Use and cumulation of evidence from modelling studies to inform policy on food taxes and subsidies: biting off more than we can chew?

BMC Public Health

David Ogilvie¹  Richard D Smith²  Theresa M Marteau³  Ian Shemilt³ 

[1] MRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK;Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK;Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK

关键词: Meta-analysis as topic;    Evidence synthesis;    Mathematical model;    Policy;    Public health;    Subsidies;    Taxes;    Food;   

Others  :  1164173
DOI  :  10.1186/s12889-015-1641-5

 received in 2014-09-15, accepted in 2015-03-16,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Food tax-subsidy policies are proposed to hold promise for helping to produce healthier patterns of food purchasing and consumption at population level. Evidence for their effects derives largely from simulation studies that explore the potential effects of untried policies using a mathematical modelling framework. This paper provides a critique first of the nature of the evidence derived from such simulation studies, and second of the challenges of cumulating that evidence to inform public health policy.

Discussion

Effects estimated by simulation studies of food taxes and subsidies can be expected to diverge in potentially important ways from those that would accrue in practice because these models are simplified, typically static, representations of complex adaptive systems. The level of confidence that can be placed in modelled estimates of effects is correspondingly low, and the level of associated uncertainty is high. Moreover, evidence from food tax-subsidy simulation studies cannot meaningfully be cumulated using currently available quantitative evidence synthesis methods, to reduce uncertainty about effects.

