After much waiting, the UK鈥檚 new soft drinks levy is taking shape, with . The hope is that it will make us healthier.
Will it? Things do look encouraging, if we go by a first scientific attempt to analyse the tiered levy by researchers in the UK and New Zealand. They estimated possible changes in incidence of obesity, diabetes and tooth decay from the planned introduction in April 2018 of the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages such as cola and squash.
Advertisement
As the study points out, the impact depends on many variables, including how manufacturers behave and consumers respond. It proposes three plausible responses: first, that manufacturers reformulate to lower sugar content, as the government hopes; second, that they pass on the tax to consumers in price rises; and third, that manufacturers use marketing to try to shift consumption to existing no- and low-sugar drinks, leaving higher-sugar drinks unchanged.
There are other uncertainties of course: if manufacturers pass on some or all of the cost to consumers, will they increase prices evenly across their range, or selectively on their higher-sugar drinks? We have seen cigarette manufacturers shift tax from their low-end products towards premium ones, thus subsidising entry-level cigarettes but subverting the intention of the tax.
Better health
The good news is that under each of the three responses cited in the study, the levy is broadly predicted to have significant benefits for public health 鈥� particularly among children, the highest consumers of these drinks.
The biggest gains are predicted if the industry goes for a reformulation response (cutting the sugar content of high-sugar products by 30 per cent and medium-sugar products by 15 per cent). This could mean 144,400 fewer cases of obesity, 269,400 teeth saved from decay or loss and 19,100 fewer cases of type 2 diabetes.
Of course, taxes to improve public health are not new, and are commonly used to cut alcohol consumption and smoking. Although we may moan when the government puts up the price of our favourite tipple, we generally accept a tax on these things.
Food taxes are much more contentious: for example, the fat tax on products like butter and bacon in Denmark was withdrawn after strong public opposition. Sugary drinks may occupy the middle ground of acceptability, between cigarettes and butter. We get more than enough carbs from food (no need for added sugars), while non-sugar alternatives are almost always available. Public support for sugary drink taxes has grown through campaigns from public health organisations and celebrities such as .
Cutting down
Reducing our consumption of sugar is important. The average British adult gets 12 per cent of energy from sugar and the average 11 to 18-year-old 15 per cent. A recent report by the UK鈥檚 Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition advised that this figure should be . Sugary drinks comprise , making them an obvious target.
The UK is far from the first to try this. Countries such as Mexico have introduced purchase taxes on sugary drinks, leading to price rises and less consumption. The UK has opted for a different system: its tax, with bands for drinks of high and medium sugar content, will fall on manufacturers. It is up to them how they deal with it. The hope is that by announcing this well in advance, manufacturers will accelerate their efforts to reformulate towards lower sugar content, thus avoiding a price hike for consumers.
Given the findings of the latest research, it seems reasonable to hope that it plays out that way.
Journal reference: Lancet Public Health, DOI:
