Monthly data derived from the Nielsen Homescan Panel for calendar years 1998 through 2003 are used to estimate the effects of a proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). Most arguments in describing the ramifications of a tax fail to consider demand interrelationships among various beverages. To circumvent this shortcoming we employ a variation of Quadratic Almost Ideal Demand System (QUAIDS) model. The consumption of isotonics, regular soft drinks and fruit drinks, the set of SSBs, is negatively impacted by the proposed tax, while the consumption of fruit juices, low-fat milk, coffee, and tea is positively affected. Diversion ratios are provided identifying where the volumes of the SSBs are directed as a result of the tax policy. The reduction in the body weight as a result of a 20% tax on SSBs is estimated to be between 1.54 and 2.55 lb per year. However, not considering demand interrelationships would result in higher weight loss. Unequivocally, it is necessary to consider interrelationships among non-alcoholic beverages in assessing the effect of the tax.

Food labels provide measurable benefits by improving diet quality of Americans by as much as four to six points on a 100‐point Healthy Eating Index scale. Among nutritional panels, serving sizes, nutrient content claims, list of ingredients, and health claims, the use of health claims on food labels provides the highest level of improvement in diet quality. The data source for this analysis is the 1994 to 1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes for Individuals (CSFII) and the accompanying Diet and Health Knowledge Survey (DHKS).

The two-step decision process for food-away-from-home (FAFH) consumption is empirically estimated using a generalization of the Heien and Wessells approach. Household information gathered by the National Panel Diary Group is used for the analysis. Marginal effects are corrected by untangling the respective variable impacts on the inverse Mills ratio. Expenditure and participation probability elasticities are similar to previous studies. Income elasticities ate about 0.20, suggesting that the FAFH commodity is a necessary good for U.S. society. Northeastern households are less likely to consume FAFH than other households, but their expenditures are higher on average.Key words: censored response modeling, food away from home.Socioeconomic and demographic trends are frequently cited as potential influences on food-away-from-home (FAFH) consumption (Prochaska and Schrimper; McCracken and Brandt; Lee and Brown; Yen; Kinsey; Nayga and Capps). Increased participation of women in the labor force places new constraints on household production time. As such, the convenience of FAFH is an attractive attribute to these households as well as to single-adult households. Factors such as age, ethnicity, regionality, urbanization, and education have potential effects on FAFH consumption due to differences in preferences, availability, and price. Successful marketing in the consumer-driven food industry requires an understanding for the role of demographic factors and recent trends of U.S. households on FAFH consumption.Previous studies have offered estimates of income and household size elasticities (Lamm; McCracken and Brandt; Yen). A summary of

Using the 1987–88 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, twelve food commodity groups were analyzed according to household poverty status. Parameter estimates were used to obtain subsistence expenditures, own-price elasticities, expenditure elasticities, and income elasticities. Own-price elasticities were similar between the income groups for most commodities. However, income elasticities were consistently higher for the lower-income group. The use of average estimates of price and income elasticities for the population as a whole for the projection of individual commodity demands is not likely to be successful if notable changes are evident in income distribution. Copyright 1996, Oxford University Press.