付齊齊,劉愛玲
(中國疾病預(yù)防控制中心營養(yǎng)與健康所,北京 100050)
從全球來看,拉丁美洲、中東、亞洲、大洋洲、加勒比海等中低收入國家包括中國含糖飲料消費呈快速上升趨勢[1-3]。國內(nèi)外系統(tǒng)綜述和Meta分析表明,過多攝入含糖飲料可增加超重肥胖、2型糖尿病和血脂異常的發(fā)病風(fēng)險[4-6]。WHO指出,對含糖飲料征稅是降低含糖飲料消費最主要的綜合性措施[7],而一項有效稅收政策的制定應(yīng)考慮納稅飲料的范圍、稅種(銷售稅或消費稅)以及稅率[8]。目前我國關(guān)于含糖飲料征稅的介紹主要集中在征稅歷程和征稅優(yōu)劣勢分析方面[9-10]。因此,通過重點對含糖飲料稅的稅種、稅率及稅后影響等方面的文獻資料進行歸納整理,為我國制定相關(guān)政策提供參考。
目前,對飲料征稅的國家主要包括歐洲的匈牙利、法國、英國和芬蘭;拉丁美洲的墨西哥、厄瓜多爾和巴巴多斯;非洲的南非和毛里求斯;太平洋地區(qū)的斐濟、薩摩亞、瑙魯、法屬波利尼西亞、庫克群島和湯加王國,另外,還包括美國的部分州和城市如緬因州、加利福尼亞伯克利、費城、美洲土著保留地(美國納瓦霍國)[2]等。征稅飲料大多為含糖飲料,但含糖飲料包含的種類不同。英國對含有添加糖的飲料征稅,不包括牛奶飲料、茶和咖啡[11];墨西哥對所有含有添加糖的飲料征稅,不包括純果汁和人工添加甜味劑的飲料[12];匈牙利對含糖、含鹽、含咖啡的飲料征稅[13];瑙魯(島)對碳酸飲料、甜果汁飲料、調(diào)味奶和飲料混合物征稅[14];美國伯克利對含有添加糖的非酒精飲料征稅,純果汁和水不包含在內(nèi)[15](表1)。
對含糖飲料征稅的稅種包括消費稅和銷售稅,英國、法國、墨西哥等大多數(shù)國家征收消費稅,征收銷售稅的國家較少,如美國對雜貨店和自動售貨機蘇打汽水征收銷售稅。銷售稅促使消費者購買更便宜的品牌或更大容量的飲料,對降低含糖飲料消費影響較小。消費稅是對生產(chǎn)商和批發(fā)商進行征收,相對于銷售稅更容易實施,既能鼓勵企業(yè)生產(chǎn)能量更低的產(chǎn)品,又因為消費稅在付款之前征收,能夠使消費者意識到因稅收導(dǎo)致的價格上漲,更有利于降低含糖飲料的消費[16]。
對含糖飲料征稅的稅率包括累進稅率和比例稅率,不同稅率種類及不同稅率大小對消費量、健康影響不同。匈牙利和英國征收累進稅率,墨西哥、法國、巴巴多斯等大多數(shù)國家征收比例稅率。累進稅率征稅時考慮每100mL飲料中含糖量的閾值,超過一定閾值才進行征稅;比例稅率按照固定比例進行征稅。累進稅率設(shè)定閾值將促使生產(chǎn)商重新設(shè)計產(chǎn)品含糖量,減少能量攝入,而比例稅率更容易實施[8]。
累進稅率和比例稅率均有利于降低含糖飲料消費量。含糖飲料征稅對其消費量的影響可以通過價格彈性來估計,通常價格每增加10%可使消費量下降10%[8]。英國征收累進稅率,即每100mL飲料含糖量大于8g(高糖)征收重稅、5~8g(中糖)中等稅、小于5g(低糖)不征稅[11]。含糖飲料行業(yè)對該稅有三種反應(yīng):重新設(shè)計產(chǎn)品、漲價、調(diào)整市場份額,模型研究發(fā)現(xiàn)在生產(chǎn)含糖飲料時將高糖飲料含糖量降低30%、中糖飲料降低15%可使每人每天減少58.5mL含糖飲料消費量[17]。
不同比例稅率對消費量影響不同。在實例研究中,英國一家餐廳征稅0.1英鎊(約3.1%~3.8%)配合設(shè)計新產(chǎn)品、菜單調(diào)整等措施,發(fā)現(xiàn)含糖飲料消費量下降9.34%[18];墨西哥對含糖飲料征稅1比索/L(約10%),發(fā)現(xiàn)含糖飲料消費量下降6.3%,水購買量增加16.2%[12];稅率大于20%的有愛爾蘭、費城、伯克利、瑙魯,其中伯克利征稅1美分/盎司發(fā)現(xiàn)含糖飲料消費量下降9.6%,水消費量增加15.6%[19];愛爾蘭稅率從23%下降到21%,軟飲料消費量增加6.8%[20]。在模型研究中,墨西哥和厄瓜多爾對含糖飲料征稅10%可使含糖飲料消費量分別減少40.18mL和降低12%[21-22];墨西哥和紐約征稅稅率在10%~20%可使含糖飲料消費量分別減少43.23mL和降低9.3%[21-23];美國征稅的稅率超過20%可使含糖飲料消費量降低15%[24](表1、表2)。
