Sugar sweetened beverages (SSB) are a major source of sugar in the diet. Although trends in consumption vary across regions, in many countries, particularly LMICs, their consumption continues to increase. In response, a growing number of governments have introduced a tax on SSBs. SSB manufacturers have opposed such taxes, disputing the role that SSBs play in diet-related diseases and the effectiveness of SSB taxation, and alleging major economic impacts. Given the importance of evidence to effective regulation of products harmful to human health, we scrutinised industry submissions to the South African government’s consultation on a proposed SSB tax and examined their use of evidence. Corporate submissions were underpinned by several strategies involving the misrepresentation of evidence. First, references were used in a misleading way, providing false support for key claims. Second, raw data, which represented a pliable, alternative evidence base to peer reviewed studies, was misused to dispute both the premise of targeting sugar for special attention and the impact of SSB taxes on SSB consumption. Third, purposively selected evidence was used in conjunction with other techniques, such as selective quoting from studies and omitting important qualifying information, to promote an alternative evidential narrative to that supported by the weight of peer-reviewed research. Fourth, a range of mutually enforcing techniques that inflated the effects of SSB taxation on jobs, public revenue generation, and gross domestic product, was used to exaggerate the economic impact of the tax. This “hyperbolic accounting” included rounding up figures in original sources, double counting, and skipping steps in economic modelling. Our research raises fundamental questions concerning the bona fides of industry information in the context of government efforts to combat diet-related diseases. The beverage industry’s claims against SSB taxation rest on a complex interplay of techniques, that appear to be grounded in evidence, but which do not observe widely accepted approaches to the use of either scientific or economic evidence. These techniques are similar, but not identical, to those used by tobacco companies and highlight the problems of introducing evidence-based policies aimed at managing the market environment for unhealthful commodities.

中文翻译：

---

公司使用和滥用证据影响健康政策：以含糖饮料税为例的案例研究

含糖饮料（SSB）是饮食中糖的主要来源。尽管不同地区的消费趋势有所不同，但在许多国家，特别是中低收入国家，其消费继续增长。作为回应，越来越多的政府开始对SSB征税。SSB制造商反对此类税收，对SSB在饮食相关疾病中的作用以及SSB税收的有效性提出异议，并指称会对经济产生重大影响。鉴于证据对于有效监管有害于人类健康的产品的重要性，我们仔细研究了南非政府就拟议的SSB税征询意见的行业意见，并审查了其证据的使用。公司提交的意见以涉及错误陈述证据的几种策略为基础。首先，参考文献的使用具有误导性，为关键主张提供虚假支持。其次，原始数据代表了同行评审研究的一种柔韧的替代证据基础，被滥用来质疑以糖为特别关注目标的前提以及SSB税对SSB消费的影响。第三，有目的地选择的证据与其他技术结合使用，例如选择性引用研究内容和省略重要的限定信息，以提倡替代经同行评审研究支持的证据叙述。第四，使用了一系列相互强制的技术来夸大SSB税收对工作，公共收入产生和国内生产总值的影响，从而夸大了税收的经济影响。这种“双曲线会计”包括将原始数据四舍五入，重复计算，并跳过经济建模的步骤。在政府与饮食相关疾病的斗争中，我们的研究提出了有关行业信息善意的基本问题。饮料行业反对SSB税的主张基于复杂的技术相互作用，这些技术相互作用似乎以证据为基础，但并未遵循广泛接受的使用科学或经济证据的方法。这些技术与烟草公司使用的技术相似，但不完全相同，它们突显了引入旨在管理不健康商品市场环境的循证政策的问题。饮料行业反对SSB税的主张基于复杂的技术相互作用，这些技术相互作用似乎以证据为基础，但并未遵循广泛接受的使用科学或经济证据的方法。这些技术与烟草公司使用的技术相似但不完全相同，它们突显了引入旨在管理不健康商品的市场环境的循证政策的问题。饮料行业反对SSB税的主张基于复杂的技术相互作用，这些技术相互作用似乎以证据为基础，但并未遵循广泛接受的使用科学或经济证据的方法。这些技术与烟草公司使用的技术相似，但不完全相同，它们突显了引入旨在管理不健康商品市场环境的循证政策的问题。