徵收糖稅有用嗎 Sugar tax argument fails

There is an unpalatable truth about the foods we crave: they are generally bad for us. Our evolutionary history has left us longing for sugars and fats, exactly the sort of energy-dense substances that stopped our ancestors from starving in lean times.

有個事實讓我們難以接受：我們酷愛的食物往往對身體有害。人類進化的歷史讓我們渴望攝取糖和脂肪。正是這些高熱量物質讓我們的祖先在荒年免於餓死。

Those ingredients, now cheap and plentiful, are fuelling a worldwide rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes. The issue resurfaced in the UK last week with the publication of a report into public health, and on childhood obesity in particular. Now a bitter war has broken out between politicians and health experts on the merits of a tax on high sugar products such as soft drinks. I can understand the clamour — and such a move may shock us into cutting consumption — but a sugar tax does not quite hit the sweet spot.

如今這些成分變得便宜而充足，在全球範圍內導致肥胖和2型糖尿病的增加。不久前，隨着一份報告的發佈，這個問題在英國重新引發了關注。這是一份有關公共健康、尤其是兒童肥胖問題的報告。現在，圍繞着對軟飲等高糖產品徵稅的好處，政治人士和健康專家之間爆發了一場激烈的戰爭。我能理解這種呼聲，這樣的舉措可能會讓我們感到震驚從而減少消費。但是，從開徵糖稅着手解決這個問題可能不是好辦法。

In a high-income country, a levy substantial enough to deter abusers is likely to be unfair on those who exercise restraint. But it would also see the government flexing its fiscal muscles over an ingredient that is neither poisonous nor addictive; crowd out discussion of other undesirables such as saturated fats and salt; absolve manufacturers of the need to change their products; and, most worryingly, convey the impression that government can exonerate consumers from personal responsibility.

在高收入國家中，開徵一項足以阻止沉溺者的重稅對那些自我剋制的人來說，可能是不公平的。而且，開徵糖稅的結果是，政府將會對一種既無毒也不會讓人上癮的調味料施展自己的財政影響力；這會淹沒對其他不良物質的討論，如飽和脂肪和鹽分等；使製造商不必改變它們的產品；最令人擔心的是，這傳達了一種政府能讓消費者免於承擔個人責任的印象。

The World Health Organisation recommends that adults and children derive no more than 5 per cent of their total energy intake from free sugars (these include glucose, fructose, table sugar and those in honey, syrups and fruit juices, added by manufacturers or consumers). That amounts to six teaspoons daily, less than is found in most cans of fizzy pop.

世界衛生組織(WHO)建議，成人和兒童的遊離糖攝入量不超過總熱量攝入的5%（包括生產者或消費者添加的葡萄糖、果糖、蔗糖，以及蜂蜜、糖漿和果汁中含有的這些糖類）。這相當於每天6茶匙，低於大多數罐裝汽水的含量。

Britons do a bad job of sticking to this: free sugars account for up to 15 per cent of the average person’s energy intake. Public health messages — as well as hollow industry pledges on reformulation — have failed to slim down that statistic. The report from Public Health England urged the following: banning supermarket promotions; reformulation (a tactic that worked for salt) and portion size reduction; restricting aggressive marketing; clear labelling; and removing the worst products from hospitals. But its suggestion of a 10-20 per cent excise tax was rejected by Prime Minister David Cameron.

在遵守這條規則方面，英國人做得並不好：遊離糖攝入量占人均熱量攝入的比例高達15%。公共健康訊息——以及行業對於修改配方虛情假意的承諾——未能降低這個數字。英國公共衛生(Public Health England)的報告敦促人們採取下列行動：禁止超市促銷活動；修改配方（這一策略在控制鹽分攝入方面奏效了）、減少份量；限制積極營銷；明確標識；讓含糖量最高的一些產品在醫院絕跡。但報告提出的徵收10%-20%特種消費行爲稅(excise tax)的建議被首相戴維慍蕓倫(David Cameron)拒絕。

If we still eat too much sugar despite knowing the risks, does that mean it is addictive? An EU-funded study on the neurobiology of eating put paid to that idea last year: sugar does not elicit the same neurological high as heroin or cocaine. The NeuroFAST consortium concluded that overeating was a behavioural addiction rather than a substance-based one. And while sugar is harmful when consumed to excess, it is clearly not a poison in the same way that nicotine and alcohol are.

假如我們明知有風險，但還是吃了過多的糖，那是不是就意味着糖會讓人上癮呢？去年，一項由歐盟(EU)出資的飲食神經生物學研究終結了這種觀點：糖不會像海洛因或可卡因那樣引起神經系統的快感。該聯合研究團體NeuroFAST得出結論：過量飲食屬於一種行爲成癮，而非對某種物質上癮。雖然過量攝入糖是有害的，但糖顯然不是像尼古丁和酒精那樣的毒素。

If sugar is neither intrinsically toxic nor addictive, an alternative justification for a tax is that the ends justify the means. In which case, does it work? A meta-analysis published in 2013 concluded that a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) — in Mexico, some US states, Brazil and France — had cut demand for both sugary and diet drinks. This is encouraging but the effects on body weight, the key metric, are very modest, possibly because fizzy drinks are swapped for equally calorific fruit juices. It is possible that Britons would fare better but, for now, an SSB levy looks like tinkering around the edges.

如果糖本身無毒又不會讓人上癮，那麼徵稅的另一個理由就是，無論手段本身是否合理，其結果是好的。那麼，徵稅的效果如何呢？2013年發表的一份綜述分析得出結論：在墨西哥、美國一些州、巴西和法國，對含糖飲料(SSB)徵稅既降低了對含糖飲料的需求，又降低了對無糖飲料的需求。這一結果讓人振奮，但可能是因爲人們用同樣高熱量的果汁代替了汽水，此舉對體重這一關鍵指標的影響微乎其微。英國人也許能做得更好，但是目前來看，對含糖飲料徵稅只是隔靴搔癢而已。

We may also ask: why target only sugary drinks when we also gorge on sweets, chocolates, cakes, takeaways and booze? The food and drinks industry is absolutely guilty of peddling us products we do not need but that is true of most commerce. Meanwhile, the trickier issue of personal responsibility remains unaddressed. The singular focus on a sugar tax risks distracting us from thinking more intelligently about how to square our ancient cravings with modern life: eat less, eat better, drink more water and get off the sofa.

我們可能還會問：爲什麼只以含糖飲料爲目標呢？糖果、巧克力、蛋糕、外賣和酒也是我們大快朵頤的對象。食品和飲料業向我們兜售我們不需要的產品，在這一點上它們絕對脫不了干係，但絕大部分商業都有同樣的罪過。同時，個人責任這一更爲棘手的問題還是沒有得到應對。只關注糖稅可能會轉移我們的注意力，讓我們忽略更加智慧地思考如何讓我們的原始渴望符合現代生活：吃得更少、吃得更好、多喝水、別在沙發裏窩着。