Article – In the high-ceilinged grocery store in Newfoundland’s capital St. John’s, Sharon Parsons carefully examines the nutrition label on a bottle of fruit punch before placing it back on the shelf. “I’ve become more aware of sugar content since the tax came in,” she tells me, reaching instead for a bottle of water. “My teenage son complained about the price of his favorite drinks going up, but honestly, that’s made us both think twice.”
It’s been nearly 18 months since Newfoundland and Labrador became the first Canadian province to implement a sugar-sweetened beverage tax—and early data suggests it might be working. But the tax is already set for repeal next year, leaving health researchers scrambling to document its effects before it disappears.
The 20-cent-per-liter levy on sugar-sweetened beverages came into effect in September 2023 after years of advocacy from health organizations. The province, which has the highest rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes in Canada, saw the tax as both a revenue generator and public health measure.
Dr. Laurie Twells, professor of medicine and pharmacy at Memorial University who has been studying the tax’s implementation, shared preliminary findings with me during an interview at her campus office. “We’re seeing a modest but meaningful 8% reduction in purchases of taxed beverages, with the greatest impact among lower-income households,” she says, showing me charts from their ongoing research. “It’s not revolutionary, but it’s certainly promising for a first attempt.”
According to data from Statistics Canada, Newfoundlanders consume on average 22 teaspoons of added sugar daily—nearly double the recommended limit from Health Canada. Almost a third comes from sweetened beverages like soda, sports drinks, and sweetened coffee beverages.
The province directed the estimated $9 million in annual revenue toward community food security programs and diabetes prevention initiatives. One such program in Corner Brook provides cooking classes that teach families how to prepare affordable, low-sugar meals.
“The revenue aspect matters tremendously,” explains Newfoundland Diabetes Association spokesperson Emma Tucker. “We’ve been able to expand our prevention workshops to rural communities that previously had no access to these resources.”
But in April, newly elected Premier Andrew Furey announced the tax would be repealed in July 2026, citing concerns about affordability during challenging economic times. The decision came after sustained pressure from beverage industry associations and some consumer groups.
“It became a political football,” says Dr. Twells with obvious frustration. “The evidence from Mexico, Berkeley, and Philadelphia all show these taxes work if given time. Three years isn’t enough to see the full public health benefits.”
Outside Bidgood’s Supermarket in the east end of St. John’s, I spoke with several shoppers about the tax. Opinions were decidedly mixed. Construction worker Mike Holloway called it “another cash grab” while reaching for a case of energy drinks. Meanwhile, nurse practitioner Jessica Williams supported the measure: “I see the consequences of excessive sugar consumption every day in my practice—diabetes complications that could have been prevented.”
The Canadian Beverage Association has maintained that taxes unfairly target one product category while ignoring other sources of sugar in the diet. In a statement, they welcomed the repeal decision, calling instead for “comprehensive approaches to health that don’t burden consumers.”
However, health economists like Dr. Syed Ahmad from the University of Toronto point out that the economic argument is more nuanced. “Sugar taxes are regressive in the short term, meaning they hit lower-income households harder,” he acknowledges. “But these same populations disproportionately bear the health costs of diet-related disease. If the tax reduces consumption and improves health outcomes in vulnerable communities, the long-term effect becomes progressive.”
When I visited Eastern Health’s diabetes clinic, dietitian Margo Hudson showed me a display of popular beverages alongside test tubes containing the actual amount of sugar in each. A large slushie contained 27 teaspoons of sugar—more than four times the daily recommended limit.
“Most people have no idea how much sugar they’re consuming,” Hudson explains. “The tax created conversations we weren’t having before. Patients started asking questions about sugar content, alternatives, and health implications.”
This educational component may be the tax’s most lasting legacy. According to a survey by Memorial University researchers, awareness of sugar-related health risks increased by 23% among provincial residents since the tax implementation.
For Indigenous communities like Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation, located in Labrador, the tax represents a complex intervention. Community health director Sarah Nuna tells me their community faces both high diabetes rates and significant food insecurity.
“We’ve used some of the tax revenue to subsidize fresh foods at our community store,” Nuna explains. “This helps make healthier options more accessible, but we need sustained funding for these programs, not just temporary measures.”
The World Health Organization has consistently recommended sugar taxes as part of comprehensive strategies to reduce non-communicable diseases. A 2023 review in The Lancet found that jurisdictions with sugar taxes saw average consumption decreases between 10-25% within three years of implementation.
As my reporting concluded, I returned to that St. John’s grocery store where customer Sharon Parsons was making her choices. I asked what she thought about the coming repeal.
“Honestly, I didn’t love paying more at first,” she admits. “But now we drink less of the sugary stuff, and that’s probably good for us. I wish they’d keep it and just make sure the money actually goes to health programs that help people.”
With the tax’s days numbered, researchers are working overtime to document its effects. Dr. Twells’ team is expanding their study to gather as much data as possible before the repeal.
“The irony is that we might only understand how effective this policy was after it’s gone,” she sighs. “But hopefully the evidence will inform future attempts—here or elsewhere in Canada.”
Meanwhile, other provinces watch with interest. British Columbia and Quebec have both considered similar measures, though no concrete plans have materialized. As Canada grapples with rising healthcare costs related to diet-linked conditions, Newfoundland’s experiment—however brief—may yet prove instructive.
