Not so sweet refrain: sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, industry opposition and harnessing the lessons learned from tobacco control legal challenges.
Clicks: 398
ID: 38345
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
81.3
/100
398 views
277 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #2 of 6 articles by views in Health economics, policy, and law
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
As a growing number of countries implement, or announce plans to introduce, a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax, this paper explores the public health rationale for such a tax and provides an overview of the international normative and policy instruments supporting the introduction of fiscal measures on sugary drinks. After examining parallels between the legal arguments raised by the food and beverage industry in opposition to SSB taxes and those raised by the tobacco industry in response to tobacco control measures, this paper draws four key lessons that will assist countries to design effective and robust SSB tax measures and counter food and beverage industry opposition: regulatory distinctions in tax coverage should be based on bona fide, evidence-based reasoning; evidence-based measures need to be tailored to a country's public health objectives as part of a comprehensive strategy to address unhealthy diet consumption; procedural requirements and due process should be observed in the drafting and implementation of the measure; and regulatory space exists within domestic constitutions, laws and international trade and investment agreements recognising the sovereign right of states to regulate in the interests of public health.
| Reference Key |
george2019nothealth
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | George, Anita; |
| Journal | Health economics, policy, and law |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1017/S1744133118000178
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.