Dilk Abby, Savaiano Dennis A
earned a BS in Nutrition Science, with minors in biology and chemistry, from Purdue University in 2016. Dilk is currently earning her Master's in Public Health Nutrition at the George Washington University.
Nutr Today. 2017 May;52(3):143-150. doi: 10.1097/NT.0000000000000217. Epub 2017 May 15.
Domestic US sugar production has been protected by government policy for the past 82 years, resulting in elevated domestic prices and an estimated annual (2013) $1.4 billion dollar "tax" on consumers. These elevated prices and the simultaneous federal support for domestic corn production have ensured a strong market for high-fructose corn syrup. Americans have dramatically increased their consumption of caloric sweeteners during the same period. Consumption of "empty" calories (ie, foods with low-nutrient/high-caloric density)-sugar and high-fructose corn syrup being the primary sources-is considered by most public health experts to be a key contributing factor to the rise in obesity. There have been substantial efforts to tax sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) to both reduce consumption and provide a source of funds for nutrition education, thereby emulating the tobacco tax model. Volume-based SSB taxes levy the tax rate per ounce of liquid, where some are only imposed on beverages with added sugar content exceeding a set threshold. Nonetheless, volume-based taxes have significant limitations in encouraging consumers to reduce their caloric intake due to a lack of transparency at the point of purchase. Thus, it is hypothesized that point-of-purchase, nutrient-specific excise taxes on SSBs would be more effective at reducing sugar consumption. However, all SSB taxes are limited by the possibility that consumers may compensate their decreased intake from SSBs with other high-calorie junk foods. Furthermore, there are no existing studies to provide evidence on how SSB taxes will impact obesity rates in the long term. The paradox of sugar prices is that Americans have paid higher prices for sugar to protect domestic production for more than 80 years, and now, Americans are being asked to pay even more to promote public health. The effective use of sugar taxes should be considered based on their merits in reducing sugar consumption and making available a new source of funds to support nutrition education, not on lobbying efforts by the food industry or sugar and corn producers.
在过去82年里,美国国内食糖生产一直受到政府政策的保护,这导致国内食糖价格上涨,据估计每年(2013年)消费者要承担14亿美元的“税收”。这些高昂的价格以及联邦政府同时对国内玉米生产的支持,确保了高果糖玉米糖浆的强劲市场。在此期间,美国人对热量甜味剂的消费大幅增加。大多数公共卫生专家认为,“空热量”(即低营养/高热量密度的食物)的消费——糖和高果糖玉米糖浆是主要来源——是导致肥胖率上升的一个关键因素。人们已经做出了大量努力对含糖饮料征税,以减少消费并为营养教育提供资金来源,从而效仿烟草税模式。基于容量的含糖饮料税按每盎司液体征收税率,其中一些仅对添加糖含量超过设定阈值的饮料征收。然而,由于购买时缺乏透明度问题,基于容量的税收在鼓励消费者减少热量摄入方面存在重大局限性。因此,有人假设,对含糖饮料在购买点征收特定营养素消费税在减少食糖消费方面会更有效。然而,所有含糖饮料税都存在局限性,即消费者可能会用其他高热量垃圾食品来弥补他们从含糖饮料中减少的摄入量。此外,目前还没有现有研究能够提供证据证明含糖饮料税从长期来看将如何影响肥胖率。食糖价格的矛盾之处在于,80多年来美国人一直为保护国内生产而支付更高的食糖价格,而现在,美国人又被要求支付更多费用来促进公共卫生。应根据糖税在减少食糖消费和提供新的资金来源以支持营养教育方面的优点来考虑有效利用糖税,而不是基于食品行业或食糖和玉米生产商的游说努力。