George Anita
Senior Legal Policy Advisor, McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Health Econ Policy Law. 2019 Oct;14(4):509-535. doi: 10.1017/S1744133118000178. Epub 2018 May 21.
As a growing number of countries implement, or announce plans to introduce, a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax, this paper explores the public health rationale for such a tax and provides an overview of the international normative and policy instruments supporting the introduction of fiscal measures on sugary drinks. After examining parallels between the legal arguments raised by the food and beverage industry in opposition to SSB taxes and those raised by the tobacco industry in response to tobacco control measures, this paper draws four key lessons that will assist countries to design effective and robust SSB tax measures and counter food and beverage industry opposition: regulatory distinctions in tax coverage should be based on bona fide, evidence-based reasoning; evidence-based measures need to be tailored to a country's public health objectives as part of a comprehensive strategy to address unhealthy diet consumption; procedural requirements and due process should be observed in the drafting and implementation of the measure; and regulatory space exists within domestic constitutions, laws and international trade and investment agreements recognising the sovereign right of states to regulate in the interests of public health.
随着越来越多的国家实施或宣布计划引入含糖饮料税，本文探讨了征收此类税收的公共卫生依据，并概述了支持对含糖饮料采取财政措施的国际规范和政策工具。在审视了食品饮料行业反对含糖饮料税所提出的法律论据与烟草行业回应烟草控制措施所提出的论据之间的相似之处后，本文得出四条关键经验教训，将有助于各国设计有效且有力的含糖饮料税措施，并应对食品饮料行业的反对：税收覆盖范围的监管区分应基于善意的、循证推理；循证措施应根据一国的公共卫生目标进行调整，作为解决不健康饮食消费综合战略中的一部分；在该措施的起草和实施过程中应遵守程序要求和正当程序；在国内宪法、法律以及国际贸易和投资协定中存在监管空间，承认各国为了公共卫生利益进行监管的主权权利。