累進稅率和比例稅率對健康的影響多基于模型研究,實例研究較少。在模型研究中,英國征收累進稅率可使齲齒和糖尿病發(fā)生率分別降低4.4%和31.1%[17]。在實例研究中,美國和緬因州分別對蘇打汽水和軟飲料征收比例稅率在4.25%~4.51%和5.5%時,均發(fā)現(xiàn)對體重影響不大[25-26]。墨西哥、美國、德國、英國、印度、南非等國家在模型研究中對含糖飲料征收比例稅率在10%~20%時,發(fā)現(xiàn)超重患病率下降0.7%~3.0%,肥胖患病率下降幅度1.3%~6.9%不等,糖尿病發(fā)病率、患病率、死亡率分別下降1.6%[27]、13.4%[21]和1.5%[28],中風(fēng)和冠心病死亡率分別下降0.1%和1.0%[28];稅率大于20%,效果更明顯,肥胖患病率可下降1.5%[24],糖尿病發(fā)病率和死亡率可分別下降2.6%[24]和4.1%[28],中風(fēng)和冠心病死亡率可分別下降0.2%和2.8%[28](表2)。
表1 不同國家含糖飲料征稅情況
注:—沒有相關(guān)研究數(shù)據(jù)
表2 不同國家含糖飲料征稅效果的模型研究
注:—沒有相關(guān)研究數(shù)據(jù)
丹麥稅務(wù)部門取消開征糖稅,并指出糖稅會增加管理成本,造成失業(yè)增加[29]。然而,墨西哥研究發(fā)現(xiàn),含糖飲料征稅后期失業(yè)率有輕微上升,可以忽略不計,總的來說,對就業(yè)沒有影響[30]。Lisa M.Powell等[31]發(fā)現(xiàn),含糖飲料征稅20%不會對加利福尼亞州和伊利諾斯州的就業(yè)產(chǎn)生不利影響。
含糖飲料征稅可降低醫(yī)療費用支出,增加財政收入。在模型研究中,厄瓜多爾對含糖飲料征收10%消費稅,可增加5 800萬美元財政收入[22];哥倫比亞對含糖飲料征收20%消費稅可增加哥倫比亞財政年總收入的1%,節(jié)省因中風(fēng)造成的4億美元醫(yī)療費用支出[32];在美國,對含糖飲料征收1美分/盎司的稅可節(jié)省171億醫(yī)療費用支出,增加130億財政收入[24];在澳大利亞,征稅20%可節(jié)省6.09億澳元醫(yī)療費用支出,增加4億澳元財政收入[33]。
目前中國缺乏對含糖飲料征稅態(tài)度方面的研究,國外研究顯示,大多數(shù)國家公眾支持政府對含糖飲料消費進行調(diào)控。一項來自北美洲、南美洲、歐洲、亞洲、中東、非洲、大洋洲的75個國家共1 290投票結(jié)果顯示,68%的投票者支持政府出面調(diào)節(jié)含糖飲料的消費量來降低肥胖負擔[34]。美國和法國近50%公眾支持對含糖飲料征稅,并且如果稅收的收入是用在醫(yī)療保健系統(tǒng),公眾對含糖飲料征稅支持高達72.7%。美國和法國公眾近一半認為含糖飲料是造成兒童肥胖的重要因素,支持稅收能夠改善人們健康狀況[35-36]。
目前,全球已經(jīng)有很多國家和城市對含糖飲料征稅,稅種主要為消費稅,稅率以比例稅率為主。征稅可降低含糖飲料消費,我國應(yīng)加強相關(guān)研究,適時出臺相關(guān)政策,并鼓勵飲料企業(yè)進行營養(yǎng)轉(zhuǎn)型?!?/p>
[1]中國營養(yǎng)學(xué)會.中國居民膳食指南(2016)[M].北京:人民衛(wèi)生出版社,2016.
