Right: Pro-beverage tax groups in America accused the big soft drink companies of financing and organising the "spontaneous" protest rallies on the streets of New York.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of Australia imposing a tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks
1. Consumption of refined sugar results in ill health
Sugar consumption contributes to Australians high rates of overweight and obesity which are resulting in chronic disease.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Health Survey: First Results, 2011-2012 indicated that more than 60% of Australian adults and one quarter of children were overweight or obese.
These statistics regarding Australian obesity and overweight have been found in repeated surveys. A 2007 OECD report shows that the rate of obesity in Australia had nearly tripled in the last twenty years. A 2010 OECD report found that one in four Australians are obese, and Australia ranks the fifth highest of the OECD countries for the proportion of the population who are obese. The 2007-8 National Health Survey found that 61% of all Australian adults had a Body Mass Index (BMI) that placed them in either the overweight or obese categories.
The association between higher sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and increased body mass is not only shown in adults, but in children, including young children aged 2-5years as indicated in research findings published in the children's health-related medical journal, Paediatrics, in 2013.
These statistics indicating Australia's obesity problem are significant because obesity is a leading risk factor for chronic disease including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and some cancers.
Craig Sinclair, Chair of the Public Health Committee at Cancer Council Australia, has stated, 'Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages is associated with a range of serious health issues including weight gain and obesity, which in turn are risk factors for diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.' This causal connection between ill health, obesity and sweetened beverage consumption has been established in a wide variety of studies, some of which are drawn on in the World Health Organization's consultation technical report released in 2000, 'Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic'. Obesity has been directly linked to causing about one-quarter of type-2 diabetes (23.8%) and osteoarthritis (24.5%), one-fifth of cardiovascular disease (21.3%), and colorectal, breast, uterine and kidney cancers (20.5%).
Research findings have consistently demonstrated a direct dose-response relationship between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and long-term weight gain and risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Australia Fast Facts claims that diabetes is the fastest growing chronic disease in Australia, with an estimated 280 Australians developing the disease every day.
The urgency surrounding changing the eating habits of Australians has been stressed by the Obesity Policy Coalition which has stated, 'The need to improve the diets of Australians was demonstrated by the 2014 release of data showing that poor diet and high body mass index are now the two greatest risk factors contributing to the burden of disease in Australia, ranking ahead of smoking and alcohol-related illness.' This claim can be found in the Coalition's policy brief titled 'The Case for an Australian Tax on Sugar-sweetened Beverages'.
The Cancer Council Australia, Diabetes Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia have supported a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (including soft drinks, sweetened fruit juices and flavoured milk) since 2013.
2. Significant numbers of Australians consume sugar-sweetened beverages in large quantities
Large numbers of Australian adults and children consume sugar-sweetened beverages. Soft drinks, in particular, are consumed by large proportions of the population.
The 2007 Australian National Children's Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey found 47% of children (aged 2-16 years) consumed sugar-sweetened beverages daily. Survey data commissioned by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) in 2003 found that younger age groups were more likely to consume sugar sweetened soft drinks, with 78% of 12-17 year olds and 75% of 18-24 year olds reporting consumption of sugar sweetened soft drinks in the week prior to the survey.
Research published in 2006 has found that younger children also consume concerning volumes of sugar-sweetened beverages. This research into the consumption patterns of very young children (16-24 months) in Western Sydney found that, on average, cordials were consumed on a daily basis by 41% of children and soft drinks were consumed on alternate days by 29% of children.
Research, published in the British Journal of Nutrition in 2016, has found that most Australians get over 10 per cent of their total daily energy intake from food and drink products with 'added' or 'free sugars' such as honey and syrups, and sugar in fruit juice.
The Professor of Public Health Nutrition at Sydney University, Timothy Gill, has stated that other recent studies also confirm that older teens and males in particular are consuming a large amount of added sugar from products such as soft drinks.
Craig Sinclair, Chair of the Public Health Committee at Cancer Council Australia, has noted, 'Australia is among the top 10 countries for per capita consumption of soft drinks.'
Diabetes Australia chief executive Greg Johnson has stated, 'If we look at sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, we are in the top end of consumption in the world, and it makes sense to tax and regulate their promotion and marketing.
They are not part of a balanced diet. They are cheap, incredibly well-marketed, available everywhere and radically over-consumed.'
Anti-sugar campaigner, Sarah Wilson has similarly stated, 'With 76 per cent of Australian kids aged nine to 13 now exceeding the World Health Organization's guidelines for daily added sugar intake - and more than one in four overweight or obese - the issue is more pertinent than ever before.'
3. Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages is likely to reduce their consumption
Supporters of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages argue that the increase in cost to the consumer will result in a decline in consumption of these drinks.
