Chicago - Mar. 29, 2020
Music TV Politics Sports Books People Places & Things
 
Beachwood Politics
Our monthly archive.
Who We Are
Chicago by the numbers.
Sausage Links
Wiki Daley
Wiki Rahm
Illinois Channel
CAN TV
Ralph Martire
Doonesbury
Government Attic
Division Street
Indie Political Report
The Obameter
ProPublica
The Intercept
SCOTUS Blog
American Dream Betrayed

Soda Taxes Work

This year's Australian of the Year, Dr James Muecke, is an eye specialist with a clear vision. He wants to change the way the world looks at sugar and the debilitating consequences of diabetes, which include blindness.

Muecke is pushing for Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government to enact a tax on sugary drinks to help make that a reality.

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

The evidence backing his calls is strong.

Don't Believe The Myths

Several governments around the world have adopted taxes on sugary drinks in recent years. The evidence is clear: they work.

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


Read more: A sugary drinks tax could recoup some of the costs of obesity while preventing it
Reliable evidence from around the world tells us a 10% tax reduces sugary drink intakes by around 10%.

The United Kingdom soft drink tax has also been making headlines recently. Since its introduction, the amount of sugar in drinks has decreased by almost 30%, and six of 10 leading drink companies have dropped the sugar content of more than 50% of their drinks.

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

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

Most of the health benefits (nearly 50%) would occur among those living in the lowest socioeconomic circumstances.

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

So What's The Problem?

The soft drink industry uses every trick in the book to try to convince 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 disadvantage 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 $35 extra per year. But this is just $4 higher than the cost to the wealthiest households.


Read more: Australian sugary drinks tax could prevent thousands of heart attacks and strokes and save 1,600 lives
Importantly, poorer households are likely to get the biggest health benefits and long-term health care savings.

What's more, the money raised from the tax could be targeted towards reducing health inequalities.

Myth 2: Sugary drink taxes would result 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 try to make the case otherwise.

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

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, can 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.


Read more: Sweet power: the politics of sugar, sugary drinks and poor nutrition in Australia
There is also 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 need a comprehensive policy approach to address the problem. That's why Muecke is calling for a tax on sugary drinks alongside improved food labeling and marketing regulations.

Towards Better Food Policies

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


Read more: Sugary drinks tax is working - now it's time to target cakes, biscuits and snacks
But Australian governments are currently developing a National Obesity Strategy, making it the ideal time to revisit this issue.

We need to stop letting myths get in the way of evidence-backed health policies. Let's listen to Muecke - he who knows all too well the devastating effects of products packed full of sugar.

Gary Sacks is an associate professor at Deakin University; Christina Zorbas is a PhD candidate at Deakin; and Kathryn Backholer is a senior research fellow at Deakin. This post is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

-

Previously:
* Soda Tax Could Save Thousands Of Lives And $1 Billion In Mexico.

* Cook County Repeal Of Soda Tax Was A Mortal Mistake.

* The [Tuesday] Papers, February 20, 2018:

"The beverage industry created 'Citizens for a More Affordable Cook County' in August. One purpose of the PAC: It was an unsubtle political threat hanging over the commissioners who did not support the repeal.

"The grassroots-sounding name was designed to deliberately obfuscate the fact that the PAC, spawned with the help of the American Beverage Association, gets almost all of its funding from companies related to the beverage industry.

"The PAC treasurer is lawyer/lobbyist Michael Kasper, who also does work for Illinois House Speaker/Democratic Party of Illinois chair Michael Madigan."

* Where 'Yes! To Affordable Groceries' Really Means No to a Soda Tax.

* Soda Industry Steals Page From Tobacco To Combat Taxes On Sugary Drinks.

* Seattle Council Locks In Fund For Soda-Tax Revenue, Overriding Mayor Durkan's Veto.

-

Comments welcome.




Permalink

Posted on January 30, 2020


MUSIC - Virtual Wacos.
TV - Glenn Beck's Turn In The Volcano.
POLITICS - Paying The Price Of Science Denialism (Again).
SPORTS - The Opening Day That Wasn't.

BOOKS - Poles In Illinois.

PEOPLE PLACES & THINGS - El Greco: Defiance & Ambition.


Search The Beachwood Reporter

Subscribe To Our Newsletter
Email:

Follow BeachwoodReport on Twitter



Beachwood Radio!