MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The health and economic benefits of sugar taxation and vegetables and fruit subsidy scenarios in Canada

2023· article· en· W4379739915 on OpenAlexaffabout
Siyuan Liu, Arto Öhinmaa, Katerina Maximova, Paul J. Veugelers

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoInstitute of Population and Public HealthSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyEnvironmental healthPopulationTax revenueBusinessEconomic costPublic healthHealth carePublic economicsMedicineEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) has been implemented in various jurisdictions. Though research confirmed this tax to reduce sugar consumption and to prevent chronic diseases, it also revealed concerns: one concern relates to the small proportion of sugar in the diet coming from SSBs; and another concern relates to the disproportional tax burden to low-income groups. To inform public health decision makers on alternatives, we examined three 'real world' taxation and subsidy scenarios in Canada: 1) a CAD$0.75/100 g tax on SSBs; 2) a CAD$0.75/100 g tax on free sugar in all foods; and 3) a 20% subsidy on vegetables and fruit (V&F). Using national survey data and a proportional multi-state life table-based Markov model, we simulated the changes in disability-adjusted life years, healthcare costs, tax revenue, intervention costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for five income quintiles after implementing the three scenarios, over a lifetime of the 2015 Canadian adult population. The first, second and third scenario would prevent 28,921, 262,348 and 551 cases of type 2 diabetes, respectively. They would avert 752,353, 12,167,113, and 29,447 disability-adjusted life years and save CAD$12,942 million, 149,927 million, and 442 million in health care costs, respectively, over a lifetime. Combining the second and third scenarios would lead to the largest health and economic benefits. Although the lowest income quintile would bear a higher sugar tax burden (0.81% of income, CAD$120/person/year), this would be compensated by a coinciding subsidy on V&F (1.30% of income, CAD$194/person/year). These findings support policies that include a tax on all free sugar in foods and a subsidy on V&F as an effective means to reduce chronic diseases and health care costs. Although the sugar tax was financially regressive, the V&F subsidy could compensate for the tax burden of the disadvantaged groups and improve health and economic equity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & Medicine→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→