[ad_1]
Faced with the rise of obesity and diabetes, health authorities have had the idea of taxing unhealthy foods. There are many arguments for and against this idea, which can not all be scientifically tested. However, at least we now have a good answer as to whether sales are affected.
The Philadelphia tax on sweetened beverages of 1.5 cents per ounce (53 cents per liter) started on January 1, 2017. The first study of its effects compared sales of the following year to the previous one and revealed that one billion ounces of drinks less had been sold – equivalent to 83 million cans. Perhaps a few people sourced in December 2016, but that could not represent more than a tiny fraction of the 38% drop in sales seen at 291 retailers in Philadelphia and surrounding areas. Stores located just outside the city increased sales; in the city itself, the reduction was 51%.
The American Journal of Medical Associations reports that Baltimore, used as a control, experienced a minimal reduction in beverage sales during the same period.
Opponents of the tax question are wondering if it is up to the government to use taxes to deter people from carrying out activities which it is almost certain that they are already unhealthy. They also note that, as a very cheap luxury, sweetened beverages are more consumed by low-income people, the disadvantage of which may be increased by the tax.
Further questions arise as to the benefits of taxing only beverages, rather than foods, and to know whether it was appropriate for Philadelphia to include artificial sweeteners, the health effects of which still occur. subject of many discussions.
Dr. Christina Roberto of the University of Pennsylvania, the first author of the study, did not express such doubts. "Taxing sweetened beverages is one of the most effective strategies to reduce the purchase of these unhealthy beverages.This is obvious for public health and a win-win policy," he said. she said.
Six other cities have now adopted similar taxes, with a lower tax study in Berkeley showing a 10% reduction in total sales, but a sharp decline among low-income residents. Connecticut and Colorado are considering taking the tax to the statewide. In addition to potential health benefits, Philadelphia uses funds raised to fund daycares, community schools and recreational facilities, targeting communities with the highest sugar consumption.
Curiously, while the pharmacies surveyed passed on the full price increase to customers, supermarkets and big box stores consumed about half of the cost, but it was the supermarkets that experienced the biggest drop in sales. In a previous study, Roberto and his colleagues found that the tax had no measurable effect on employment.
A reduction in sales is certainly necessary, but as an accompanying editorial emphasizes, "we still do not know if these taxes improve health outcomes". The proof of this will probably take a lot longer.
[ad_2]
Source link