Fig 1.
Weekly volume sold (liters) of beverages before and after implementation of Seattle’s Sweetened Beverage Tax, 2016-2019.
The total weekly volume sold (liters) by taxable status in the balanced sample of stores and beverages in the two years before and two years after implementation of Seattle’s Sweetened Beverage Tax. (A) The treated area is King County excluding Seattle (KC) and comparison area is the combination of Sacramento, CA, and Oakland, MI, counties. (B) The treated area is Seattle and the comparison area is a combination of Dane, WI, and Denver, CO, counties.
Table 1.
Sample of beverages and mean volume sold (liters) by taxable status, type, and size in King County excluding Seattle (KC) and its combined comparison area, 2016-2019.
Table 2.
Sample of beverages and mean volume sold (liters) by taxable status, type, and size in Seattle and its combined comparison area, 2016-2019.
Table 3.
Difference-in-differences in mean volume sold (liters) in Seattle and King County versus comparison areas, by taxed status, beverage size, and beverage type, comparing two years before to two years after the Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax, 2016-2019.
Fig 2.
Difference-in-differences in mean volume sold (liters) in (A) King County and (B) Seattle, by taxed status, beverage size, and beverage type, comparing two years before to two years after the Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax, 2016-2019.
Difference-in-differences estimates and 95% confidence intervals reflect the estimated mean change in volume sold for a given beverage in the treated area associated with the timing of the Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax. Regression models included fixed effects for beverages at the universal product code level and robust standard errors. (A) The treated area is King County excluding Seattle and comparison area is the combination of Sacramento, CA, and Oakland, MI, counties. (B) The treated area is Seattle and the comparison area is a combination of Dane, WI, and Denver, CO, counties.