<International Circulation>:  What happens a lot in China though is that you have a lot of people who are of course eating more KFC and McDonalds but they are also eating more outside of the home but not at big chain stores. Can you think of any way that you can affect salt consumption in that environment?

　　《国际循环》：中国目前的情况是很多人吃肯德基和麦当劳，中国人在外面吃饭越来越多了，但不是在大型的连锁餐馆吃饭。在这些就餐环境下，就减少盐的摄入您有哪些建议？

　　Dr. Gaziano：I think so. There are interesting collaboration methods. The UK experience was to really go after manufacturers of packet foods and things like that but a smaller independent vendor may not be as easy a target. In that case， taxation would be the strategy to deal with that and this is why we looked at both of these particular strategies looking at the cost of salt to purchase whether it is by the industry or the individual.

　　Gaziano博士：我们确实需要有所行动。有一些大家互相协作的有意思的方法。英国的经验是寻求加工食品的生产商，诸如此类的事情。不过，寻求规模更小的、独立的生产商可能不那么容易了，此时可以通过税收来解决问题。这就是我们研究上述两个策略的原因。这两个策略涉及到盐的价格和购买，无论是生产商还是消费者都有所涉及。

　　<International Circulation>: How high a tax increase are we talking about?

　　《国际循环》：要加收多少税呢?

　　Dr. Gaziano： A 40% increase in price would lead to a 6% reduction. That is similar to what was seen with the tobacco industry when prices increased by 40%. An analysis on this done by a group in the United States showed that it is neutral; it is not revenue supportive because what happens in this case is if you increased it by 40% you may subsidize low income people for food purchasing so it is cost neutral to them. In that case there is no significant revenue gain for the government but there is revenue sharing through taxation of products to allow low income people to purchase their food. There is no net loss in their ability to buy food which is healthier without salt in it.

　　Gaziano博士：盐的价格增加40%，会导致盐的消费量减少6%。这一关系与我们在烟草行业中价格上调40%时所看到的相似。不过，美国的一个研究小组的一项分析显示，价格上调对他们来讲是没什么影响的，并没有增加国家的税收。因为在美国，如果将价格上调40%的话，就需要给低收入家庭发放津贴以购买食物，所以对美国来讲，上调价格是没有什么影响的。此时，政府的税收并没有明显的增加，而是税收分配的方式发生了变化，税收被用于补贴低收入家庭来购买食物了。民众对食物的购买力并没有净损失，此时的食物含盐量更少，更健康。

　　<International Circulation>: My impression is that a 40% tax on salt is petrifying.

　　《国际循环》：我觉得对盐加40%的税听起来有些吓人？
　　Dr. Gaziano：We have looked at the different strategies and that one is less “experienced” than the UK collaborative experience which I think is what most countries will look towards is working with industry. The other part of that is， in terms of industry， if somebody in the large multinational companies such as those that produce potato chips or sodas reduces it in the UK， US or elsewhere， it may be likely that that is going to be the same process that they will employ in their factories. In the same way as trans fat was banned in New York City and McDonalds started cooking their French fries in non-trans fat oil， then they can start to say， why don’t we do this in Wisconsin， or why don’t we do this in our operations in Russia or China or elsewhere? I think there will be spillover effects on the large scale that will have an impact on the industry outside of the UK and we have started to see that in the United States and other countries. Taxation is one that many countries， but not China， would introduce. South Africa seems ready to do so in the same way as they have been very aggressive about their tobacco taxation policy post-apartheid. I think we will see some countries becoming more aggressive which reflects the government’s and public’s will to act on these particular issues.

　　Gaziano博士：我们也研究了其他的策略，但是不如英国的这一联合的做法积累的“经验”那么多，我想英国的这一做法是大多数国家期望能够与生产商一起要做的事情。另外，从生产商来说，如果某家大型跨国公司，比如生产薯片或汽水的公司，在英国、美国或其他国家减少食品中盐的添加量的话，那么有可能这些公司在他们的工厂里也会减少盐的添加量。这就像是在纽约禁止添加反式脂肪酸之后，麦当劳加工薯条的时候开始使用不含反式脂肪酸的油，然后他们就想，为什么不在威斯康星州也这么做呢？在俄罗斯、中国或其他国家的分店，是不是也要这么做？我想会有一个大规模的连带效应，会对英国之外的工业有所影响，我们在美国和其他国家已经看到了这样的影响。税收是很多国家会引入的措施，但是中国不会这么做。南非看起来已经准备好增加盐的税收了，因为他们在后种族隔离时代一直在非常积极地推进提高烟草的税收。我想，我们会看到一些国家变得越来越积极，这反映了政府和公众对心血管疾病这一特殊问题上行动的意愿。