Summary

Simulation studies are critical for the initial phases of an incremental research process, for drawing together diverse evidence and exploring potential longer-term effects. While simulation studies of food taxes and subsidies provide a valuable and necessary input to the formulation of public health policy in this area, they are unlikely to be sufficient, and policy makers should not place excessive reliance on evidence from such studies, either singly or cumulatively. To reflect known and unknown limitations of the models, results of such studies should be interpreted cautiously as tentative projections. Modelling studies should increasingly be integrated with more empirical studies of the effects of food tax and subsidy policies in practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Shemilt et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Landon J, Graff H: What is the role of health-related food duties?. National Heart Forum, London; 2012.
• [2]Academy of Medical Royal Colleges: Measuring up: The medical profession’s prescription for the nation’s obesity crisis. Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, London; 2013.
• [3]Sustain: A Children’s Future Fund: How food duties could provide the money to protect children’s health and the world they grow up in. Sustain, London; 2013.
• [4]Mytton OT, Clarke D, Rayner M: Taxing unhealthy food and drinks to improve health. BMJ 2012, 344:e2931.
• [5]UK Faculty of Public Health: A duty on sugar sweetened beverages: A position statement. UK Faculty of Public Health, London; 2013.
• [6]Shemilt I, Hollands GJ, Marteau TM, Nakamura R, Jebb SA, Kelly MP, et al.: Economic instruments for population diet and physical activity behaviour change: a systematic scoping review. PLoS One 2013, 8(9):e75070.
• [7]Abdus S, Cawley J: Simulating the impact of a “fat tax” on body weight. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; 2008.
• [8]Allais O, Bertail P, Nichele V: The effects of a fat tax on French households’ purchases: A nutritional approach. Am J Agr Econ 2010, 92:228-45.
• [9]Andreyeva T, Chaloupka FJ, Brownell KD: Estimating the potential of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce consumption and generate revenue. Prev Med 2011, 52:413-6.
• [10]Arnoult MH, Tiffin R, Traill WB: Models of nutrient demand, tax policy and public health impact. University of Reading, Reading; 2008.
• [11]Bonnet C, Requillart V: Strategic pricing and health price policies. Toulouse School of Economics, Toulouse; 2011.
• [12]Briggs ADM, Mytton OT, Kehlbacher A, Tiffin R, Rayner M, Scarborough P: Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. BMJ 2013, 347:f6189.
• [13]Chouinard HH, Davis DE, LaFrance JT, Perloff JM: Fat taxes: Big money for small change. Forum Health Econ Pol 2007, 10:2.
• [14]Dharmasena S, Capps O: Intended and unintended consequences of a proposed national tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to combat the U.S. obesity problem. Health Econ 2012, 21:669-94.
• [15]Dong D, Lin B-H: Fruit and vegetable consumption by low-income Americans: Would a price reduction make a difference?. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Washington DC; 2009.
• [16]Finkelstein EA, Zhen C, Nonnemaker J, Todd JE: Impact of targeted beverage taxes on higher- and lower-income households. Arch Intern Med 2010, 170:2028-34.
• [17]Finkelstein EA, Zhen C, Bilger M, Nonnemaker J, Farooqui AM, Todd JE: Implications of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax when substitutions to non-beverage items are considered. J Health Econ 2013, 32:219-39.
• [18]Gabe T: Fiscal and economic impacts of beverage excise taxes imposed by Maine Public Law 629. University of Maine, Orono, ME; 2008.
• [19]Griffith R, Nesheim R, O'Connell M: Empirical estimates of the impact of a fat tax. Institute for Fiscal Studies, London; 2009.
• [20]Gustavsen GW: Public policies and the demand for carbonated soft drinks: A censored quantile regression approach. In Proceedings of the XIth Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists ‘The Future of Rural Europe in the Global Agri-Food System’ 2005; Copenhagen.
• [21]Gustavsen GW, Rickertsen K: The effects of taxes on purchases of sugar-sweetened carbonated soft drinks: A quantile regression approach. Appl Econ 2011, 43:707-16.
• [22]Jensen JD, Smed S: Cost-effective design of economic instruments in nutrition policy. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2007, 4:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Kuchler F, Tegene A, Harris JM: Taxing snack foods: What to expect for diet and tax revenues. Curr Issues Econ Food Markets 2004, 747:1-11.
• [24]Kuchler F, Tegene A, Harris JM: Taxing snack foods: Manipulating diet quality or financing information programs? Rev Agr Econ 2005, 27:4-20.
• [25]Levy DT, Friend KB: Simulation Modeling of Policies Directed at Youth Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption. Am J Community Psychol 2013, 51:299-313.
• [26]Lin B-H, Yen ST, Dong D, Smallwood DM: Economic incentives for dietary improvement among food stamp recipients. Contemp Econ Pol 2010, 28:524-36.
