Nutritionally, sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide consisting of fructose and glucose. Evidence suggests that high intakes of refined crystalline sucrose are detrimental to the health and a leading cause of obesity. As a result the United Kingdom government has proposed a tax on foods containing sugar. The idea behind this tax is to add an additional charge to a number of products containing over a certain amount of sugar, most notably soft drinks. The idea is that this will reduce consumption and thereby decrease obesity and associated disease, particularly type 2 diabetes. The science behind the use of taxes on unhealthy foods has been extensively reviewed and the evidence suggests that taxing unhealthy food can sometimes work to decrease consumption, but the effects on health are much less well understood. Such taxes have been implemented in a number of countries around the World with varying degrees of success. Recent examples include a fat tax in Denmark and a junk food tax in Hungary.
One of the main reasons suggested for a possible lack of effect of a sugar tax is the price elasticity shown by products such as soft drinks. The price of such drinks already varies greatly depending on the product and the location of purchase, yet this does not appear to have a large impact on purchases or consumption. Looking at alcohol and tobacco, it could also be argued that government taxes do not cause changes in the rates of consumption of these items. Some may argue that this is because alcohol and tobacco are addictive, but evidence suggests that sugar can show a similar level of addiction as cocaine, and therefore this argument might be moot. Additionally, cheaper alternatives to sugary foods exist, and yet people choose not to eat the alternatives, suggesting that they are not dissuaded by the price of sugary foods. It could be argued therefore that people eat sugary foods not because they are cheap, but because they like and desire them. Therefore additional cost many not dissuade consumption.
Sugar taxes may decrease consumption of sugar if the price increase is above 20 %. However, there is little evidence that this has an effect on health. Fruit juice is exempt from the United Kingdom sugar tax, and yet fruit juice has been shown to have similar metabolic effects to soft drinks. Rebranding soft drink as fruit drinks, may be one way round the tax for manufacturers.
In fact taxation at a level of between 1 and 8 %, as is implemented in some areas of the United States, did not have any effects on obesity rates. However, some evidence does suggest that taxes can work to reduce consumption of soft drinks in certain circumstances. For example, in another study, a 35 % tax on sugar sweetened drinks reduced consumption by 26 %. In the 1980’s it was shown that an 11 % decrease in consumption of soft drinks was found for each 10 % increase in price. One of the problems with some studies may have been that the price increase was below a threshold needed to have an effect. In this regard, it has been suggested that a minimum of a 20 % increase in price is needed in order to have a significant effect on energy consumption as a whole. This does not guarantee that a knock on effect will occur to the health of the individuals as there are more factors involved that just the consumption of sugar. However, it does show that any tax on sugar must be carefully considered if it is to have long term health effects.
Eat Well, Stay Healthy, Protect Yourself
RdB
