Designing fiscal policies for health and climate: Trade-offs, co-benefits and distributional effects in Great Britain.
健康と気候のための財政政策の設計：英国におけるトレードオフ、コベネフィット、分配効果 (AI 翻訳)
Laura Cornelsen, C. Law, D. Derbyshire, A. Medina-Lara, Michael Clark, B. Amies‐Cull, Hannah Forde, A. Kaur, Peter Scarborough, Richard D. Smith
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
英国の食品税・補助金政策をシミュレーションし、栄養・環境アウトカムへの影響を評価。高炭素食品への課税は環境改善に最も効果的だが、福祉損失も大きい。税と補助金の組み合わせが公平性と効果のバランスに有効。
English
Simulating food taxes and subsidies in Great Britain, this study evaluates co-benefits and trade-offs for nutrition and environment. A higher-carbon food tax yields the largest environmental gains but also welfare losses. Combining taxes with subsidies offers moderate improvements with minor welfare effects, suggesting a balanced approach for equitable policy.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では食品関連の炭素税や健康増進税の議論はまだ初期段階だが、国民の健康と気候変動対策を統合する政策設計の参考になる。特に、税と補助金の組み合わせによる公平性の確保は、日本の社会保障制度とも関連する。
In the global GX context
This study contributes to global discourse on fiscal policies for health and climate co-benefits, relevant to countries designing carbon taxes or health-related food taxes. Its distributional analysis offers insights for equitable policy design, aligning with international climate and health agendas.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a modeling framework for assessing co-benefits and trade-offs of food taxes, useful for policy analysis.
🏢実務担当者:Offers evidence for designing sustainable food policies that consider both health and environmental impacts.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the need to combine taxes with subsidies to avoid regressive effects and achieve equitable outcomes.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Current food systems contribute to poor diets, that are the leading global risk factor for ill health and premature mortality, while also accelerating climate change. We simulated demand responses to food taxes and subsidies in Great Britain assessing co-benefits and trade-offs across nutrition and environmental outcomes. Six co-created policy scenarios included taxes on less-healthy and higher-carbon foods, and subsidies for healthier, lower-carbon foods. Taxes increased prices on average by 20%. A tax on high-fat, sugar and salt foods produced the greatest reduction in sugar (-6.4% day/person), declines in saturated fat (-5.8%) and sodium (-3.6%) purchases, with modest environmental co-benefit (<4% reduction across environmental outcomes, including GHG emissions, land use, eutrophication, water use/scarcity) and higher welfare losses for households in more deprived areas. Higher-carbon food tax was most effective environmentally (-8.4 to -14.6% reduction in environmental outcomes) while also reducing sugar (-5.8%), sodium (-5.4%) and saturated fat (-10.4%) purchases. It led to largest welfare losses, albeit affecting households in less deprived areas relatively more. As a trade-off, tax-only scenarios reduced fibre (3-4%) purchases. Subsidy-only policies increased purchases, including fibre and fruit and vegetables, but had worse environmental outcomes than at baseline. Combined tax-and-subsidy approaches achieved moderate improvements in nutrition and environmental outcomes with minor welfare effects. Overall, health- and environment-focused food taxes can offer significant co-benefits in Great Britain, but trade-offs must be addressed in real policy contexts. Combining taxes with price decreasing measures is likely necessary for equitable, non-regressive systems that optimise outcomes for both health and the environment.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119654first seen 2026-08-16 05:31:33
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。