Should NZ copy the UK sugar tax? - Expert reaction

Should NZ copy the UK sugar tax?
- Expert reaction

17 March 2016

New comments below

The UK have announced plans to introduce a tax on sugary drinks. Should New Zealand follow suit?

In the newly announced 2016 Budget, the UK Government outlines plans to “introduce a new soft drinks industry levy to help tackle childhood obesity, by incentivising companies to reduce the sugar in the drinks they sell, to fund a doubling of the primary schools sports premium to £320 million per year from September 2017.”

The Science Media Centre collected the following expert commentary.

Dr Gerhard Sundborn, Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, comments:

"We (health professionals/researchers and FIZZ organisation (public health advocacy group)) see this move as very positive and think it will make the possibility of a similar tax being introduced far more likely here in NZ.

"It is great to see the UK government being bold and showing strong leadership. It signals that Obesity as an issue in the UK is being taken seriously by addressing it with meaningful policy.

"We hope this will encourage our government to follow suit."

Dr Sundborn is founder of FIZZ New Zealand Inc (Fighting Sugar in Soft-drinks), a public Health Advocacy Group.

Dr Stefanie Vandevijvere, Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, comments:

“The UK announced a sugary drink tax today, specifically to improve children’s health. This is a bold move and might even prove to be a tipping point to get more similar actions happening internationally. I hope New Zealand follows suit.”

Prof Tony Blakely, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, comments:

"The UK has just announced a tax on sugary soft drinks. This is an important moment in public health policy. It recognizes that we have transitioned to a world where obesity is a major public health threat, and that society needs to take collective action to alter our direction of travel. The tax will lower sugary drink consumption, not only through a ‘signal’ to consumer pockets, but also by changing industry behaviour.

"In New Zealand, we still take a lot of our lead in policy from the ‘mother country’. Will New Zealand politicians have the courage and foresight to take policy steps on taxing sugary soft drinks? It is all well and good to promote individual choice and responsibility – this matters. But so does ‘resetting’ the food landscape to be healthier. Coleman and English – what say you?"

Dr Simon Thornley, Epidemiologist at Auckland Regional Public Health Service, comments:

"Great news! In my view, sugar needs to be treated like tobacco with progressive tax increases. The situation in NZ is very similar to the UK with high levels of childhood and adult obesity. As well as limiting weight gain, this tax is likely to lead to major savings on children's dental health.

"New Zealand should definitely follow suit!"

Here is what researchers in the UK told the UK Science Media Centre:

Prof Tom Sanders, Professor emeritus of Nutrition and Dietetics, King’s College London, said:

“The use of the sugar tax to support sport in schools is welcome. Whether it will have any impact on sugar intake is uncertain.”

Dr Nita Forouhi, Programme Leader, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, said:

“I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement as our research has contributed to the body of evidence on the adverse health effects of sugary drinks. But the devil is in the detail. More information will be needed to understand if or how the levy of a tax targeted at producers and importers will impact on consumer behaviour.

“While it is a step in the right direction, we must not lose sight of the fact that a levy is one element of a broader strategy that is necessary to tackle obesity.”

Dr Amelia Lake, Lecturer in Knowledge Exchange in Public Health, Durham University, said:

“I welcome this – it’s one piece of the multiple approaches that are needed to help address a complex problem like obesity. It’s not the whole solution but it’s important.

“However, measures like this need to be evaluated to see whether this tax on producers rather than consumers impacts consumer intake.

“Voluntary systems like the Public health responsibility deal could only have gone so far. This next step is very welcome!”

Prof Susan Jebb, Professor of Diet and Population Health, University of Oxford, said:

“The Budget announcement of a soft drinks industry levy is welcome news. It recognises that further action is needed to prevent obesity and that fiscal measures can be used to change the nations’ diet. But, this is not the simpler sales tax advocated by public health groups or used in places like Mexico where a 10% tax led to a 6-12% reduction in sales of sugar sweetened drinks. Further analysis is needed to understand how this levy might operate and the changes in diet that might be expected to occur.

“The intention is that by taxing companies there will be an incentive for them to reduce the amount of sugar in drinks by reformulation (changing the recipe) or reducing portion size. But the government has left industry to decide how to handle this new levy. Changing their products is costly, and business may decide to just take the tax, or put up the costs of all its products to offset the tax.

“Increasing prices of soft drinks across the board would be expected to lead to a small decrease in consumption, but ideally this levy needs to result in a clear price difference in the shops between drinks containing added sugar and those without. In this situation there is a clear price advantage for customers to switch to a no-sugar option. This switch would bring much greater benefits than reformulation. For example, a 30% reduction in sugar in a regular can of a sugary drink through reformulation or a decrease in portion size may reduce the energy content by about 40kcal. But switching to a no-sugar drink would save more than three times this amount.

“In the wake of the postponement of the childhood obesity strategy this levy is a useful down-payment, but it must be the start and not the end of a raft of new policies to prevent and treat obesity.”

ends

© Scoop Media