Right: One lump or a million? Sugary drinks have been promoted by manufacturers and retailers as everything from harmless to providers of essential energy.
 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 against a sugary drink tax
1. Sugar and sugary drinks are not the main cause of obesity and diet-related ill healthOpponents of taxes on sugary drinks claim that they are discriminatory, targeting one energy source and ignoring the fact that obesity is a complex condition with many contributory factors. They argue that multiple dietary habits must change, and lifestyle factors must alter. Sugary drink taxes, critics claim, are a gesture and not a solution to national health problems.
Opponents of a sugar tax claim that sugar is not the sole or primary dietary factor that results in excessive weight gain. Some nutritionists have noted that weight gain in Australia and overseas is the result of an overall increase in calorie intake, not simply increased sugar consumption. In an article published in The Conversation on April 2, 2012, Peter Clifton, Professor of Nutrition at the University of South Australia posed the question, 'So has sugar played a larger role than fat, protein and other forms of carbohydrates in Australia's obesity epidemic?' His response was, 'Probably not. There has been little change in the proportions of fat, carbohydrate [including sugars], and protein in our diet over the past 30 years. But total energy intake has increased - we're gaining weight because we're eating more of everything.'
Research conducted at Cornell University in 2015 similarly concluded that although soda and junk food are not healthy choices, it is eating too much food, of all types, which is the culprit in obesity. Lead researcher, David Just, co-director of the Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics, explained that total patterns of consumption and intake present problems for Americans' health. Professor Just stated, 'For 95 percent of the country, there is no relationship between how much fast food and junk food they're eating and their weight. Because of the bad habits we have, with all our food, just eliminating junk food is not going to do anything.' It has been claimed that many food types will cause obesity if overconsumed. Professor Clifton, a nutrition researcher, has noted, 'Eating large quantities of any carbohydrate with a high glycaemic index (white bread, for instance) can double the risk of heart disease and diabetes. Likewise, consuming large amounts of trans fat has been shown to increase the risk of heart disease by 33 percent. So, sugar in soft drinks increases the risk of disease by a similar amount to trans-fat and white bread.
Health experts have noted Australians' long-standing pattern of overconsumption. A 2012 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report found that Australians exceed the world average consumption of alcohol, sweeteners, milk, and animal fats. Findings from the Cancer Council Victoria and the Heart Foundation published in 2015 showed 80 percent of people felt overeating was the new norm and treats had become part of the daily diet for 85 percent of Australians. research has also claimed that the national trend to overeat may have been intensified by COVID in response to anxiety. Emotion-focused situational eating has been noted as a problem for many Australians. Some researchers have suggested that focusing narrowly on a reduction in sugar consumption oversimplifies the problem and will not alter other causal factors that contribute to disease. After a 2017 study, lead author Professor Jennie Brand-Miller from the Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney stated, 'Our results suggest there may be unintended consequences in focusing on a singular dietary component such as added sugars only, and more should be done in public health campaigns to address other concentrated sources of energy such as alcohol, starchy takeaway and savoury snacks.' Co-author and accredited practicing dietitian, Dr Alan Barclay, similarly stated, 'Our study suggests that laying the blame for the obesity crisis on added sugars alone is not a rational solution to the problem. We need to see a more coordinated approach and more effective interventions to help lower intakes of all discretionary foods and beverages.'
2. Sugary drink taxes are not effective in reducing sugar consumption or improving health
Those who oppose sugary drinks taxes claim they have not been proved to work. The supposed evidence of their success is short term and inconsistent. Their claimed long-term successes are based on computer modelling of results that may never eventuate and there is some evidence suggesting they have had negative effects.
Studies have demonstrated that price changes have failed to significantly affect consumer behaviour. In a Neilsen survey conducted three months after the introduction of a British sugar tax in April 2018, 62 percent of consumers indicated they had not changed their consumption since the tax came into effect. Further, the number who claimed they would continue purchasing sugar-sweetened beverages sat at 44 percent.
