SUGAR TAX HERE NOW A MATTER OF TIME The Government’s child obesity package released last year was a damp squib – of the 22 initiatives on offer, only two were new, and none will have a significant impact on children’s waistlines. The big, proven initiatives – banning junk food advertising to kids, taxing junk food, improving nutrition education in schools and restricting junk food availability in public institutions – were left untouched. The Big Food lobby has so far failed to put up evidence-based alternatives to junk food taxes that would reduce child obesity. Education is their catchcry, but to educate children in an effective way about nutrition and exercise takes investment, and that money has to come from somewhere. It now must only be a matter of time before the pressure comes on our Health and Finance Ministers to take real action – including taxes on junk food. We have seen previously how a tax on soft drinks alone could save 67 lives per year and raise $30-40m. The money raised could be used to improve the nutrition and exercise education in schools. There are projects around the country that have been proven to work – such as Project Energize in the Waikato. The UK Chancellor surprised everyone – no doubt including the Government here – by including a sugar tax in his recent Budget statement. The tax 14 APRIL 2016 will be implemented from 2018, and will raise $1.1b to be spent on school sports. Despite this move by their Tory allies in the UK, calls from 70 medical specialists to follow suit and the mounting evidence that junk food taxes work, our Government continues to push a wait and see approach. It is only a matter of time before their excuses wear thin. Despite the claims of the Health Minister, the Big Food lobby, libertarian Taxpayers Union and now the corporate funded NZ Institute, junk food taxes do work. In fact, as long as the tax is well designed, it is hard to find a policy that works better. Science is rarely if ever 100% conclusive. It is always possible to find some gaps in the data if you want to make an excuse to do nothing, and it has been interesting to watch how the excuses have shifted over time. Initially there was a debate about whether taxes reduced how much junk food is eaten and drunk. When it became clear that taxes do reduce consumption, the argument switched – now we have to wait for evidence that junk food taxes reduce obesity. The UK tax isn’t perfect, but is a step in the right direction. It will have two bands – 18p per litre for total sugar content above five grams per 100 millilitres; and 24p per litre for the most sugary drinks with more than eight grams per 100 millilitres. That will hit most standard soft drinks such as Coke, Sprite and Fanta. Fruit juices and milk-based drinks are exempt. Some estimates are that branded drinks like a can of Coke could rise in price by 11%. The minimum level recommended by experts to have an impact on consumption is around 20%. Because this tax focuses on sugar content, the price rise will be largest for large servings, particularly the cheap, only one of which is SSBs. In New Zealand we know that total energy derived from SSBs is less than five per cent, which suggests that 95 percent of energy comes from other sources. Tax is a blunt instrument: Taxing drinks that contain sugar will penalise consumers indiscriminately: consider the professional athlete or keen cyclist who uses a sports drink to replenish energy levels after exercise, or those of us who like the odd gin and tonic. It is unlikely these consumers would support a tax intended to fix a problem that does not affect them. In 2013, researchers from Deakin University in Victoria confirmed there was not enough evidence to say whether fiscal measures such as a tax could prevent obesity or not. Trends pre-empt the need for a tax: Trends in beverage choices and consumption patterns show increases in the purchase of low- or no-calorie beverages already, making a tax on beverages unnecessary. << Continued from page 11 Some estimates are that bottles of budget cola brands could face price hikes of as much as 80%. S U G A R F E AT U R E Geoff Simmons
FT-Apr16-vol51-3
To see the actual publication please follow the link above