Citation Schönbach, Johanna-Katharina, et al. "What Are the Potential Preventive Population-health Effects of a Tax On Processed Meat? a Quantitative Health Impact Assessment for Germany." Preventive Medicine, vol. 118, 2019, pp. 325-331. Schönbach JK, Thiele S, Lhachimi SK. What are the potential preventive population-health effects of a tax on processed meat? A quantitative health impact assessment for Germany. Prev Med. 2019;118:325-331. Schönbach, J. K., Thiele, S., & Lhachimi, S. K. (2019). What are the potential preventive population-health effects of a tax on processed meat? A quantitative health impact assessment for Germany. Preventive Medicine, 118, 325-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.11.011 Schönbach JK, Thiele S, Lhachimi SK. What Are the Potential Preventive Population-health Effects of a Tax On Processed Meat? a Quantitative Health Impact Assessment for Germany. Prev Med. 2019;118:325-331. PubMed PMID: 30468795.

* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case Copy Download MLA AMA APA VANCOUVER

TY - JOUR T1 - What are the potential preventive population-health effects of a tax on processed meat? A quantitative health impact assessment for Germany. AU - Schönbach,Johanna-Katharina, AU - Thiele,Silke, AU - Lhachimi,Stefan K, Y1 - 2018/11/20/ PY - 2017/12/14/received PY - 2018/11/07/revised PY - 2018/11/17/accepted PY - 2018/11/24/pubmed PY - 2018/11/24/medline PY - 2018/11/24/entrez KW - Fiscal policy KW - Health impact assessment KW - Health policy KW - Meat KW - Nutrition policy KW - Public health SP - 325 EP - 331 JF - Preventive medicine JO - Prev Med VL - 118 N2 - The International Agency for Research on Cancer considers processed meat to be carcinogenic. Further, processed meat is associated with diabetes, ischemic heart disease (IHD) and all-cause mortality. We aimed to assess health gains of four processed meat taxation scenarios in comparison to the reference and a minimum-risk-exposure-scenario. To estimate the shift in processed meat intake following respective taxes, we calculated price elasticities for processed meat. DYNAMO-HIA was used to dynamically project policy-attributable differences in the prevalence of diseases and deaths. In projection year 10, an extra 9300 males and 4500 females would be alive under the lowest tax scenario (4% tax), compared to the reference scenario. Prevalent IHD, diabetes and colorectal cancer cases in males would be 8400, 9500 and 500 lower, respectively, and there would be 4600, 7800 and 300 less cases in females. Of the respective death and disease reduction that would be achieved under the minimum-risk-exposure-scenario, the lowest tax reaches 2.84% (colorectal cancer in males) to 6.02% (diabetes in females). Under the highest tax scenario (33.3% tax), an extra 76,700 males and 37,100 females would be alive, compared to the reference scenario. Prevalent IHD, diabetes and colorectal cancer cases would be 70,800, 77,900 and 4900 lower in males and 29,900, 48,900 and 2300 lower in females, which represents 27.84% (colorectal cancer in males) to 37.76% (diabetes in females) of the maximal preventable death and disease burden. Further research needs to examine to what extent these health benefits are outweighed by a simultaneous tax-induced decrease in fish intake. SN - 1096-0260 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30468795/full_citation L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0091-7435(18)30356-6 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -