“Sugar, alcohol and tobacco,” economist Adam Smith once wrote, “are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, which have become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are, therefore, extremely popular subjects of taxation.”

    Two and a half centuries on, most countries impose some sort of tax on alcohol and tobacco. With surging obesity levels putting increasing strain on public health systems, governments around the world have begun to toy with the idea of taxing sugar as well.

    Whether such taxes work is a matter of debate. A preliminary review of Mexico’s taxation found a fall in purchases of taxed drinks as well as a rise in sales of untaxed and healthier drinks. By contrast, a Danish tax on foods high in fats was abandoned a year after its introduction, amid claims that consumers were avoiding it by crossing the border to Germany to satisfy their desire for cheaper, fattier fare.

    The food industry has, in general, been firmly opposed to such direct government action. Nonetheless, the renewed focus on waistlines means that industry groups are under pressure to demonstrate their products are healthy as well as tasty.

    Over the past three decades, the industry has made some efforts to improve the quality of its offerings. For example, some drink manufactures have cut the amount of sugar in their beverages.

    Many of the reductions over the past 30 years have been achieved either by reducing the amount of sugar, salt or fat in a product, or by finding an alternative ingredient. More recently, however, some companies have been investing money in a more ambitious undertaking: learning how to adjust the fundamental make-up of the food they sell. For example, having salt on the outside, but none on the inside, reduces the salt content without changing the taste.

    While reformulating recipes ( 配 方 ) is one way to improve public health, it  should be part of a multi-sided approach. The key is to remember that there is not just one solution. To deal with obesity, a mixture of approaches—including reformulation, taxation and adjusting portion sizes—will be needed. There is no silver bullet.

46. C）They were subject to taxation almost everywhere.

解析：细节推断题。根据题干中的Adam Smith定位至文章第一段。文中指出，糖、酒精和烟草是世界性的消费品，也是最广泛的征税对象。由此可知，本题答案出现在并列的定语从句中。A项“生产它们可以带来利润”以及B项“人们对它们的需求一直在上升”，这两个选项在原文中无对应信息。原文只是说不论在哪儿这些都不是生活的必需品，并且已经变成了全球消费品。C选项是对原文的同义改写。were subject to taxation 对应原文subjects of taxation , almost everywhere对应原文extremely popular。D项“它们不再是生活必需品”与原文背道而驰。