|
?:abstract
|
-
[ ]public health may be able to engage a broader coalition in fighting other preventable but deadly diseases, perhaps even obesity and diabetes [ ]sales taxes on soft drinks in Maine and Ohio, where 5 5% and 5 0% taxes, respectively, were added at the register, had no effect on sales 4 By contrast, a similarly sized excise tax in Washington State, which led to a 6% increase in shelf prices, was associated with a 5% decline in soft drink sales 5 Although Chriqui et al explain that Cook County used a sales tax because of existing restrictions, the tax size (equivalent to a 26% price increase) was five times larger than those in Maine and Ohio and led to a 21% net decline in sales while it was in place 2 FOCUS ON HEALTH Although excise taxes increase the cost of doing business for SSB manufacturers, and thereby lead to higher SSB prices and reduced consumption,1 it remains important to frame SSB taxes as a remedy to SSB-related disease and the tax revenues as a source of funding for health promotion By contrast, highlighting taxes as a means of reducing SSB consumption plays into the beverage industry\'s faulty but repeated claims that excise taxes restrict personal choice 3 Further, focusing on individual behaviors aligns with industry\'s talking points about personal responsibility;such talking points minimize the role inequitable environments across economic strata, including SSB advertising, play in shaping individual behaviors 1 NEXT STEPS Although Cook County\'s tax failed, it does pose an elegant natural experiment that could augment the science on SSB taxes, if the repeal\'s effect is consistent with evidence from Washington State and Denmark
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}