Data from a year after the introduction of the British tax indicated that daily consumption of sugar by adults had dropped by 4.8g and children's consumption had dropped by 10.9g. However, sugar consumption had been falling in Britain before the levy was introduced. Once this was factored into the analysis, there was no significant fall in sugar consumption. The sugar tax imposed in Mexico in 2014 has also not been as successful as it was first claimed to be. According to tax receipts from the Mexican Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit (Treasury), there was a small decline in consumption of less than two per cent in the first year of the tax, with a recovery in sales in year two to pre-tax levels, and growth in sales thereafter. Meanwhile, a 2023 study found a 3ml daily per capita reduction in consumption of drinks in the middle price range; however, there was no statistically significant reduction in the purchase of low-price or high-price sugar sweetened drinks. Other studies have shown that sugary drinks taxes often lead affected populations to find other sources of sugar. A study conducted at the University of Georgia examined the impact of a soda tax imposed in Philadelphia in 2017. Initially, demand for the taxed drinks dropped by 31 percent. Further investigation revealed consumers simply found other sweetened foods to supply their sugar need or traveled to surrounding towns without the tax to buy their sodas. These actions wiped out the decrease in sugar intake from colas and other taxed sweet drinks. Additionally, the soda pop tax led to a 4 percent increase in purchases of confectionary and other high-sugar goods in Philadelphia and neighbouring towns.
Further, the reliability of the evidence claiming health benefits from sugar taxes is disputed. Even the supporters of sugar taxes admit that it will take decades for any potential benefit to be securely evident. Many of these expected benefits are offered as predictions before the tax has even been put in place. A 2017 Australian study titled 'Modelled health benefits of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax across different socioeconomic groups in Australia' admitted at the end of the study 'The main limitations of this study, as with all simulation models, is that the results represent only the best estimate of a potential effect in the absence of stronger direct evidence.'
This point has been made by Duane Mellor, the Lead for Evidence-Based Medicine and Nutrition at Aston Medical School, Aston University. Mellor states, 'Whether or not levies on unhealthy food work is difficult to determine. Advocates for these programs tend to highlight positive effects based on data modelling rather than actual changes in people's weight and health.'
Finally, it has been suggested that some of the alternatives that manufacturers have developed to replace or modify sugar-sweetened drinks are a risk to health. In the United Kingdom after the introduction of the sugar tax, sugary drinks called slushies needed to have glycerol (E422) instead of sugar added to them to maintain their consistency. While this is safe for most older children and adults, the Food Standards Agency identified a possible risk of glycerol intoxication in smaller children and recommended the modified slushies not be sold to children under five.
Critics of sugar taxes also argue that the artificial sweeteners often used as substitutes for sugar are not safe. In May 2023, the World Health Organisation released a new guideline recommending against their use to reduce weight or health risks. Results of a recent review suggest these sweeteners do not help with weight loss and may lead to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults. 3. Sugary drink taxes are not necessary to reduce sugar consumption
Critics of the sugar tax argue that it is an unnecessary imposition. They claim that sugar consumption has been decreasing in Australia for decades without a tax to shape consumer behaviour. They also claim sugary drink manufacturers in Australia and overseas have been reformulating their drinks and offering healthy alternatives and that a sugary drinks tax is not needed to make this happen.
Australia has reported major reductions in sugar consumption without a sugar tax. A 2017 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) report found that between 1995 and 2011-2012, the proportion of energy derived from sugar sweetened drinks (including juice) declined 10 percent in adult men and 20 percent in women. More marked changes were observed in children aged 2-18 years. According to ABS Director of Health, Louise Gates, much of this decline among children can be attributed to reduced consumption of soft drinks, cordial, and fruit juice.
Data from national grocery sales indicated that per capita added sugars from carbonated soft drinks fell 26 percent between 1997 and 2011 with similar trends for noncarbonated beverages. Critics note that this reduction in the consumption of sweetened drinks makes a tax unnecessary. Consumers are already making these choices without the pressure of a tax. It is not only in Australia that sugar consumption is declining without the incentive of a tax.
A 2023 study examine changes in sweetened drink consumption in six European countries that had introduced a sugar tax. They then compared the decline in consumption for these countries with results from neighbouring countries that had not introduced a tax. The study found that the countries with a soda tax did not experience larger declines in soda consumption than were found in the comparison countries which had not imposed a tax.