[2]Popkin B M,Hawkes C.Sweetening of the global diet,particularly beverages:patterns,trends,and policy responses[J].Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol,2016,4(2):174-186.
[3]李冬華,于冬梅,趙麗云.中國九省成人含糖飲料消費及添加糖攝入量的趨勢分析[J].衛(wèi)生研究,2014,43(1):70-72.
[4]中國營養(yǎng)學(xué)會.食物與健康——科學(xué)證據(jù)共識[M].北京:人民衛(wèi)生出版社,2016.
[5]郭海軍,丁彩翠,劉愛玲.含糖飲料攝入與2型糖尿病關(guān)系的劑量反應(yīng)Meta分析[J].中國慢性病預(yù)防與控制,2016,24(7):530-535.
[6]丁彩翠,郭海軍,宋超,等.含糖飲料消費與肥胖及體重改變關(guān)系的Meta分析[J].中國慢性病預(yù)防與控制,2015,23(7):506-511.
[7]Taxes on sugar drinks:Why do it?Geneva:World Health Organization[EB/OL].http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/250303/1/WHO-NMH-PND-16.5-eng.pdf?ua=1.
[8]Brownell K D,F(xiàn)arley T,Willett W C,et al.The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages[J].N Engl J Med,2009,361(16):1599-1605.
[9]鄭夢琪,張建芬,何海蓉,等.對我國含糖飲料征稅的SWOT分析[J].中國食物與營養(yǎng),2017,23(5):38-41.
[10]米玉倩,吳靜,梁曉峰.國外的征收含糖飲料稅對我國疾病防控的借鑒[J].中國公共衛(wèi)生管理,2017(1):56-59.
[11]Jones C M.The UK sugar tax-a healthy start?[J].Br Dent J,2016,221(2):59-60.
[12]Colchero M A,Molina M,Guerrero-Lopez C M.After Mexico implemented a tax,purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages decreasedand water increased:difference by place of residence,household composition,and income level[J].J Nutr,2017,147(8):1552-1557.
[13]Bíró A.Did the junk food tax make the Hungarians eat healthier?[J].Food Policy,2015(54):107-115.
[14]Thow A M,Quested C,Juventin L,et al.Taxing soft drinks in the Pacific:implementation lessons for improving health[J].Health Promot Int,2011,26(1):55-64.
[15]Falbe J,Thompson H R,Becker C M,et al.Impact of the berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption[J].Am J Public Health,2016,106(10):1865-1871.
[16]Brownell K D,F(xiàn)rieden T R.Ounces of prevention—the public policy case for taxes on sugared beverages[J].N Engl J Med,2009,360(18):1805-1808.
[17]Briggs A D M,Mytton O T,Kehlbacher A,et al.Health impact assessment of the UK soft drinks industry levy:a comparative risk assessment modelling study[J].The Lancet Public Health,2017,2(1):e15-e22.
[18]Cornelsen L,et al.Change in non-alcoholic beverage sales following a 10—pence levy on sugar-sweetened beverages within a national chain of restaurants in the UK:interrupted time series analysis of a natural experiment[J].J Epidemiol Community Health,2017,71(11):1107-1112.
[19]Silver L D,Ng S W,Ryan-Ibarra S,et al.Changes in prices,sales,consumer spending,and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley,California,US:a before-and-after study[J].PLoS Med,2017,14(4):e1002283.
[20]Roy Bahl R B A M.The uneasy case against discriminatory excise taxation soft drink taxes in Ireland[J].Public Finance Review,2003,31(5):510-533.
