再吃糖，我可要收稅了哦！

Sugar taxes are on a high. Around 40 countries and seven American cities have started to tax sugary drinks, mostly in the past few years, in order to cut the sugar consumption of people.

收糖稅可謂是達(dá)到“白熱化”階段了。為了降低人們的糖類(lèi)消費(fèi)，大約有40個(gè)國(guó)家、七個(gè)美國(guó)城市開(kāi)始對(duì)含糖飲料征稅，大部分發(fā)生在過(guò)去的幾年里。

Could a sugar tax work? A University of Waterloo study of the purchasing behaviour of more than 3500 people found that taxes on sugary products and labels on the front of packages can help reduce sugar consumption.

征收糖稅能奏效嗎?滑鐵盧大學(xué)通過(guò)研究超過(guò)3500人的購(gòu)買(mǎi)行為發(fā)現(xiàn)，對(duì)含糖產(chǎn)品征稅以及在包裝正面貼標(biāo)簽有助于降低糖類(lèi)消費(fèi)。

The study found that when prices increased due to taxes, or packages displayed nutrition labels such as the 'high in sugar' label on the front of packs, people bought drinks and snacks with less sugar, sodium, saturated fat and calories. Policy interventions could help consumers sour on sugary sodas and fruit juices.

研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)價(jià)格因稅而提升，或者在商品包裝正面貼上諸如“含糖量高”的營(yíng)養(yǎng)成分標(biāo)簽時(shí)，人們往往會(huì)買(mǎi)含糖量、鈉含量、飽和脂肪和熱量更低的飲料和食物。政策的介入可能會(huì)使消費(fèi)者對(duì)含糖飲料和果汁反感。

David Hammond, a professor in the School of Public Health and Health Systems, said, "Taxes on sugary drinks and better nutrition labels are the types of measures that can help reverse increasing rates of obesity and chronic disease from unhealthy diets. Evidence is particularly important given strong opposition from the industry. Indeed, industry lobbying has delayed and threatens to derailthe nutrition labels announced by the federal government more than a year ago."

(該校)公共衛(wèi)生與衛(wèi)生系統(tǒng)學(xué)院的教授David Hammond說(shuō)，“對(duì)含糖飲料征稅和改進(jìn)營(yíng)養(yǎng)標(biāo)簽這類(lèi)措施，能幫助扭轉(zhuǎn)不健康飲食導(dǎo)致的肥胖率和慢性病發(fā)病率上升的趨勢(shì)。在業(yè)界強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)的情況下，證據(jù)尤其重要。事實(shí)上，業(yè)界游說(shuō)團(tuán)體已經(jīng)拖延并威脅要阻撓(加拿大)聯(lián)邦政府一年多前公布的營(yíng)養(yǎng)標(biāo)簽新規(guī)。

The tax can prompt manufacturers to reformulate sugar levels downward.

糖稅可以促使生產(chǎn)商重新調(diào)整成分，降低含糖水平。

The American Beverage Association, a trade group that says it represents the non-alcoholic beverage industry, argued in an emailed statement that “taxes on common grocery items like beverages have never really improved public health.”

美國(guó)飲料協(xié)會(huì)在一份郵件聲明中表示，“對(duì)飲料等常見(jiàn)食品征稅從未真正改善公共健康。”該行業(yè)組織表示，它代表著非酒精飲料行業(yè)。

“America’s beverage companies believe there is a better way to help people reduce the amount of sugar they get from beverages than unproductive taxes,” ABA spokesman William Dermody said. “We’re creating more drinks with less or no sugar and we’re making smaller bottle and can options more widely available, and boosting consumer demand for these options through our marketing. Today, 50% of all beverages sold contain zero sugar.”

“美國(guó)飲料公司相信，相比無(wú)效的征稅，還會(huì)有更好的辦法降低人們從飲料中攝入的糖分，”美國(guó)飲料協(xié)會(huì)發(fā)言人William Dermody說(shuō)。“我們正在生產(chǎn)更多少糖或無(wú)糖的飲料，我們也正在推廣小容量的瓶裝和罐裝飲料，并通過(guò)營(yíng)銷(xiāo)提升消費(fèi)者對(duì)這些選擇的需求。50%的飲料都是無(wú)糖的。”

Is sugar tax appropriate? Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the UK, sparked a debate on whether taxation is the best way to tackle problems spawning from alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and unhealthy food and drink last month.

