NACCHO Aboriginal Health Debate : # A sugary drinks tax could recoup some of the costs of #obesity while preventing it

bjoyce

Personal responsibility, not the Australian Tax Office, should determine how much sugar Australians consume, says Barnaby Joyce. Often as not, Barnaby’s recovery program involves half a packet of Marlboros, which he calls bungers.

Barnaby was much agitated on Wednesday about the suggestion by the Grattan Institute that a tax on high-sugar fizzy drinks might go some way towards alleviating Australia’s obesity problem.

“This is one of the suggestions where right at the start we always thought was just bonkers mad,” he declared, adding his party would not be supporting a sugar tax.

This shouldn’t knock you cold with surprise. Barnaby is the leader of the Nationals. Name a sugar-growing area and you’ll find a Nationals or a Liberal National Party member at the local school fete knocking back a mug of raw sugar-cane juice and proclaiming it God’s food.

But Barnaby wasn’t simply stopping at political solidarity with his northern MPs.

He had some Barnaby-advice on how you might lose weight without taxing sugar.

“People are sitting on their backside too much, and eating too much food and not just soft drinks, eating too many chips and other food,” he lectured.

“Well, so the issue is take the responsibility upon yourself. The Australian Taxation Office is not going to save your health, right. Do not go to the ATO as opposed to go to your doctor or put on a pair of sandshoes and walk around the block and…go for a run.

The ATO is not a better solution than jumping in the pool and going for a swim.

The ATO is not a better solution than reducing your portion size.

“So get yourself a robust chair and a heavy table and halfway through the meal, put both hands on the table and just push back. That will help you lose weight.”

Barnaby Joyce, living miracle, offers a health plan : Pictured above David Gillespie Assistant Minister for Rural Health and Member for Lyne

Note 1: The Federal electorates of Lyne which takes in Taree and Port Macquarie has been identified at the Number One stroke ‘hotspot’ in Australia.Refer

Note 2 : The Minister is not to be confused with David Gillespie Author of How Much Sugar and Sweet Poison : Why Sugar makes us fat .

xsweet-poison_jpg_pagespeed_ic_k1m_7kl1yc

In the wake of the progress report on Closing the Gap, the Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion has declared sugary soft drinks are “killing the population” in remote Indigenous communities.

Key points:

  • Closing the Gap report found worst health outcomes found in remote communities
  • One remote community store drawing half of total profits from soft drink sales, Senator Scullion says
  • Senator Scullion says he thinks attitudes to soft drink are changing

According to evidence provided to Senate estimates today, at least 1.1 million litres of so-called “full sugar” soft drink was sold in remote community stores last financial year.

NACCHO Health News Alert : Scullion says sugary soft drinks ‘killing the population’ in remote Aboriginal communities

ob

Grattan Institute report

 ” Obesity is a major public health problem  In Australia more than one in four adults are now classified as obese, up from one in ten in the early 1980s.

And about 7% of children are obese, up from less than 2% in the 1980s.

The sugary drinks tax  revenue could be spent on obesity programs that benefit the disadvantaged, reducing the regressivity of the tax.

While the beverage and sugar industries are strongly opposed to any tax on sugar, their concerns are overblown.

A sugar-sweetened beverages tax will reduce domestic demand for Australian sugar by around 50,000 tonnes, which is only about 1% of all the sugar produced in Australia. And while there may be some transition costs, this sugar could instead be sold overseas (as 80% of Australia’s sugar production already is).

A tax on sugary drinks is a public health reform whose time has come.

The Conversation

A sugary drinks tax could recoup some of the costs of obesity while preventing it

In our new Grattan Institute report, A sugary drinks tax: recovering the community costs of obesity, we estimate community or “third party” costs of obesity were about A$5.3 billion in 2014/15.

Obesity not only affects an individual’s health and wellbeing, it imposes enormous costs on the community, through higher taxes to fund extra government spending on health and welfare and from forgone tax revenue because obese people are more likely to be unemployed.