• [27]Lin B-W, Smith TA, Lee J-Y, Hall KD: Measuring weight outcomes for obesity intervention strategies: The case of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Econ Hum Biol 2011, 9:329-41.
• [28]Lopez RA, Fantuzzi KL: Demand for carbonated soft drinks: Implications for obesity policy. Appl Econ 2012, 44:2859-65.
• [29]Madden D: The poverty effects of a ‘fat-tax’ in Ireland. Health Econ, in press.
• [30]Mytton O, Gray A, Rayner M, Rutter H: Could targeted food taxes improve health? J Epidemiol Community Health 2007, 61:689-94.
• [31]Ng SW, Ni Mhurchu C, Jebb SA, Popkin BM: Patterns and trends of beverage consumption among children and adults in Great Britain, 1986–2009. Br J Nutr 2012, 108:536-51.
• [32]Nnoaham KE, Sacks G, Rayner M, Mytton O, Gray A: Modelling income group differences in the health and economic impacts of targeted food taxes and subsidies. Int J Epidemiol 2009, 38:1324-33.
• [33]Nordström J, Thunström L: The impact of tax reforms designed to encourage healthier grain consumption. J Health Econ 2009, 28:622-34.
• [34]Sacks G, Veerman JL, Moodie M, Swinburn B: ‘Traffic-light’ nutrition labelling and ‘junk-food’ tax: A modelled comparison of cost-effectiveness for obesity prevention. Int J Obes 2011, 35:1001-9.
• [35]Schroeter C, Lusk J, Tyner W: Determining the impact of food price and income changes on body weight. J Health Econ 2008, 27:45-68.
• [36]Smed S, Jensen JD, Denver S: Socio-economic characteristics and the effect of taxation as a health policy instrument. Food Policy 2007, 32:624-39.
• [37]Smith TA, Lin BH, Lee JY: Taxing caloric sweetened beverages: Potential effects on beverage consumption, calorie intake and obesity. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Alexandria, VA; 2010.
• [38]Tiffin R, Arnoult M: The public health impacts of a fat tax. Eur J Clin Nutr 2011, 65:427-33.
• [39]Wang YC: The potential impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in New York State. Columbia University, New York, NY; 2010.
• [40]Wang YC, Coxson P, Shen Y-M, Goldman L, Bibbins-Domingo K: A Penny-Per-Ounce Tax On Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Would Cut Health And Cost Burdens Of Diabetes. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012, 31:199-207.
• [41]Zhen C, Finkelstein EA, Nonnemaker JM, Shawn AK, Todd JE: Predicting the effects of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on food and beverage demand in a large demand system. Am J Agri Econ 2014, 96:1070-83.
• [42]Fletcher JM, Frisvold DE, Tefft N: The effects of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and weight outcomes. J Publ Econ 2010, 94:967-74.
• [43]Oaks B: An evaluation of the snack tax on the obesity rate of Maine. Texas State University, San Marcos, TX; 2005.
• [44]Powell LM, Chriqui J, Chaloupka FJ: Associations between state-level soda taxes and adolescent body mass index. J Adolesc Health 2009, 45(Suppl 1):S57-63.
• [45]Sturm R, Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Chaloupka FJ: Soda taxes, soft drink consumption, and children’s body mass index. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010, 29:1052-8.
• [46]Tefft N: The effects of a soft drink tax on household expenditures. Bates College, Lewiston, MN; 2008.
• [47]Yarnoff B: The effectiveness and efficiency of a soft drink tax for reducing calorie consumption. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL; 2010.
• [48]Mytton OT, Eyles H, Ogilvie D: Evaluating the health impacts of food and beverage taxes. Curr Obes Rep 2014, 10.1007/s13679-014-0123-x.
• [49]Epstein LH, Jankowiak N, Nederkoorn C, Raynor HA, French SA, Finkelstein E: Experimental research on the relation between food price changes and food-purchasing patterns: a targeted review. Am J Clin Nutr 2012, 95:789-809.
• [50]Weinstein MC, Toy EL, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ, Evans JS, Kuntz KM, et al.: Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: uses, roles, and validity. Value Health 2001, 4:348-61.
• [51]Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al.: Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000, 321:694-6.
• [52]Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Chandler J, Grimshaw J, Tugwell P, O’Neill J, et al.: Introducing a series of methodological articles on considering complexity in systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, 66:1205-8.
• [53]Hartmann S: The World as a Process: Simulations in the Natural and Social Sciences. In Modelling and Simulation in the Social Sciences from the Philosophy of Science Point of View. Edited by Hegselmann R, Mueller U, Troitzsch KG. Kluwer, Dordrecht; 1996:77-100.
• [54]Shemilt I, Wilson E, Vale L: Quality Assessment in Modeling in Decision Analytic Models for Economic Evaluation. In Encyclopedia of Health Economics. Edited by Culyer AJ. Elsevier, San Diego; 2014:218-23.
• [55]Glanville J, Paisley S: Chapter 7: Searching for evidence for cost-effectiveness decisions. In Evidence-Based Decisions and Economics: Health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice. Edited by Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, Marsh K, Donaldson C. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford; 2010:79-92.