征收糖稅是否合適?上個(gè)月，圍繞著征稅是否是解決酗酒、吸煙、賭博和不健康飲食等問(wèn)題的最佳方法，英國(guó)首相鮑里斯·約翰遜引發(fā)了一場(chǎng)辯論。

The sugar tax took effect in 2018 in England. Boris Johnson claimed that a review is needed to analyse whether these ‘sin taxes’ unfairly target poorer households, which tend to spend a larger proportion of their income on such products. Taxing alcohol and tobacco has become the weapon of choice of governments around the world in controlling consumption, but as discussion evolves into new areas – from vaping to sugary drinks – questions are being raised about the effectiveness of sin taxes.

英國(guó)于2018年開(kāi)始征收糖稅。鮑里斯·約翰遜稱(chēng)，有必要對(duì)糖稅進(jìn)行評(píng)估，來(lái)分析這些“罪惡之稅”是否不公平地針對(duì)了較為貧困的家庭，他們往往要把收入的一大部分花在這些產(chǎn)品上。對(duì)世界各國(guó)的政府而言，就酒精和煙草征稅已經(jīng)成為它們控制消費(fèi)的首選武器，但隨著討論發(fā)展到新的領(lǐng)域——從電子煙到含糖飲料，人們對(duì)“罪惡之稅”的有效性提出了質(zhì)疑。

Talking about the rationality of the policy, supporters say such levies compensate for the costs imposed on health services by higher rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. They might also help short-termist buyers avoid the long-term consequences of sugary indulgences. Opponents counter that such levies are a fun-killer, souring people’s pleasure, and regressive, because poorer people spend a bigger share of their incomes on soft drinks. Most people think the responsibility for tackling obesity lies primarily with individuals themselves and families.

就該政策的合理性，支持者稱(chēng)，這些稅收是對(duì)肥胖癥、糖尿病和心臟病高發(fā)病率對(duì)醫(yī)療服務(wù)造成的成本的補(bǔ)償。稅收也可能會(huì)幫助短視的消費(fèi)者避免沉溺糖分帶來(lái)的長(zhǎng)期后果。反對(duì)者認(rèn)為，這些稅收是一個(gè)樂(lè)趣殺手，破壞了人們的快樂(lè)，是一種倒退，因?yàn)楦F人花很大一部分收入在軟飲料上。大多數(shù)人認(rèn)為，解決肥胖癥問(wèn)題的責(zé)任主要在于個(gè)體和家庭。

Recently, based on the effect of the policy, health campaigners are urging the government to introduce a new “calorie tax” to tackle childhood obesity, diabetes and cancer. The existing sugar tax has been widely praised by doctors and health experts but campaigners want to go further by targeting sweet, fatty foods such as chocolate confectionery, ice creams, puddings, chocolate spreads and milk-based drinks.

最近，基于(糖稅)政策的效應(yīng)，健康活動(dòng)人士敦促政府出臺(tái)一項(xiàng)新“卡路里稅”，以解決兒童肥胖癥、糖尿病和癌癥問(wèn)題?，F(xiàn)有的糖稅廣受醫(yī)生和健康專(zhuān)家好評(píng)，但活動(dòng)人士想要更進(jìn)一步，將目標(biāo)鎖定在巧克力糖、冰淇淋、布丁、巧克力醬和牛奶飲料等甜食和高脂肪食品上。

A levy on companies producing processed food with high levels of fat and sugar would encourage them to create more nutritional snacks, according to campaign groups Action on Sugar and Action on Salt.

活動(dòng)團(tuán)體“糖與鹽行動(dòng)”表示，對(duì)生產(chǎn)高脂肪和高糖分食品的公司而言，征稅能鼓勵(lì)他們生產(chǎn)更多營(yíng)養(yǎng)食品。