Sugar - the case for a Sin Tax

[John Short]

Should sugar be treated like booze and tobacco products and be subject to an excise tax?

A recent report, compiled by Public Health England sets out a range of tough policies that need to be taken to reduce the consumption of sugary foods and drinks that are fuelling the obesity crisis and costing the NHS £5.1bn a year.
The eight recommendations are:
1.   Reduce and rebalance the number and type of price promotions in all retail outlets including supermarkets and convenience stores and the out-of-home sector (including restaurants, cafes and takeaways).
2.   Significantly reduce opportunities to market and advertise high-sugar food and drink products to children and adults across all media including digital platforms and through sponsorship.
3.   The setting of a clear definition for high-sugar foods to aid with actions 1 and 2 above. Currently the only regulatory framework for doing this is via the Ofcom nutrient profiling model, which would benefit from being reviewed and strengthened.
4.   Introduction of a broad, structured and transparently monitored programme of gradual sugar reduction in everyday food and drink products, combined with reductions in portion size.
5.   Introduction of a price increase of a minimum of 10% to 20% on high-sugar products through the use of a tax or levy such as on full-sugar soft drinks, based on the emerging evidence of the impact of such measures in other countries.
6.   Adopt, implement and monitor the government buying standards for food and catering services (GBSF) across the public sector, including national and local government and the NHS to the ensure provision and sale of healthier food and drinks in hospitals, leisure centres etc.
7.   Ensure that accredited training in diet and health is routinely delivered to all of those who have opportunities to influence food choices in the catering, fitness and leisure sectors and others within local authorities.
8.   Continue to raise awareness of concerns around sugar levels in the diet to the public as well as health professionals, employers, the food industry etc, encourage action to reduce intakes and provide practical steps to help people lower their own and their families’ sugar intake.

[John Short]

One of the recommendations of the UK Health Select Committee:
"A sugary drinks tax on full sugar soft drinks, in order to help change behaviour, with all proceeds targeted to help those children at greatest risk of obesity".

Full report:

[John Short]

The Osborne Budget introduced a tax on sugary drinks on 16 March from 2018. The chancellor says he will raised £520 million from a levy with two bands: one affecting drinks with a total sugar content above 5 grams per 100 milligrams, and the second for drinks with sugar content above 8 grams per 100 milligrams. 

It’s intended to only snag the very sweetest products and will not apply to pure fruit juices or milk-based drinks.  Proceeds from the tax would be used to help fund school sports.

Article in the Lancet Vol.387 | Number 10024 | Mar 19, 2016 on IFS Green Budget which superseded the budget.

[John Short]

Sugary drinks tax: response from the Institute for Fiscal Studies published in the Lancet

[John Short]

On Oct 11, World Obesity Day, WHO upped the ante in its fight against sugar. First, it called for governments to introduce subsidies for fruits and vegetables and taxation of unhealthy foods, with a particular target on sugary drinks. The new WHO recommendations are based on global expert opinion and 11 systematic reviews of the effectiveness of fiscal interventions for improving diets and preventing non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The second move saw the removal of sales and provision of sugary drinks from WHO headquarters, including at official functions. The sale of water, tea, coffee, and unflavoured milk remain, and staff are permitted to bring sugary drinks to work.

The governmental-level action of fiscal policy and the individual-level action of workplace intervention could not be more different in scale, but are linked by a desire to reduce consumption of a product with no nutritional benefit and increasingly tied to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. They are bold steps forward to advance the global action plan on NCDs and WHO's 2015 sugar guidelines that recommend drastically reducing sugar intake.

A welcome benefit of this WHO leadership is increased publicity and awareness about the negative effects of excess sugar, and the extent to which sugar is present in foods marketed as healthy, such as fruit juice and chocolate milk. Importantly, the guidelines can assist and encourage governments interested in removing sugary drinks from schools and hospitals, and in regulating or taxing foods high in sugar, salt, and fat as a way to reduce unhealthy consumption and generate revenue to treat NCDs.
A key challenge will be monitoring impact. While experience and evidence are growing for the effectiveness of sugar taxes, more evidence is needed on the use of subsidies and other economic tools to promote healthy behaviour and to reduce disease outcomes. And “sugar bans” have yet to be evaluated. New Zealand's removal of sugary drinks from all hospitals has been well accepted by patients, providers, and government, but its health impacts are unknown. The war on sugar is vital, but it is just one part of the larger battle against NCDs.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)31897-9/fulltext