets and soda companies.¹ University of Illinois researchers reached similar conclusions: Philadelphia employment counts were not lower than a comparison group two and a half years after the tax.²

The tax has also improved residents’ health.

We found the tax was associated with a 35% reduction in taxed beverage sales at major chain food retailers in Philadelphia when compared to similar retailers in Baltimore.^3,4 That drop persisted for two years, even after accounting for some people shopping outside of the city. These beverages, such as soda, are linked with type 2 diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay.

We also published a study showing that the tax reduced soda intake among adolescents.⁵ In another study, we used data from electronic dental records and found that the tax was associated with a 22% reduction in cavities among adults on Medicaid and 30% among children on Medicaid.⁶ Similarly, we observed that the tax was associated with reductions in obesity among adults⁷ though we did not observe effects among children. Studies from seven other U.S. cities with sweetened beverage taxes also find similar improvements in health, including reductions in obesity and gestational diabetes.^8,9

Discussions of repeal of the tax are behind the times. Our tax continues to generate revenue for higher-quality education, local employment, and more inviting community spaces. It has done this all while reducing intake of drinks that make us sick. It would be a grave mistake to support its repeal.

---

References

1. Lawman HG, Bleich SN, Yan J, LeVasseur MT, Mitra N, Roberto CA. Unemployment claims in Philadelphia one year after implementation of the sweetened beverage tax. PLoS One. 2019 Mar 27;14(3):e0213218.
2. Marinello S, Leider J, Pugach O, Powell LM. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on employment: a synthetic control analysis. Econ Hum Biol. 2021 Jan:40:100939.
3. Roberto CA, Lawman HG, LeVasseur MT, Mitra, N, Peterhans A, Herring B, Bleich SN. Association of a beverage tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages with changes in beverage prices and sales at chain retailers in a large urban setting. JAMA. 2019 May 14;321(18):1799-1810.
4. Petimar J, Gibson LA, Yan J, Bleich SN, Mitra N, Trego ML, Lawman HG, Roberto CA. Sustained impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on beverage prices and sales over 2 years. Am J Prev Med. 2022 Jun;62(6):921-929.
5. Edmondson EK, Roberto CA, Gregory EF, Mitra N, Virudachalam S. Association of a sweetened beverage tax with soda consumption in high school students. JAMA Pediatr. 2021 Dec 1;175(12):1261- 1268.
6. Petimar J, Gibson LA, Molff MS, Mitra N, Corby P, Hettinger G, Gregory EF, Edmondson E, Block JP, Roberto CA. Changes in dental outcomes after implementation of the Philadelphia beverage tax. Am J Prev Med. 2023 Aug;65(2):221-229.
7. Petimar J, Roberto CA, Block JP, Mitra N, Gregory EF, Edmondson EK, Hettinger G, Gibson LA. Associations of the Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax with changes in adult body weight: an interrupted time series analysis.
8. Liu EF, Young DR, Sidell MA, et al. City-level sugar-sweetened beverage taxes and changes in adult body mass index. JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Jan 2;8(1):e2456170.
9. Jackson KE, Hamad R, Karasek D, White JS. Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes and perinatal health: a quasi-experimental study. Am J Prev Med. 2023 Sep;65(3):366-376.