One of the key instances given in support of this argument is Mexico which introduced a 10% tax on fizzy drinks and an 8% levy on high calorie snacks like biscuits and chips in 2014. A study by the Mexican Institute of Public Health and the University of North Carolina showed a 6% decrease in sugary drinks consumption during the first year in which the tax was imposed.
Alejandro Calvillo, the director of the Mexican consumer protection group El Poder del Consumidor has stated, 'The data show there has been an important reduction in sugary drinks consumption.'
Preliminary studies conducted in Great Britain have encouraged the British government to impose a sugar tax in the belief that the levy will led to a reduction in consumption. Pre-policy research by Public Health England found increasing the price of high-sugar products reduced purchase levels proportionate to the tax rate.
Public Health England's report, Sugar Reduction: From Evidence into Action, states, 'There is reasonably consistent evidence from both experimental studies and data from countries that have introduced taxes that consumers can respond to changes in food and drink prices.'
The British Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated it could add 18-24p to the price of a litre of fizzy drink if the full cost is passed on to the consumer. It is hoped that this will be sufficient to have an impact of consumers' purchasing habits.
Supporters of the sugar tax point to the success that taxing tobacco has had in reducing smoking in Australia. Dr Becky Freeman of the Charles Perkins Centre has stated, 'Australia has led the way on tobacco taxes, which have been hugely successful in driving down smoking rates. It is not at all surprising that this same public health tactic could be used to cut down harmful sugar intake. The soft drink industry has learnt a great deal watching how the tobacco industry is losing its battle with public health. The time is right for public health to embrace these same lessons and pushed forward with reforms.'
4. The money raised through such a tax can be used for health-promoting purposes
There are two bases on which support for a tax of sugar-sweetened drinks is built. In addition to being seen as a way of reducing soft drink consumption, the revenue raised from such a tax can be used to promote public health.
It has been estimated that a 20 per cent tax on sugar filled drinks could result in the Australian government receiving over $250 million dollars a year as Australians consume some 1.28 billion litres of soft drink annually.
A Newspoll survey conducted in Australia for the Obesity Coalition has found overwhelming support for money from such a tax being spent on trying to tackle childhood obesity and increase participation in sport.
Eighty five per cent of the 1,200 people surveyed would support revenue from a sugar tax being spent on programs to reduce childhood obesity. Eighty-four per cent would support money from the tax being spent on encouraging children to play sport. Seventy nine per cent would support revenue being spent on providing more access to water fountains in public spaces. Seventy-one per cent would support the money going towards replacing fast food and sugar-sweetened beverage sponsorship of children's sport.
Recently the World Health Organisation (WHO) released a report on the use of price policies to promote healthy diets across Europe. It suggested that a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages and targeted subsidies on fruit and vegetables have the greatest potential to induce positive changes in consumption. Using the money from a sugar tax to subsidise healthier eating choices is another use of the taxation revenue which has been supported in a number of countries.
In Great Britain the government intends to use the revenue raised by taxing sweet beverages to fund additional sports programs in schools, including extending school hours to allow for additional physical activities.
5. Such a tax would encourage soft drink manufacturers to improve their products
Supporters of the imposition of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages argue that taxation may lead soft drink manufacturers to modify their products.
The tax is intended to have an impact on the sales figures for such sweetened beverages and so reduce the profitability of these products for their manufacturers.
When the British Government announced in March 2016 its intention to tax most sugar-sweetened drinks starting in 2018, shares in listed drinks firms dropped sharply and immediately on the London market. Irn Bru maker of AG Barr, which also makes Tizer and St Clement's, fell 5 per cent, while Robinsons squash firm Britvic fell 3 per cent and Vimto, maker of Nichols, plunged as much as 11 per cent. These falls in share prices have been seen as an acknowledgement by the business community and obviously by investors of the economic damage the tax will inflict on soft drink manufacturers.
British public health advocates hope that the impact of the tax will lead manufacturers to alter their products, reducing the sugar content to below the taxable threshold.
When Mexico introduced its tax on soft drinks in 2014 there was a four per cent rise in sales of untaxed drinks - mainly due to more purchases of bottled plain water. Health campaigners are hoping that manufacturers will focus their attention on such untaxed sections of the non-alcoholic drinks market. There is also the hope that taxes will lead to the development of non-sugar sweeteners without the adverse side-effects that come with many current artificial sweeteners.
It has been noticed that already in Australia, in response to government and public pressure, soft drink manufacturers have provided information on bottles and cans indicating the kilojoules load of the drink each contains and what proportion of average daily energy consumption the drink constitutes. Australian manufacturers have also stated that their advertising campaigns do not target children below the age of twelve.
Australian public health authorities believe that a tax on soft drinks would lead to even greater positive changes in the behaviour of manufacturers and in the nature of the products they produce.