[21]Barrientos-Gutierrez T,Zepeda-Tello R,Rodrigues E R,et al.Expected population weight and diabetes impact of the 1—peso-per-litre tax to sugar sweetened beverages in Mexico[J].PLoS One,2017,12(5):e176336.
[22]Paraje G.The effect of price and socio-economic level on the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages(SSB):The Case of Ecuador[J].PLoS One,2016,11(3):e152260.
[23]Ruff R R,Zhen C.Estimating the effects of a calorie-based sugar-sweetened beverage tax on weight and obesity in New York City adults using dynamic loss models[J].Annals of Epidemiology,2015,25(5):350-357.
[24]Wang Y C,et al.A penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would cut health and cost burdens of diabetes[J].Health Aff(Millwood),2012,31(1):199-207.
[25]Powell L M,Chriqui J,Chaloupka F J.Associations between state-level soda taxes and adolescent body mass index[J].J Adolesc Health,2009,45(3 Suppl):S57-S63.
[26]Oaks B.An evaluation of the snack tax on the obesity rate of maine[J].2005.
[27]Basu S,Vellakkal S,Agrawal S,et al.Averting obesity and type 2 diabetes in India through sugar-sweetened beverage taxation:an economic-epidemiologic modeling study[J].PLoS Med,2014,11(1):e1001582.
[28]Penalvo J L,Cudhea F,Micha R,et al.The potential impact of food taxes and subsidies on cardiovascular disease and diabetes burden and disparities in the United States[J].BMC Med,2017,15(1):208.
[29]Stafford N.Denmark cancels “fat tax” and shelves “sugar tax” because of threat of job losses[J].BMJ,2012,345(nov211):e7889.
[30]Guerrero-López C M,et al.Employment changes associated with the introduction of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and nonessential energy-dense food in Mexico[J].Preventive Medicine,2017,105(Supplement):S43-S49.
[31]Powell L M,Wada R,Persky J J,et al.Employment impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes[J].Am J Public Health,2014,104(4):672-677.
[32]Caro J C,et al.Sugary drinks taxation,projected consumption and fiscal revenues in Colombia:evidence from a Quaids model[J].PLoS One,2017,12(12):e189026.
[33]Veerman J L,et al.The impact of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages on health and health care costs:a modelling study[J].PLoS One,2016,11(4):e151460.
[34]Colbert J A,Adler J N.Clinical decisions.Sugar-sweetened beverages—polling results[J].N Engl J Med,2013,368(3):e4.
[35]Julia C,Mejean C,Vicari F,et al.Public perception and characteristics related to acceptance of the sugar-sweetened beverage taxation launched in France in 2012[J].Public Health Nutr,2015,18(14):2679-2688.
[36]Donaldson E A,et al.Public support for a sugar-sweetened beverage tax and pro-tax messages in a Mid-Atlantic US state[J].Public Health Nutr,2015,18(12):2263-2273.
[37]Fiscal policies for diet and prevention of noncommunicable diseases.Geneva:World Health Organization[EB/OL]http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/250131/1/9789241511247-eng.pdf.
[38]Alvarado M,et al.Trends in beverage prices following the introduction of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Barbados[J].Prev Med,2017,105S:S23-S25.
[39]Cawley J,Willage B,F(xiàn)risvold D.Pass-Through of a Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages at the Philadelphia International Airport[J].JAMA,2018,319(3):305-306.
[40]Stacey N,Tugendhaft A,Hofman K.Sugary beverage taxation in South Africa:household expenditure,demand system elasticities,and policy implications[J].Prev Med,2017,105S:S26-S31.
[41]Briggs A D,Mytton O T,Madden D,et al.The potential impact on obesity of a 10% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Ireland,an effect assessment modelling study[J].BMC Public Health,2013,13(1):860.
[42]Schwendicke F,Stolpe M.Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages:impact on overweight and obesity in Germany[J].BMC Public Health,2017,17(1):88.
[43]Manyema M,et al.The potential impact of a 20% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages on obesity in South African adults:a mathematical model[J].PLoS One,2014,9(8):e105287.
[44]Briggs A D,et al.Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 2020% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK:econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study[J].BMJ,2013,347(6):f6189.
[45]Nomaguchi T,et al.The impact on productivity of a hypothetical tax on sugar-sweetened beverages[J].Health Policy,2017,121(6):715-725.