Don’t consider the myths – taxing sugary drinks makes us drink less of it

This 12 months’s Australian of the Year, Dr James Muecke, is a watch specialist with a transparent vision. He desires to change the way in which the world looks at sugar and the debilitating consequences of diabetes, which include blindness.

Muecke is pushing for Scott Morrison’s government to enact a tax on sugary drinks to assist make that a reality.

Such a tax would increase the value of sentimental drinks, juices and other sugary drinks by around 20%. The money raised could possibly be used to fund health promotion programs across the country.

The evidence backing his calls is powerful.

---

---

Taxes on sugary drinks work

Several governments world wide have adopted taxes on sugary drinks lately. The evidence is evident: they work.

Last 12 months, a summary of 17 studies found health taxes on sugary drinks implemented in Berkeley and other places within the United States, Mexico, Chile, France and Spain reduced each purchases and consumption of sugary drinks.

Reliable evidence from world wide tells us a ten% tax reduces sugary drink intakes by around 10%.

The United Kingdom soft drink tax has also been making headlines recently. Since its introduction, the quantity of sugar in drinks has decreased by almost 30%and 6 out of ten leading drink firms have dropped the sugar content of greater than 50% of their drinks.

---

---

In Australia, modelling studies have shown a 20% health tax on sugary drinks is more likely to save almost A$2 billion in healthcare costs over the lifetime of the population by stopping diet-related diseases like diabetes, heart disease and a number of other cancers.

This is over and above the cost advantages of stopping dental health issues linked to consumption of sugary drinks.

Most of the health advantages (nearly 50%) would occur amongst those living in the bottom socioeconomic circumstances.

A 20% health tax on sugary drinks would also raise over A$600 million to take a position back into the health of Australians.

So what’s the issue?

The soft drink industry uses every trick within the book to attempt to persuade politicians a tax on sugary drinks is bad policy.

Here are our responses to some common arguments against these taxes:

Myth 1: Sugary drink taxes unfairly drawback the poor

It’s true people on lower incomes would feel the pinch from higher prices on sugary drinks. A 20% tax on sugary drinks in Australia would cost people from low socioeconomic households about A$35 extra per 12 months. But that is just A$4 higher than the price to the wealthiest households.

Importantly, poorer households are likely to get the most important health advantages and long-term health care savings.

What’s more, the cash raised from the tax could possibly be targeted towards reducing health inequalities.

---

---

Myth 2: Sugary drink taxes would end in job losses

Multiple studies have shown no job losses resulted from taxes on sugar drinks in Mexico and the United States.

This is in contrast to some industry-sponsored studies that attempt to make the case otherwise.

In Australia, job losses from such a tax are more likely to be minimal. The total demand for drinks by Australian manufacturers is unlikely to vary substantially because consumers would likely switch from sugary drinks to other product lines, akin to bottled water and artificially sweetened drinks.

Despite industry protestationsan Australian tax would have minimal impact on sugar farmers. This is because 80% of our locally grown sugar is exported. Only a small amount of Australian sugar goes to sugary drinks, and the expected 1% drop in demand could be traded elsewhere.

Myth 3: People don’t support health taxes on sugary drinks

There is widespread support for a tax on sugary drinks from major health and consumer groups in Australia.

In addition, a national survey conducted in 2017 showed 77% of Australians supported a tax on sugary drinks, if the proceeds were used to fund obesity prevention.

Myth 4: People will just swap to other unhealthy products, so a tax is useless

Taxes, or levies, may be designed to avoid substitution to unhealthy products by covering a broad range of sugary drink options, including soft drinks, energy drinks and sports drinks.

There can also be evidence that shows people switch to water in response to sugary drinks taxes.

---

---

Myth 5: There’s no evidence sugary drink taxes reduce obesity or diabetes

Because of the multiple drivers of obesity, it’s difficult to isolate the impact of a single measure. Indeed, we’d like a comprehensive policy approach to deal with the issue. That’s why Dr Muecke is looking for a tax on sugary drinks alongside improved food labelling and marketing regulations.

Towards higher food policies

The Morrison government has previously and repeatedly rejected pushes for a tax on sugary drinks.

But Australian governments are currently developing a National Obesity Strategymaking it the best time to revisit this issue.

We have to stop letting myths get in the way in which of evidence-backed health policies. Let’s take heed to Dr Muecke – he who knows all too well the devastating effects of products packed filled with sugar.