Why discriminatory taxes don't work
Soft drinks contribute less than 3% of calories to the daily diet of the average European. If governments wish to improve the health of populations they need to take a holistic approach and work with public health authorities, schools, employers, civil society and other stakeholders to change attitudes and behaviour.
So-called ‘Fat taxes’ on soft drinks don’t reduce obesity rates for two key reasons:
Soft drinks are not responsible for obesity
The causes of obesity are multi-factoral
Where taxes have been imposed there has been no impact on obesity
Taxation – a health measure or a revenue raiser?
Soft drinks are not responsible for obesity
- Independent statistics from Canadean show that soft drinks contribute less than 3% of calories to the average daily diet in Europe.
- No and low-calorie versions now account for up to 30% of total non-alcoholic beverage sales in many European markets.
- Full sugar soft drinks contain carbohydrate, which has 4 calories per gramme whereas fat contains approximately 9 calories per gramme
- A paper published in the Nutrition Research Reviews in December 2008 by Dr Sigrid Gibson, who undertook a review and meta-analysis of studies into the role played by sugar-containing drinks in overweight and obesity, concluded that the strength of the relationship is near zero.
- An article by D Allison & R Mattes 'Nutritively Sweetened Beverage Consumption and Obesity: The Need for Solid Evidence on a Fluid Issue' recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes that '... the evidence establishing a causal relationship between NSB [nutritively sweetened beverage] consumption and obesity is imperfect'...
Top of the pageThe causes of obesity are multi-factoral
- Experts from the World Health Organisation to the European Commission acknowledge that rising obesity levels are due to a range of factors:
- Modern lifestyles which expend less energy than those of our counterparts in the 1970s – more cars, less walking, labour saving household appliances, more sedentary employment, more sedentary leisure time.
- Physical exercise has reduced in the past 30 years – including in children, who spend less time outside, exploring – and more time inside and under supervision
- Bad diets. There are no bad foods as humans need a balance of nutrients to stay healthy – fats, sugars, proteins, fibre etc. However, there are bad diets where certain nutrients are over-consumed and others eaten in insufficient quantities.
- Lack of nutrition knowledge. Education in optimal nutrition is key to ensure that people know how to feed themselves and their families.
- To tackle obesity successfully needs a coordinated, multi-stakeholder approach working with governments, industry, the healthcare community and civil society to change behaviour, educate and promote better health.
- There is a solid body of evidence proving that fat taxes do not have any impact on reducing rates of overweight or obesity:
- Could targeted food taxes improve health ? Oliver Mytton, Alastair Gray, Mike Rayner, Harry Rutter - J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007;61;689-69) The study finds that taxation would lower fruit and vegetable consumption, increase average food expenses for all citizens, and lead to an average increase in cholesterol rates. It concludes that food "reformulation" would be more efficient
- Imposition of fat taxes in markets to date has not made a difference (The Canadian obesity epidemic, 1985–1998 - Peter T. Katzmarzyk)
Where taxes have been imposed there has been no impact on obesity
- Imposition of fat taxes in markets to date has not made a difference (The Canadian obesity epidemic, 1985–1998 - Peter T. Katzmarzyk)
- Studies demonstrate that tax would have no impact on obesity related diseases. Could targeted food taxes improve health? Oliver Mytton, Alastair Gray, Mike Rayner, Harry Rutter - J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007;61;689-69) The study finds that taxation would lower fruit and vegetable consumption, increase average food expenses for all citizens, and lead to an average increase in cholesterol rates. It concludes that food "reformulation" would be more efficient
- Taxing soft drinks is a regressive tax. Raising taxes on food and drink places a disproportionate burden on the less well-off members of society as food and drink represents a greater percentage of their monthly outgoings.
Taxation – a health measure or a revenue raiser?
- Governments need to be open as to why they are taxing soft drinks. If they need to raise more revenue, as has been the case in some instances and product taxation is inevitable, then why should they do so by singling out individual products when a flat tax across the whole of the food and drink industry would be less discriminatory.
- The European non-alcoholic drinks industry has a turnover of 150billion, employs over 100,000 people and operates over 1000 production plants. Governments need to evaluate the wider potential impact on jobs, the economy and communities when considering discriminatory taxation.
The soft drinks industry in Europe has taken significant action to ensure that it behaves responsibly.
The European soft drinks industry has taken action in four key areas, mirroring WHO strategy:
- product innovation and reformulation to offer a wide variety and choice of no-and low-calorie drinks – these now account for some 30% of carbonates sales across Europe;
- no advertising to children under 12 on TV, in print or online.
- no sales in primary schools across Europe, and sales in secondary schools to offer a full range of drinks options in unbranded machines;
- Guideline Daily Amount labelling across branded products in order that customers can make informed choices about the products they buy for themselves and their families.
UNESDA, representing the European Soft Drinks Industry, is one of just four organisations to be named and praised by the EU Commissioner for Health for its actions to address obesity and healthy lifestyles.
