Monday, April 25, 2016
Monday, April 18, 2016
Taxing times ahead as sugar falls from favour
The UK’s latest budget brought down by the chancellor, George
Osborne, last month contained a surprise proposal to tax soft drinks containing
added sugar.
It was a tough budget and this proposal did nothing to promote
Osborne's popularity. So why did he and the government decide to take such
steps?
The move comes a year after the WHO released an update of its
recommendations on sugar intake for adults and children.1
It says both should reduce their intake of free sugars by
roughly half to less than 10% of their daily calories.
The reason soft drinks have become the focus of this is because
they contain heaps of sugar. A 355mL can of cola has about 30g or seven
teaspoons of sugar.
Furthermore, the UK's consumption of sugar is high compared with
other developed nations.
According to an article in British newspaper the Independent,
the average person in the UK receives around 16-17% of their calories from
sugar, compared with 11-15% in the US and 7-8% in Hungary and Norway.
The UK's proposed levy will see soft drinks containing more than
5g of sugar per 100 mL taxed at a rate of 18 pence (GBP) a litre and those
containing over 8g taxed at 24 pence (GBP) a litre.2 The
proposals are due to come into force in 2017/18 and the funds used to support
sport for children.
Earn CPD Points: Nutrition through the ages
Critics point out that many drinks other than soda contain lots
of sugar; fruit juice and flavoured milk to name two. But despite what the
critics say, sugar taxes — although not perfect — do work.
Several systematic reviews of the evidence (both modelled and
real life) have shown that taxing sugary drinks reduces their purchase and
consumption.
Hungary and Norway both tax sugary drinks, as do France, Chile
and Mexico, which is the country best known for implementing the public health
move.
Mexico implemented its soda tax in 2014, and after just 12
months saw a 12% reduction in purchases of these drinks, with the largest
declines among low socio-economic households.
This coincided with a 4% increase in the purchase of untaxed
drinks, mainly bottled water.3
Soda companies argue that these taxes are regressive, hitting
the poor and vulnerable the hardest. But if the less well-off save their money
by buying less fizz, they may switch to fruit juice and flavoured milk — which,
unlike fizz, have nutritional value — or spend a little more on food.
‘Big Soda' is prepared to fight hard to stop such taxes, as the
residents of Berkeley, California, discovered two years ago when it first
announced plans to introduce such a tax.
The beverage industry spent US$2.4 million trying to stop the
city from passing legislation on the issue. However, despite its efforts, the
tax did come into force in November 2014.
This should act as a warning to the UK Government should prepare
for a long battle, rather like the one waged in Australia over plain packaging
of tobacco.
And what about Australia? Should we follow suit on taxing soft
drinks?
Well, the writing should already be on the wall if you look at
our collective consumption of sugar.
Australia ranks 11th in the international league chart of per
capita sugary drink consumption, according to Euromonitor International.
Two-thirds of the Australian population are overweight or obese,
and in the 2011/12 Australian Health Survey, more than half of Australians
exceeded the WHO recommendations for added sugar, with sugary drinks the main
culprit (21.4%).4
The Australian Obesity Policy Coalition, which has a focus on
law reform to prevent obesity, says 85% of Australians would support a tax on
sugary drinks if the revenue were used to support childhood obesity programs.
Given the international evidence of effectiveness, the Coalition
has called on the government to add a levy of 20% to fizz.
It will be interesting to see whether, in light of the UK's
move, Australia will follow suit.
Professor Leeder is professor of public health and community
medicine at the Menzies Centre for Health Policy and School of Public Health,
University of Sydney.
Ms
Downs is an Earth Institute post-doctoral fellow in nutrition policy and an
affiliate of the Menzies Centre for Health Policy.
Published in Australian Doctor 13 April 2016 http://bit.ly/1YEfw0O
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)