Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in Europe: learning for the future.
Journal
European journal of public health
ISSN: 1464-360X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9204966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2022
01 04 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
27
2
2022
medline:
6
4
2022
entrez:
26
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes are recommended globally as part of measures to prevent diet-related NCDs. However, their uptake in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region has been limited. The aim of this study was to inform strategic, cross-sectoral, public health policy engagement to support the uptake and effective implementation of SSB taxation. We conducted a policy analysis of SSB taxes in the WHO European Region, drawing on theories of policy making and diffusion of innovation. Data were collected from policy documents and media, secondary contextual sources and qualitative interview data (n = 20) to analyze factors influencing the adoption of taxes in 10 countries. Belgium, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Monaco, Norway, Portugal and the UK had current SSB taxes, but Monaco was excluded from the findings due to its unique taxation context. All countries were characterized by policy priority for NCD prevention, and in many there was a fiscal imperative to raise revenue. The taxes took the form of excises or levies, and the tax base and rate varied between countries. SSB taxation was fostered by constructive engagement between health and fiscal policy makers, but also influenced by external industry and public health stakeholders. Policy learning from national and international experience was evident in all countries. This study points to the value of ongoing policy learning for improving tax design, and the importance of constructive collaboration between finance and health policy makers. It also suggests regional bodies could play a greater role in supporting SSB taxation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes are recommended globally as part of measures to prevent diet-related NCDs. However, their uptake in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region has been limited. The aim of this study was to inform strategic, cross-sectoral, public health policy engagement to support the uptake and effective implementation of SSB taxation.
METHODS
We conducted a policy analysis of SSB taxes in the WHO European Region, drawing on theories of policy making and diffusion of innovation. Data were collected from policy documents and media, secondary contextual sources and qualitative interview data (n = 20) to analyze factors influencing the adoption of taxes in 10 countries.
RESULTS
Belgium, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Monaco, Norway, Portugal and the UK had current SSB taxes, but Monaco was excluded from the findings due to its unique taxation context. All countries were characterized by policy priority for NCD prevention, and in many there was a fiscal imperative to raise revenue. The taxes took the form of excises or levies, and the tax base and rate varied between countries. SSB taxation was fostered by constructive engagement between health and fiscal policy makers, but also influenced by external industry and public health stakeholders. Policy learning from national and international experience was evident in all countries.
CONCLUSIONS
This study points to the value of ongoing policy learning for improving tax design, and the importance of constructive collaboration between finance and health policy makers. It also suggests regional bodies could play a greater role in supporting SSB taxation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35218361
pii: 6537502
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckab211
pmc: PMC8975536
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
273-280Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.
Références
Health Policy. 2017 Aug;121(8):887-894
pubmed: 28711301
Obes Rev. 2015 Jul;16(7):519-30
pubmed: 25988272
Glob Health Action. 2021 Jan 1;14(1):1892307
pubmed: 33874854
Econ Hum Biol. 2020 May;37:100854
pubmed: 32062400
Int J Clin Pract. 2016 Oct;70(10):791-805
pubmed: 27456347
Annu Rev Nutr. 2019 Aug 21;39:317-338
pubmed: 31116649
Bull World Health Organ. 2019 Feb 01;97(2):154-159
pubmed: 30728621
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2020 Aug;22(8):1328-1337
pubmed: 32677762
Health Promot Int. 2021 Mar 12;36(1):155-164
pubmed: 32388550
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2016 Apr;109(4):242-53
pubmed: 26869455
Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 1;41(1):12-85
pubmed: 31820000
Br J Nutr. 2014 Sep 14;112(5):725-34
pubmed: 24932880
Health Promot Int. 2011 Mar;26(1):55-64
pubmed: 20739326
Annu Rev Public Health. 2017 Mar 20;38:329-349
pubmed: 28125390
Glob Health Action. 2021 Jan 1;14(1):1856469
pubmed: 33475471
QJM. 2017 Aug 01;110(8):513-520
pubmed: 28402535