文章基本信息

标题：Employment Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes
本地全文：下载
作者：Lisa M. Powell ; Roy Wada ; Joseph J. Persky 等
期刊名称：American journal of public health
印刷版ISSN：0090-0036
出版年度：2014
卷号：104
期号：4
页码：672-677
DOI：10.2105/AJPH.2013.301630
语种：English
出版社：American Public Health Association
摘要：Objectives. We assessed the impact of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes on net employment. Methods. We used a macroeconomic simulation model to assess the employment impact of a 20% SSB tax accounting for changes in SSB demand, substitution to non-SSBs, income effects, and government expenditures of tax revenues for Illinois and California in 2012. Results. We found increased employment of 4406 jobs in Illinois and 6654 jobs in California, representing a respective 0.06% and 0.03% change in employment. Declines in employment within the beverage industry occurred but were offset by new employment in nonbeverage industry and government sectors. Conclusions. SSB taxes do not have a negative impact on state-level employment, and industry claims of regional job losses are overstated and may mislead lawmakers and constituents. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are the leading source of added sugar in the American diet and are associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, dental caries, osteoporosis, and obesity. 1–4 From 1988–1994 to 1999–2004, average daily caloric intake of SSBs increased from 157 to 203 kilocalories among adults and from 204 to 224 kilocalories among children aged 2 to 19 years. 5,6 Recently, SSB consumption prevalence fell across all age groups from 1999–2000 to 2007–2008, although the prevalence of sports and energy drinks increased and heavy SSB consumption (≥ 500 kcal/day) increased among children. 2,7 In 2009–2010, obesity rates among children and adults were 16.9% and 36.9%, respectively, 8,9 and the annual health care cost burden of obesity was recently estimated to be $209.7 billion. 10 Thus, reducing SSB consumption is considered a key public health objective. SSB taxes have been proposed as a means of changing individuals’ behavior to reduce obesity and improve health. 11,12 From a tax administration vantage, it is less complicated to tax food categories than nutrients, particularly categories with little or no nutritional value such as SSBs. As of January 1, 2012, state-level taxes on soda sold in grocery stores existed in 35 states, with a mean tax rate of 5.17% in taxing states and 3.55% across all states. 13 Evidence suggests that a SSB-specific tax that increases prices by 20% would reduce consumption by 24%. 13 However, evidence of relationships between SSB prices and taxes and body weight is mixed, largely because of the very low levels of existing taxes that are applied to both regular and low- or no-calorie beverages, 13,14 although studies that simulate larger price changes predict lower body weight outcomes. 15,16 In the past few years, numerous state and local legislators have proposed significant taxes on SSBs 17 —some at 2 cents per ounce, with many at a penny per ounce, equivalent to about 20.0%–35.0% of price, depending on how SSBs are sold. Although such proposed SSB taxes are substantial, they are below excise taxes on cigarettes, which currently account for about 44.2% of retail cigarette prices in the US. 18 New SSB taxes would raise substantial revenue that could be dedicated to health promotion. 19 However, none of these proposals has succeeded, at least partly because of opposing lobbying efforts by the beverage industry. In 2009, soft drink companies and the American Beverage Association spent $40.3 million lobbying the federal government, up from $1.3 million in 2005. 20 The American Beverage Association spent substantial additional funds lobbying at the state and local levels, for example, $16.7 million to repeal the 2010 Washington state tax legislation 20 and $4.0 million aimed at defeating the Richmond and El Monte, California, 2012 ballot measures. 21 A primary argument industry uses against SSB taxes is that they will cause considerable regional job losses. Indeed, a recent study showed that the most frequent opposing argument in news coverage of public debates over SSB taxes focused on how such taxes would hurt the economy. 22 Although industry’s job loss argument has resonated with citizens and lawmakers, especially during the recent recession, industry-sponsored research supporting it is subject to several limitations in its methods and assumptions. Job loss arguments by the beverage industry are overstated for 3 reasons. First, partially offsetting increased consumption of non-SSBs, which are often produced by the same companies, is not fully accounted for. Second, the increases in jobs created elsewhere in the economy as consumers reallocate their spending to nonbeverage goods and services are ignored. Third, the economic activity that tax revenue generates is not accounted for. For many years, tobacco companies made similarly incomplete arguments in opposition to tobacco taxes and other tobacco control policies, claiming that adoption of such policies would harm the economy by causing numerous job losses. 23,24 Tobacco industry–sponsored studies were increasingly scrutinized and refuted by more rigorous, independent analyses concluding that industry-sponsored studies significantly overstated the economic impact of tobacco and that there would be net job gains nationally as a result of reductions in tobacco use induced by stronger tobacco control policies. 25–27 We provide an independent comprehensive assessment of the employment impact of SSB taxes. We estimated the net employment effect by accounting for the effects of the direct reduction in SSB consumption, the substitution to non-SSB consumption, and the effects from the generated tax revenue. Specifically, we estimated the impact of a 20% state-level SSB tax on employment in Illinois and California.