Hagenaars Luc Louis, Jeurissen Patrick Paulus Theodoor, Klazinga Niek Sieds
Celsus Academy for Sustainable Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Centre', Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Department of Social Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Health Policy. 2017 Aug;121(8):887-894. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.06.011. Epub 2017 Jul 8.
Taxation of energy-dense foods (EDFs) and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is increasingly of interest as a novel public health and fiscal policy instrument. However academic interest in policy determinants has remained limited. We address this paucity by comparing the policy content and policy context of EDF/SSB taxes witnessed in 13 case studies, of which we assume the tax is sufficiently high to induce behavioural change. The observational and non-randomized studies published on our case studies seem to indicate that the EDF/SSB taxes under investigation generally had the desired effects on prices and consumption of targeted products. The revenue collection of EDF/SSB taxes is minimal yet significant. Administrative practicalities in tax levying are important, possibly explaining why a drift towards solely taxing SSBs can be noted, as these can be demarcated more easily, with levies seemingly increasing in more recent case studies. Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that EDF/SSB taxes have the potential to improve health, fiscal needs more often seem to lay their policy foundation rather than public health advocacy. A remarkable amount of conservative/liberal governments have adopted these taxes, although in many cases revenues are earmarked for benefits compensating regressive income effects. Governments voice diverse policy rationales, ranging from explicitly describing the tax as a public health instrument, to solely explicating revenue raising.
对高能量密度食品(EDF)和含糖饮料(SSB)征税作为一种新型的公共卫生和财政政策工具,越来越受到关注。然而,学术界对政策决定因素的兴趣仍然有限。我们通过比较13个案例研究中EDF/SSB税的政策内容和政策背景来解决这一不足,我们假设这些税足够高,足以引发行为改变。我们对案例研究发表的观察性和非随机研究似乎表明,所调查的EDF/SSB税通常对目标产品的价格和消费产生了预期效果。EDF/SSB税的税收收入虽少但意义重大。征税的行政实际操作很重要,这可能解释了为什么可以注意到有一种倾向于只对SSB征税的趋势,因为这些更容易界定,而且在最近的案例研究中征税似乎在增加。尽管越来越多的证据表明EDF/SSB税有改善健康的潜力,但财政需求似乎更经常地为其政策奠定基础,而不是公共卫生倡导。相当数量的保守/自由政府都采用了这些税收,尽管在许多情况下,税收被指定用于补偿累退收入效应的福利。政府提出了各种政策理由,从明确将税收描述为一种公共卫生工具,到仅仅解释为增加收入。