20 percent 'fat tax' needed to improve population health: experts

May 15, 2012

Taxes on unhealthy food and drinks would need to be at least 20% to have a significant effect on diet-related conditions such as obesity and heart disease, say experts in the British Medical Journal today. Ideally, this should be combined with subsidies on healthy foods such as fruit and vegetables, they add.

Their views come ahead of the 65th taking place in Geneva on 21-26 May 2012 where prevention and control of non-communicable diseases will be a key issue for discussion.

As an increasing number of countries introduce taxes on and drinks, Oliver Mytton and colleagues at the University of Oxford examine the evidence on the of food taxes.

Evidence suggests that taxing a wide range of unhealthy foods or nutrients is likely to result in greater than narrow taxes, they say, although the strongest evidence base is for tax on sugary drinks.

For example, a US study found a 35% tax on sugar sweetened drinks ($0.45 (£0.28; €0.34) per drink) in a canteen led to a 26% decline in sales.

Meanwhile modelling studies predict a 20% tax on sugary drinks in the US would reduce obesity levels by 3.5%, and suggest that extending VAT (at 17.5%) to unhealthy foods in the UK could cut up to 2,700 deaths a year.

Opinion polls from the US also put support for tax on at between 37% and 72%, particularly when the health benefits of the tax are emphasised.

However, they point out that understanding the overall effect on health is complicated, and that policy makers need to be wary of negative effects, like changes in other important nutrients and compensatory behaviour that may increase energy intake or reduce energy expenditure.

The food industry also argues that the taxes would be ineffective, unfair, and damage the industry leading to job losses. And from a legislative point of view, it is still unclear how such taxes are best introduced and enforced.

Meanwhile, others have advocated that the taxes be used to raise funds to treat diet related diseases, subsidise healthy foods, or to stimulate industry reformulation of food (such as removal of salt, sugar, or saturated fats from foods).

In conclusion, Mytton and colleagues say that health related food taxes have the potential to improve health, but the tax would need to be at least 20% to have a significant effect on population health.

In a second analysis paper, Corinna Hawkes from the Centre for Food Policy at City University London says that, although governments are beginning to implement food policies to encourage healthier eating, "there remains a long way to go for food policies to reach their full potential."

She points out that changes to the food supply system since the 1980s have "coincided with rises in obesity and non-communicable diseases" and argues that health must be made a priority for the modern food economy.

Explore further: Can soda tax curb obesity?

Related Stories

Can soda tax curb obesity?

June 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 ...

Recommended for you

Study suggests link between youth football and later-life emotional, behavioral impairment

September 19, 2017
A new study has found an association between participation in youth tackle football before age 12 and impaired mood and behavior later in life. The study appears in Nature's Translational Psychiatry.

Self-confidence affected by teammates, study finds

September 19, 2017
A person's confidence in their own ability varies significantly depending on who is in their team, according to new research from the University of Stirling.

Teens are growing up more slowly today than they did in past decades

September 19, 2017
Many people believe that teenagers today grow up faster than they used to, while others argue that today's youth are growing up more slowly, perhaps due to overprotection by their parents. A new study explored this issue ...

Video game boosts sex health IQ and attitudes in minority teens

September 18, 2017
A videogame designed by Yale researchers to promote health and reduce risky behavior in teens improves sexual health knowledge and attitudes among minority youth, according to a new study. The findings validate the value ...

Two Americas: Seniors are getting healthier but most gains go to high-income whites

September 18, 2017
Older Americans report feeling dramatically healthier than they did 14 years ago but that good health isn't evenly distributed, with much of the gain going to the wealthiest, most highly educated and whites.

Budget cigarettes linked to higher infant mortality rates in EU countries

September 18, 2017
Scientists already know that high cigarette prices reduce smoking rates, and that levels of smoking affect infant mortality. However until now, there have been no studies to explore the link between cigarette price differentials ...

5 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2012
We need GLOBAL standards for wages, nutrition and pricing.

"The food industry also argues that the taxes would be ineffective, unfair, and damage the industry leading to job losses."
JRDarby
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2012
Halting subsidies to dead weight and undesirable industries, like those that employ factory farming, may help as well. Reducing our dietary dependence on meat would go a long way to solving many of our social and economic ills.
morilindez
not rated yet May 16, 2012
I agree with JRDarby. Federal subsidies for animal agriculture are currently excessive. It should cost 5 to 10 times more to purchase all farm raised meat (excluding lamb which is more accurately priced) than it does which leads to monumental amounts of waste. We have seen evidence in the US that when people don't have to conserve, they won't because it doesn't personally affect them. Consuming the volume of animal products that the US does also hurts the environment because of agricultural waste and runoff. Of course, everyone is already aware of the amount of methane produced by farm animals as well.
freethinking
1 / 5 (1) May 18, 2012
I think we need to have a surcharge for anyone who votes for a progressives. That way they suffer for their stupidity.

According to progressive thinking I must be super human. I am at normal weight, above normal fitness levels. Yet I live by a McDonalds, a KFC, Jack in the Box, I eat fries and ice cream and hamburgers. However I take responsiblity for my health and eat "junk" food in moderation.
LEVI506
1 / 5 (1) May 20, 2012
I find it interesting to not that most of the zealots advocating taxing "fat" foods can afford to purchase healthier foods. Most healthier foods are higher priced then starches and sugars. So who does this new TAX really effect and who does is benefit? The negative effect is to the poor and elderly who find the "fat" foods affordable. The beneficial effect would be primarily to the younger population, who will pay the added price anyhow. Since that's a wash, the only other benefit is the added tax base. So just who's pushing this junk science? One wonders if it isn't the current administration. They seem to be great at taking money from the poor, the seniors and the handicapped. Like reevaluating autistic children to reduce SSI costs. Like changing inflation factors so that there are lower cost of living raises for social security. Makes me curious as to who funds these so called experts!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.