Evidence of a health risk 'signalling effect' following the introduction of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax.
Evidence of a health risk 'signalling effect' following the introduction of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102104
复制
发表时间：
2021-07
期刊：
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
Adams J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alvarado M;Penney TL;Unwin N;Murphy MM;Adams J
含糖饮料 (SSB) 税可能会发出有关健康风险的信息。公众对征税产品的误解可能会削弱风险信号。工业界可能会通过广告产生“反信号”。政策制定者可以放大积极的信号效应，以最大限度地提高健康效益。饮用含糖饮料 (SSB) 与肥胖和 2 型糖尿病发病率增加有关，这使得 SSB 成为越来越受欢迎的征税目标。除了改变价格之外，征收 SSB 税还可以传达有关 SSB 健康风险的信息（信号效应）。如果 SSB 税收在一定程度上是通过产生健康风险信号来运作的，那么可能存在放大这种影响的重要机会。我们的目的是评估巴巴多斯 SSB 税引入后是否存在风险信号效应的证据。我们使用过程追踪来评估苏打水和含糖果汁（果汁饮料）是否存在信号效应。我们使用了三个数据源：611 份当地电视新闻的存档记录、30 份公众访谈以及来自一家大型连锁杂货店的电子销售点数据（46 个月）。我们使用定向内容分析来评估定性数据，并使用间断时间序列分析来评估定量数据。我们发现了与对苏打水（而非果汁饮料）征收 SSB 税后的风险信号效应一致的证据。与风险信号理论一致，调查结果表明，消费者了解税收，相信税收的健康理由，了解苏打水被征税，并认为苏打水和果汁饮料不健康。然而，消费者似乎并不了解果汁饮料要征税，从健康角度来看，这可能会降低税收的有效性。此外，税收可能会激励公司增加果汁饮料的广告（破坏任何信号效应）并引入低成本的 SSB 产品线。政策制定者可以通过明确征税SSB的定义、强调引入此类政策的健康理由以及引入减少行业反信号机会的共同干预措施（例如营销限制）来最大限度地发挥风险信号的影响。这些行动可能会放大 SSB 税的影响。
Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes may signal information about health risks. Risk signals may be undermined by public misperception of taxed products. Industry may produce “countersignals” through advertising. Policymakers can amplify positive signalling effects to maximize health benefits. Consuming sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) has been associated with increased rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes, making SSBs an increasingly popular target for taxation. In addition to changing prices, the introduction of an SSB tax may convey information about the health risks of SSBs (a signalling effect). If SSB taxation operates in part by producing a health risk signal, there may be important opportunities to amplify this effect. Our aim was to assess whether there is evidence of a risk signalling effect following the introduction of the Barbados SSB tax. We used process tracing to assess the existence of a signalling effect around sodas and sugar-sweetened juices (juice drinks). We used three data sources: 611 archived transcripts of local television news, 30 interviews with members of the public, and electronic point of sales data (46 months) from a major grocery store chain. We used directed content analysis to assess the qualitative data and an interrupted time series analysis to assess the quantitative data. We found evidence consistent with a risk signalling effect following the introduction of the SSB tax for sodas but not for juice drinks. Consistent with risk signalling theory, the findings suggest that consumers were aware of the tax, believed in a health rationale for the tax, understood that sodas were taxed and perceived that sodas and juice drinks were unhealthy. However consumers appear not to have understood that juice drinks were taxed, potentially reducing tax effectiveness from a health perspective. In addition, the tax may have incentivised companies to increase advertising around juice drinks (undermining any signalling effect) and to introduce low-cost SSB product lines. Policymakers can maximize the impact of risk signals by being clear about the definition of taxed SSBs, emphasizing the health rationale for introducing such a policy, and introducing co-interventions (e.g. marketing restrictions) that reduce opportunities for industry countersignals. These actions may amplify the impact of an SSB tax.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Hsieh, HF;Shannon, SE
通讯作者：
Shannon, SE
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Howitt, Christina;Hambleton, Ian R.;Unwin, Nigel
通讯作者：
Unwin, Nigel
影响因子：
6.5
作者：
Li, Wenying;Dorfman, Jeffrey H.
通讯作者：
Dorfman, Jeffrey H.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Fairfield, Tasha;Charman, Andrew E.
通讯作者：
Charman, Andrew E.
影响因子：
7.7
作者：
Bernal JL;Cummins S;Gasparrini A
通讯作者：
Gasparrini A