• [56]Green R, Cornelsen L, Turner R, Dangour AD, Shankar B, Mazzocchi M, et al.: The effect of rising food prices on food consumption: systematic review with meta-regression. BMJ 2013, 346:f3703.
• [57]Cornelsen L, Green R, Turner R, Dangour AD, Shankar B, Mazzocchi M, Smith RD: What happens to consumption when food prices change? Evidence from a global systematic review and meta-analysis of food cross-price elasticities. Health Econ, in press.
• [58]Cornelsen L, Green R, Turner R, Dangour AD, Shankar B, Mazzocchi M, RD Smith: Estimating the relationship between food prices and food consumption – methods matter. Soc Sci Med, in press.
• [59]Cornelsen L, Green R, Dangour AD, Smith RD: Is a tax on sugary drinks too bitter to swallow? BMJ 2013, 347:f7039.
• [60]Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, et al.: Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, 66:1209-14.
• [61]Noyes J, Gough D, Lewin S, Mayhew A, Michie S, Pantoja T, et al.: Systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions: a research and development agenda. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, 66:1262-70.
• [62]Bonnet C, Requillart V: Does the EU sugar policy reform increase added sugar consumption? An empirical evidence on the soft drink market. Health Econ 2011, 20:1012-24.
• [63]Spiegelhalter DJ, Riesch H: Don’t know, can’t know: embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. Phil Trans R Soc A 2011, 369:4730-50.
• [64]Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, York; 2008.
• [65]Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H: A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation & the Health Professions 2002, 25:12-37.
• [66]Hammersley M: Systematic or Unsystematic, Is That The Question? Some reflections on the science, art and politics of reviewing research evidence. Health Development Agency Public Health Steering Group, London; 2002.
• [67]Gough D, Thomas J: Commonality and Diversity in Reviews. In An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Edited by Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. Sage, London; 2012:35-66.
• [68]Eyles H, Ni Mhurchu C, Nghiem N, Blakely T: Food Pricing Strategies, Population Diets, and Non-Communicable Disease: A Systematic Review of Simulation Studies. PLoS Med 2012, 9:e1001353.
• [69]Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Khan T, Wada R, Chaloupka FJ: Assessing the potential effectiveness of food and beverage taxes and subsidies for improving public health: a systematic review of prices, demand and body weight outcomes. Obes Rev 2013, 14:110-28.
• [70]Faulkner G, Grootendorst P, Nguyen VH, Ferrence R, Mendelson R, Donnelly P, et al.: Economic Policy, Obesity and Health: A Scoping Review. Exercise Psychology Unit, Toronto; 2010.
• [71]Faulkner GEJ, Grootendorst P, Nguyen VH, Andreyeva T, Arbour-Nicitopoulos K, Auld MC, et al.: Economic instruments for obesity prevention: results of a scoping review and modified delphi survey. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011, 8:109. BioMed Central Full Text
• [72]Thow AM, Jan S, Leeder S, Swinburn B: The effect of fiscal policy on diet, obesity and chronic disease: a systematic review. Bull World Health Org 2010, 88:609-14.
• [73]Hawkes C: Financial incentives and disincentives to encourage healthy eating. Which? Ltd, London; 2009.
• [74]Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al.: Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Lancaster University, Lancaster; 2006.
• [75]Rodgers M, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Roberts H, Britten N: Testing Methodological Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Smoke Alarm Ownership and Function. Evaluation 2009, 15:49-74.
• [76]Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA: Chapter 13: Including non-randomized studies (Section 13.6.2.4). In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011) Edited by Higgins JPT, Green S. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration
• [77]MacCoun RJ: Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annu Rev Psychol 1998, 49:259-87.
• [78]Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH: Chapter 11: Presenting results and ‘Summary of findings’ tables. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011) Edited by Higgins JPT, Green S. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration
• [79]Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG: Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011) Edited by Higgins JPT, Green S. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration
• [80]Lipsey MW, Wilson DB: Selecting, Computing and Coding the Effect Size Statistic. In Practical Meta-Analysis. Edited by Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2001:34-72.
• [81]Ogilvie D, Craig P, Griffin S, Macintyre S, Wareham NJ: A translational framework for public health research. BMC Public Health 2009, 9:116. BioMed Central Full Text
• [82]Webber L, Mytton OT, Briggs ADM, Woodcock J, Scarborough P, McPherson M, et al.: The Brighton declaration: the value of non-communicable disease modelling in population health sciences. Eur J Epidem 2014, 29:867-70.