Posted on November 03, 2015 by Jenny Cromack
This blog looks at whether the sugar tax is a good idea.
A series of studies published between 2009 and 2013 lead to the notion that obesity rates could be reduced through the taxation of sugar. Here is quick summary of the research:
- In 2009 the Journal of Contemporary Economic Policy published an article suggested that:
- 1% point change in sugary soft drink tax would influence BMI by almost nothing
- 10% tax lead to a 7% reduction in calories from soft drinks
- 18% tax lead to a daily cut in calories of 56, equal to 5 pounds of weight loss per year
- In 2010 an article in the Journal of Health Affairs confirmed that small tax increases would have little effect and also suggested an 18% tax increase on sugary beverages
- While increasing taxing does appear to reduce sugary beverage intake, Duke University published research suggesting that the lateral effect of this policy would simply be an increase intake of their calories from other beverages that are equally calorific but not taxed. Such as fruit juice, chocolate milk.
- The research in 2010 by Duke University was quickly met by an article in the American Public Health Association, which argued that even if they switched to fruit juice or milk chocolate it would be an improvement as their is more nutritional value in these products opposed to sugary beverages.
- More recently research in the Journal of Health Affairs suggested that 1p per ounce tax on sugary beverages could prevent 2.4million cases of diabetes, over 8000 strokes and 26,000 premature deaths over a decade.
- Some of the last research in 2013 suggested that all that would come of a sugar tax would be increased sodium and fat intake (American Journal of Agricultural Economics). Despite this researchers in the UK believe that a 20% tax on sugary soft drinks would reduce obesity rates by 1.3%.
I must say I’m not convinced of the method, it seems like a quick fix solution that on paper sounds great. The reality is if a young individual or individual of any age for that matter is hungry/ thirsty or craving something, they will seek to satisfy that need, if they can’t afford pop/soda because of a tax increase, they will most likely consume something equally bad that’s cheaper and likely to be as equally as bad for their health.
The solution, I believe, lies in better education and physical activity programs, as this tax seems to be aimed towards younger individuals, money may be better spent on research that looks at strategies to promote physical activity and healthy eating in schools and the family home.