Skip to main content

Table 2 Out-of-Place Citations

From: Corporations’ use and misuse of evidence to influence health policy: a case study of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation

A1) Text from submission of American Chamber of Commerce in South Africa [71]
Consumers could substitute their soft drink choices with cheaper products and this behavioural change may undermine the impact of a sugar tax in terms of both health and revenue objectives. This was proven in Hungary and Denmark [3] when consumers made the following choices once a sugar tax was introduced which made their soft drink of choice too expensive:
 • They purchased and consumed lower-cost versions of the same product;
 • They purchased untaxed products with similar nutritional characteristics thereby preventing the goal of obesity reduction being reached; and
 • They purchased the same item from somewhere cheaper often resorting to trans-border purchasing which resulted in a lack of related revenue to that country’s fiscus.
A2) Text from PricewaterhouseCoopers’ 2014 Worldwide Tax Summaries cited as footnote 3 immediately above [88]
The first domestic distributor of certain products, as well as the acquirer of goods that are brought from abroad and used for the domestic manufacture of own products that will be sold in Hungary, are liable to pay a product tax. The duty rates from 1 January 2014 are as follows: [text goes on to list commodities that attract the tax]
B) Text from submission of Coca-Cola [70]
“Moreover, consumers typically substitute SSBs with other Calorie dense products, such as alcohol [20].”