Similar findings have been made in the United States. A study released in October 2023 examined trends in sugar consumption from packaged foods and beverages purchased by US households between 2002 and 2020. It found that total sugar consumption decreased over the period. The study drew data from 52 metropolitan and 24 non-metropolitan markets. It did not indicate if any of these had a sugar tax. However, only nine United States cities have introduced these taxes, therefore, a tax is unlikely to have brought about most of this reduction. Opponents of a sugar tax in Australia also claim that it is unnecessary because manufacturers are already lowering the sugar content of drinks without a tax being in place. In 2018, Coca-Cola Europacific Partners, Asahi Lifestyle Beverages, Coca-Cola South Pacific, and Pepsi Co Australia and New Zealand committed to reducing sugar across their non-alcohol beverage ranges by 20 percent from 2015-2025. This is referred to as the Sugar Reduction Pledge.
On August 8, 2023, Cathy Cook, Head of Corporate Affairs for the Australian Beverages Council, stated, 'The non-alcoholic beverages industry is leading the way in supporting healthier consumer choices with initiatives like the nation's first Sugar Reduction Pledge and prioritising low-and-no sugar beverages across members' portfolios.' Geoff Parker, the Australian Beverages Council's Chief Executive Officer, stressed the progress that had been made toward the 20 percent reduction. He stated, 'As at end of 2022, an 18 percent reduction in sugar had already been achieved which means the Pledge is on track to achieve its goal.'Sugar reduction in sweetened drinks is also occurring in other countries. According to UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe, the European soft drink industry reduced average added sugars by 3.6 percent between 2019 and 2021.
An Austrian voluntary scheme which encourages manufacturers to gradually reduce the sugar content of sugar-sweetened beverages found a 10.4 percent sugar reduction in 2017 compared to 2010. These changes are largely coming from changes in consumer preferences. Consumers expect reformulations to be plant-based, sustainable, and natural. Therefore, sweeteners like honey and stevia, which are natural-product-based, are increasingly favoured. Companies worldwide (irrespective of whether their markets are sugar-taxed) are investigating alternative sweetening substances that will satisfy customers' desire for a healthy option. 4. Sugary drink taxes are socially regressive
Opponents of sugar taxes argue they are socially regressive. This means they have a much stronger impact on those with less income. The poor are particularly hard hit by socially regressive taxation.
A regressive tax is a uniform tax on goods or services that is the same dollar amount whatever the income of the person being taxed. This is unlike most forms of income tax which increase as the person earns more. Regressive taxes are often condemned as unjust because they have a greater impact on the poor. They are particularly criticised when applied to essentials such as food because the less well off are unable to avoid the tax even if they find it difficult to pay.
Many studies have shown that for a variety of reasons associated with social, educational, and economic background, poor people are higher consumers of cheap, low-quality, high-calorie foods than those from more fortunate backgrounds. This means they are likely to pay more of any sugar tax the government sets and be less able to afford to do so. Referring to the United States, the independent, public policy research group, Independent Institute, stated, 'Economic research shows that taxes on goods like soda hit poor people the hardest. As the National Center for Policy Analysis noted in 2009, low-income families spend more of their incomes on such taxed goods than higher income families do. This makes the efforts of health activists costliest for society's poorest. Such regressive taxation is abhorrent on both moral and practical grounds.'
Similar concerns were expressed in New Zealand as the country considered the introduction of a sugar tax. In a policy advice document presented to the New Zealand government in February 2017, Alasdair Gardiner, stated, 'New Zealand data is consistent with international evidence that a sugar tax is likely to be regressive. Low-income consumers spend a higher proportion of their income on the targeted food groups and so bear a relatively higher burden of the tax' Studies on the effect of taxing cigarettes in Australia have shown the negative psychological impact such taxes can have, especially on the poor. Like sugary drinks taxes, cigarette taxes are also regressive as they are a flat tax which takes no account of smokers' incomes. A 2016 study found that most of the investigation's subjects continued to smoke but had to take a range of difficult measures to be able to afford to do so. They reported 'feeling demeaned'.
