Public Health, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.
Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, VIC, Geelong, Australia.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Dec 6;11(11):2489-2501. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.174. Epub 2021 Dec 22.
Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes are an effective public health policy intervention for improving nutrition and public health. Although implemented in over 50 jurisdictions worldwide, this intervention remains vastly underutilised, and in Australia political commitment for such a tax is low. The aim of this study is to understand the politics of SSB taxation in Australia, what factors have constrained political commitment for a tax, and what might enable such commitment in future.
We adopted a case study design, guided by a theoretical framework developed from the political economy of nutrition literature. Data were collected from 16 interviews with informants from multiple sectors, supported by media articles, journal articles, and grey literature. Data were coded and organized by thematic analysis, and synthesised into the final results.
Nutrition actors have made significant progress in generating commitment for a SSB tax by producing relevant evidence, raising awareness, advocating for action, employing resonating frames, collaborating with civil society organisations, and forming coalitions increasing their overall cohesion. Nevertheless, political commitment for a SSB tax is low and was found to be impeded by the powerful influence of the food, beverage, and sugar industries, opposition from both major Australian political parties, ideological resistance to regulation, a low quality monitoring and surveillance system for food and nutrition, and limited public advocacy. The influence of nutrition actors was also impeded by weak connections to key policy-makers and missed collaborative opportunities with pro-SSB tax organisations.
The identification of several impediments provides an explanation for why political commitment for a SSB tax is low in Australia and reveals several opportunities for how it might be generated in the future. Political commitment may come about through, for example, actions to limit the influence of industry in policy decision-making, and by strengthening the existing pro-SSB tax coalition.
含糖饮料 (SSB) 税是改善营养和公共健康的有效公共卫生政策干预措施。尽管在全球 50 多个司法管辖区实施,但这种干预措施仍未得到充分利用,澳大利亚对这种税收的政治承诺也很低。本研究旨在了解澳大利亚 SSB 税收的政治情况、哪些因素限制了对税收的政治承诺,以及未来哪些因素可能促成这种承诺。
我们采用案例研究设计,以营养政治经济学文献中开发的理论框架为指导。从多个部门的 16 名受访者处收集了数据,这些数据得到了媒体文章、期刊文章和灰色文献的支持。数据通过主题分析进行编码和组织,并综合为最终结果。
营养行为体通过生成相关证据、提高认识、倡导行动、采用共鸣框架、与民间社会组织合作以及形成增加凝聚力的联盟,在为 SSB 税争取承诺方面取得了重大进展。然而,对 SSB 税的政治承诺仍然很低,原因是食品、饮料和糖业的强大影响力、澳大利亚两大主要政党的反对、对监管的意识形态抵制、食品和营养监测和监督系统质量低下,以及公众宣传有限。营养行为体的影响力也受到与关键决策者联系薄弱以及与支持 SSB 税的组织合作机会错失的阻碍。
确定的几个障碍解释了为什么澳大利亚对 SSB 税的政治承诺很低,并揭示了未来如何产生这种承诺的几个机会。政治承诺可能来自于例如采取行动限制行业对政策决策的影响,以及加强现有的支持 SSB 税的联盟。