Should we tax soft drinks?

Jack Winkler's commentary on a report by Ng et al., challenges the proposal of a 10% tax on 'sugar-sweetened beverages' (SSB). Both articles appear in the current issue of British Journal of Nutrition and raise important questions about soft drink taxation and consumption.

In their report, 'Patterns and trends of among children and in Great Britain, 1986-2009', the authors Ng, Ni Mhurchu, Jebb and Popkin conclude that a 10 % increase in the price of SSB could potentially result in a decrease of 7·5 ml/capita per d. Their analysis implies that taxation or other methods of shifting relative costs of these beverages could be a way to improve beverage choices in Great Britain.

While applauding the 'heroic analysis' of the UK food purchase and consumption data Winkler observes in his commentary that the 10% tax proposed would lead only to a 4.6% reduction in SSB purchases. In real terms this equates to a less than gram of sugar (or one sip from a 2 litre bottle).

Moreover the nature of consumer behaviour, where consumers regularly pay 950% extra for a well-known brand over a value brand, a 10% tax will have little effect. Crucially, the market is complex and the nature of supermarket deals plus variations in price between locations and outlets renders the 10% increase meaningless. Winkler also suggests that popular resistance amongst manufacturers and consumers alike mean that no politicians are likely to adopt the 10% tax idea anyway.

Importantly the Ng report does not clarify an opinion on the related issues of fruit juices and sweeteners. The leading brand of Unsweetened apple juice contains more sugar than the leading cola brand, and nothing is suggested about this problem. Winkler remarks "Anyone serious in sugar evading cannot avoid this issue".

Winkler suggests that by not discussing 'Sweeteners' and the increase in consumption of sugarfree , nutritionists are neglecting an important aspect of potential nutritional policy. Manufacturers effectively charge a premium for sugarfree products even though they cost less than SSB's to produce. A tax exemption on sweeteners is one instrument to invert this trend, and is a viable consideration when looking at ways to reduce sugar consumption.

Winkler concludes that not only is a on SSBs not likely to be adopted but even it was it would be ineffective but the Ng report does open up a lot of questions for Nutrition Policy makers:

'First, what are we seeking to do, change people or change foods? Second, the issue contrasts principled and pragmatic strategies. Should we, as a matter of principle, seek to switch people to healthy diets directly and quickly?. Finally, price instruments can punish the bad, reward the good, or both.' In short: 'Make the healthy choice the cheaper choice'

More information: Why soft drink taxes will not work,  J.T. Winkler. British Journal of Nutrition / Volume 108 / Issue 03  journals.cambridge.org/article_S0007114511006477

Patterns and trends of beverage consumption among children and adults in Great Britain, 1986-2009 Shu Wen Ng, et al. British Journal of Nutrition / Volume 108 / Issue 03 journals.cambridge.org/article_S0007114511006465

Related Stories

Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages could yield sweet results

May 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages a penny-per-ounce could reduce consumption and generate significant revenue, finds a study by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University and the Bridging ...

Can soda tax curb obesity?

Jun 28, 2011

(Medical Xpress) -- To many, a tax on soda is a no-brainer in advancing the nation’s war on obesity. Advocates point to a number of studies in recent years that conclude that sugary drinks have a lot to do with why Americans ...

Fight obesity? Add sales tax to soda tab

Sep 16, 2009

Presenting a united front in the war on obesity, diabetes and other nutrition-related disorders, seven of America’s leading public health and economics experts are urging passage of taxes on sugar-sweetened ...

Recommended for you

Patient-centered medical homes reduce costs

2 hours ago

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH), introduced in 2007, is a model of health care that emphasizes personal relationships, team delivery of care, coordination across specialties and care settings, quality ...

New mums still excessively sleepy after four months

3 hours ago

(Medical Xpress)—New mums are being urged to be cautious about returning to work too quickly, after a QUT study found one in two were still excessively sleepy four months after giving birth.

It's time to address the health of men around the world

4 hours ago

All over the world, men die younger than women and do worse on a host of health indicators, yet policy makers rarely focus on this "men's health gap" or adopt programs aimed at addressing it, according to an international ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2012
If sweetened drinks are so bad for society, why not instead of adding a tax to sweetened drinks, why not just outlaw them? I think anyone selling these evil drinks should be charged with a crime and face a 1-2 year jail time. If they sell them to minors, the jail time should be doubled. New York hasn't gone far enough.

Parents who give these drinks to innocent children should have their children taken away for child abuse and they themselves should be jailed.

The only danger of using satire with Progressives is that they're stupid and ignorant enough to think the idea as good and try to implement it.
Vendicar Dickarian
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2012
"Should we tax soft drinks?"

NO. Now, can we get back to work?
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2012
should we tax softdrinks?

well, if you do, then your admitting this is a totalitarian state and that taxes are not to pay limited bills of the federal and state agencies, but are to be used to socially engineer outcomes in the population whether they like it or not, and so, control them by some means, or many means.

funny, but all these doctors thinking up interventions are exactly the same as joseph mengele who wanted to intervene in childrens lives to make them fit the society that the liberals of germany 1933-1945 were creating for the future.

just cause we dont speak german doesnt mean it isnt the same thing, and that if you dont comply they will kill you...

after all. you say, i dont want to pay my taxes.
then what? if you keep refusing as they escalate, they will end up killing you or taking away your whole life except for the small part you experience.

hows about solutions that dont assist, help develop, or require a totalitarian state, threat of death, etc
PeterD
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2012
If you are fool enough to drink sodas, you will die early, which is what you deserve.
alfie_null
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2012
Figure out the cost (to society) of soft drink abuse and set the tax accordingly. Don't get too wrapped up in peripheral issues like education or punishment. Don't try to tell manufacturers what to do. Let economics do that.