Numerous commentators have criticised the injustice or inequity of sugar taxes. In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on April 11, 2018, Sarah Fessenden, Lecturer in Anthropology at the University of British Columbia, stated, 'When we tax sugar, we put the burden on people who are already burdened. All we are doing is continuing to make food more expensive. While chronic diseases related to sugar like heart disease, obesity and diabetes affect all of society, they disproportionately affect the poor. The sugar tax is another round of policies that "blame the victim" rather than uprooting the systems that cause these chronic diseases.' Fessenden argues hat governments should challenge the systems that make cheap, poor-quality food readily available and try to prioritise making good quality food more accessible to all.
Arguments about social inequality have been made by Australian soft drink manufacturers in opposition to a sugar tax in Australia. Australian Beverages Council CEO, Geoff Parker, has stated, 'Obesity is complex and while simplistic solutions like a tax might appear attractive in a university lab model, real-world experience shows these types of discriminatory taxes deliver no discernible public health benefit but only hit the poorest households the hardest.' In the same media release, dated August 8, 2023, the Council noted, 'Renewed calls for a sugar tax on non-alcoholic drinks will add a strain to family finances without providing a concrete, wholistic solution to a decades old problem.'
5. Sugary drink taxes are paternalistic and intrude into consumers' lives
Opponents of sugary drink taxes claim that governments assume people are unable to make their own diet and health decisions. Policies like this are described by their critics as 'paternalism' or 'nanny statism'. Both terms imply that the government and their advisers are treating the population as children, incapable of managing their own lives. When governments impose taxes on goods, they believe the population should avoid, these are sometimes described as 'sin taxes'. These taxes are condemned as undermining freedom of choice and personal responsibility.
Critics argue that government policies which try to direct how citizens will spend their money are disrespectful and an infringement of personal freedom. Bill Wirtz, in an article published in Figaro on September 11, 2017, wrote, 'France should choose the path of freedom. Adults can make informed choices about their own lives, and [even when not fully informed], they are still superior to the uninformed choice of a privileged minority of legislators.'
Wirtz, arguing against an extension of the French soda tax, claims that governments do not have the right to try to shape individual's choices in this way. Economists Michael Marlow and Sherzod Abdukadirovsb similarly write, 'The growing use of paternalism to justify government intervention in individual food and lifestyle choices is often misguided and... policies are too easily justified on the assumption that government officials are better informed than the individuals they seek to guide.' Opponents of these taxes claim they often show a class bias, favouring middle and upper classes over other groups. Matin Cullip, in a piece published in Spiked on July 7, 2023, stated, 'Nanny statists cloak these initiatives in the language of public health. They point out that excessive sugar consumption, alcohol abuse and smoking can lead to serious health problems, which is all true enough. But what is open to question is whether the sin taxes they impose are fair.'
Why these policies are seen as unfair is that they most affect the recreational habits and food choices of the least well off, who are the largest consumers of 'junk food'. The wealthier sections of the community can generally continue to access their preferred food and drinks. Cullip concludes that intrusive policies, such as the sugary drinks taxes, do not respect the rights of all citizens to exercise personal choice. He states, 'The main problem is that nanny statism is inherently elitist. Its proponents refuse to respect the personal choices and individual liberties of the least well-off.' Those who challenge sugary drink taxes also argue that the paternalistic approach will be unsuccessful. Critics of 'sin taxes' complain that consumers have not made a free, informed choice to avoid these drinks, they have been economically pressured to do so. Hannah Bettsworth, in an opinion piece published in Epicenter on March 22, 2019, stated, 'Healthy changes cannot be imposed from above. To encourage sustainable healthy behaviours, the person in question has to commit to them. Diets have very poor success rates in keeping weight off in the long term. In reality, the ideal path to maintaining weight loss is linked to - alongside healthier food and activity choices - self-sufficiency, autonomy, personal motivation and flexible control. Depriving ourselves of what we really love leads to failure. Sin taxes are based on that kind of counterproductive, good-and-evil thinking about food. Lifestyle changes are not easy to make. If you do not have the willpower or the desire to cut down on your soft drink consumption, a price increase will not stop you.'
Chris Snowdon, Director of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs, has argued that, instead of demanding taxes on particular foods, 'Health campaigners should... focus their energies on what matters - giving us the best available information about what constitutes a balanced diet and leaving individuals to make their own choice when it comes to what food to eat.'