Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28676578›Full record

ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2017

Impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement on high-fructose corn syrup supply in Canada: a natural experiment using synthetic control methods.

Pepita Barlow, Martin McKee, Sanjay Basu, David Stuckler

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Food environment research in Canada: a rapid review of methodologies and measures deployed between 2010 and 2021.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Pepita BarlowDepartment of Sociology (Barlow), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Public Health and Policy (McKee), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Stanford Prevention Research Center (Basu), Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif; Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management (Stuckler), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy. pepita.barlow@sociology.ox.ac.uk.
Martin McKeeDepartment of Sociology (Barlow), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Public Health and Policy (McKee), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Stanford Prevention Research Center (Basu), Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif; Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management (Stuckler), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.
Sanjay BasuDepartment of Sociology (Barlow), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Public Health and Policy (McKee), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Stanford Prevention Research Center (Basu), Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif; Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management (Stuckler), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.
David StucklerDepartment of Sociology (Barlow), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Public Health and Policy (McKee), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Stanford Prevention Research Center (Basu), Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif; Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management (Stuckler), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.

Funding

Cohort filtering models to identify social program effects on health disparitiesDP2MD010478 · NIMHD · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BASU, SANJAY · 2015 to 2015
$2.4M
NIMHD NIH HHS DP2 MD010478Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCritics of free trade agreements have argued that they threaten public health, as they eliminate barriers to trade in potentially harmful products, such as sugar. Here we analyze the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), testing the hypothesis that lowering tariffs on food and beverage syrups that contain high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) increased its use in foods consumed in Canada.

methodsWe used supply data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to assess changes in supply of caloric sweeteners including HFCS after NAFTA. We estimate the impact of NAFTA on supply of HFCS in Canada using an innovative, quasi-experimental methodology - synthetic control methods - that creates a control group with which to compare Canada's outcomes. Additional robustness tests were performed for sample, control groups and model specification.

resultsTariff reductions in NAFTA coincided with a 41.6 (95% confidence interval 25.1 to 58.2) kilocalorie per capita daily increase in the supply of caloric sweeteners including HFCS. This change was not observed in the control groups, including Australia and the United Kingdom, as well as a composite control of 16 countries. Results were robust to placebo tests and additional sensitivity analyses.

interpretationNAFTA was strongly associated with a marked rise in HFCS supply and likely consumption in Canada. Our study provides evidence that even a seemingly modest change to product tariffs in free trade agreements can substantially alter population-wide dietary behaviour and exposure to risk factors.

Indexed as

Energy IntakeBeveragesCanadaCommerceFood AnalysisHigh Fructose Corn SyrupHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalObesityPublic HealthUnited NationsUnited StatesHigh Fructose Corn Syrup

Identifiers

PMID28676578
PMCPMC5495638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.