Evidence Brief : Countering Common Arguments against Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes
Implementing governments need to be prepared to face considerable opposition in introducing and defending a new sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax. Arguments against SSB taxes tend to closely mirror those used against tobacco taxes, including that...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/560831592452414769/Evidence-brief-Countering-Common-Arguments-against-Sugar-Sweetened-Beverage-Taxes http://hdl.handle.net/10986/33968 |
| Summary: | Implementing governments need to be
prepared to face considerable opposition in introducing and
defending a new sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax.
Arguments against SSB taxes tend to closely mirror those
used against tobacco taxes, including that these taxes are
not effective, are regressive (place a disproportionate
burden on lower income groups), negatively affect employment
and economic growth, and violate international, regional, or
national law. Around the world, these arguments have been
used very effectively by opponents to impede and undermine
public and political support for SSB taxes, both proposed
and existing. Yet, as this evidence brief shows, these
arguments are not supported by sound evidence. Common
arguments against SSB taxes are outlined below, along with
the evidence that can be used to counter each proposition. |
|---|