4.0 Review

Building a Strategy for Obesity Prevention One Piece at a Time: The Case of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF DIABETES
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 97-102

出版社

CANADIAN DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2013.03.025

关键词

obesity prevention; policy; sugar-sweetened beverages; taxation

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Obesity is a major public health issue in Canada that is reaching historically high levels in spite of efforts, targeted primarily at individual behaviour, to promote changes in diet and physical activity. Urgency for change at the population level compels moving upstream toward multilevel, societal approaches for obesity prevention. Public health researchers, advocates and policy makers are increasingly recognizing the current food environment, including availability, pricing, and marketing of foods and beverages, promotes over-consumption of unhealthy food and beverage choices and have identified the food environment as a point for intervention for obesity prevention. In April 2011, a consensus conference with invited experts from research, policy and practice fields was held. The conference aimed to build consensus around policy levers to address environmental determinants of obesity, including next logical steps toward further policy action. Using economic policies, such as taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), was discussed as one opportunity to promote healthy eating. This article reports on the consensus discussion that led to recommendations to tax sugar-sweetened beverages as one step in a multipronged comprehensive approach to obesity prevention. This recommendation is based on a synthesis of available evidence, including evidence regarding political feasibility, and potential impacts of a tax. In addition, we present additional primary research using current SSB consumption data to model the economic and behavioural impact of such a tax in Canada. (C) 2013 Canadian Diabetes Association

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据