ArticleThe Hastings Center report2019
Sugar, Taxes, & Choice.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Obesity, Metabolic Syndrome, and Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) in America: A Novel Bioethical Argument for a Radical Public Health Proposal.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Understanding the role of the state in dietary public health policymaking: a critical scoping review.Health promotion international · 2023Article
- The Myth of Zero-Sum Responsibility: Towards Scaffolded Responsibility for Health.Journal of moral philosophy · 2023Article
- Current WHO recommendation to reduce free sugar intake from all sources to below 10% of daily energy intake for supporting overall health is not well supported by available evidence.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Review
- The ethics of excise taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.Physiology & behavior · 2020Article
- The Ethics of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Improve Public Health.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Sugar, Taxes, & Choice.The Hastings Center report · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Population obesity and associated morbidities pose significant public health and economic burdens in the United Kingdom, United States, and globally. As a response, public health initiatives often seek to change individuals' unhealthy behavior, with the dual aims of improving their health and conserving health care resources. One such initiative-taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages-has sparked considerable ethical debate. Prominent in the debate are arguments seeking to demonstrate the supposed impermissibility of SSB taxes and similar policies on the grounds that they interfere with individuals' freedom and autonomy. Commentators have often assumed that a policy intended to restrict or change private individuals' consumption behavior will necessarily curtail freedom and, as a corollary, will undermine individuals' autonomy with respect to their consumption choices. Yet this assumption involves a conceptual mistake. To address the misunderstanding, it's necessary to attend to the differences between negative liberty, freedom of options, and autonomy. Ultimately, concerns about negative liberty, freedom, and autonomy do not provide strong grounds for opposing SSB taxes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.