In our new , A sugary drinks tax: recovering the community costs of obesity, we estimate community or “third party” costs of obesity were about A$5.3 billion in 2014/15.

We propose the government put a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to recoup some of the third-party costs of obesity and reduce obesity rates. Such a tax would ensure the producers and consumers of those drinks start paying closer to the full costs of this consumption – including costs that to date have been passed on to other taxpayers. There is the added benefit of raising revenue that could be spent on obesity-prevention programs.

The scope of our proposed tax is on non-alcoholic, water-based beverages with added sugar. This includes soft drinks, flavoured mineral waters, fruit drinks, energy drinks, flavoured waters and iced teas.

While a sugary drinks tax is not a “silver bullet” solution to the obesity epidemic (that requires numerous policies and behaviour changes at an individual and population-wide level), it would help.

Why focus on sugary drinks?

Sugar-sweetened beverages are high in sugar and most contain no valuable nutrients, unlike some other processed foods such as chocolate. Most Australians, especially younger people, consume too much sugar already.

People often drink excessive amounts of sugary drinks because the body does not send appropriate “full” signals from calories consumed in liquid form. Sugar-sweetened beverages can induce hunger, and soft drink consumption at a young age can create a life-long preference for sweet foods and drinks.

We estimate, based on US evidence, about 10% of Australia’s obesity problem is due to these sugar-filled drinks.

Many countries have implemented or announced the introduction of a sugar-sweetened beverages tax including the United Kingdom, France, South Africa and parts of the United States. The overseas experience is tax reduces consumption of sugary drinks, with people mainly switching to water or diet/low-sugar alternatives.

There is strong public support in Australia for a sugar-sweetened beverages tax if the funds raised are put towards obesity prevention programs, such as making healthier food cheaper. Public health authorities, including the World Health Organisation and the Australian Medical Association, as well as advocates such as the Obesity Policy Coalition, support the introduction of a sugar-sweetened beverages tax.

What the tax would look like

We advocate taxing the sugar contained within sugar-sweetened beverages, rather than levying a tax based on the price of these drinks, because: a sugar content tax encourages manufacturers to reduce the sugar content of their drinks, it encourages consumers to buy drinks with less sugar, each gram of sugar is taxed consistently, and it deters bulk buying.

The tax should be levied on manufacturers or importers of sugar-sweetened beverages, and overseas evidence suggests it will be passed on in full to consumers.

We estimate a tax of A$0.40 per 100 grams of sugar in sugary drinks, about A$0.80 for a two-litre bottle of soft drink, will raise about A$400-$500 million per year. This will reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages by about 15%, or about 10 litres per person on average. Recent Australian modelling suggests a tax could reduce obesity prevalence by about 2%.


Author provided/The Conversation, CC BY-ND

Low-income earners consume more sugar-sweetened beverages than the rest of the population, so they will on average pay slightly more tax. But the tax burden per person is small – and consumers can also easily avoid the tax by switching to drinks such as water or artificially sweetened beverages.

People on low incomes are generally more responsive to price rises and are therefore more likely to switch to non-taxed (and healthier) beverages, so the tax may be less regressive than predicted. Although a sugar-sweetened beverages tax may be regressive in monetary terms, the greatest health benefits will flow through to low-income people due to their greater reduction in consumption and higher current rates of obesity.

The revenue could also be spent on obesity programs that benefit the disadvantaged, reducing the regressivity of the tax.

While the beverage and sugar industries are strongly opposed to any tax on sugar, their concerns are overblown. Most of the artificially sweetened drinks and waters, which will not be subject to the tax, are owned by the major beverage companies.

A sugar-sweetened beverages tax will reduce domestic demand for Australian sugar by around 50,000 tonnes, which is only about 1% of all the sugar produced in Australia. And while there may be some transition costs, this sugar could instead be sold overseas (as 80% of Australia’s sugar production already is).

A tax on sugary drinks is a public health reform whose time has come.

NACCHO welcomes feedback/comment:Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s