Research Shows Tax on Fizzy Drinks Does Lead to a Reduction in Consumption

27 March 2014 --- Studies suggest that a 10% price increase for ‘unhealthy’ beverages (sugar-sweetened drinks including energy drinks, sports drinks and other beverages with added sugars), does lead to a decrease in consumption by 8 to 10%, according to leading nutritional scientist and chair of the American Heart Association’s Nutrition Committee, Rachel Johnson.

Speaking to FoodIngredientsFirst, Johnson said: “Communities can help make healthy beverages more appealing and affordable than unhealthy ones. In the United States, we have estimated that a penny-per-ounce tax on 20-ounce bottles of sugary drinks could bring in $13.2bn in tax revenue for obesity prevention nationally.”

Johnson explained that in her home state of Vermont, she has been working to help pass a sugar-sweetened beverage tax for the past three years. “Sugar sweetened beverages are the number one source of calories in teens’ diets, and children aged eight to ten drink an average of nine sugar-sweetened beverages a week.”

She also pointed out that making the switch from unhealthy drinks to healthy drinks cuts calories that children don’t need. “Sugar sweetened beverages have no nutritional value except calories and thus add nothing of value to the diet. For Americans, our epidemic of childhood obesity means this is the first generation of children who won’t live as long as their parents because of the link between overweight and obesity and chronic diseases such as heart disease. I want to help turn this around - we owe it to our children. Our ‘Voices for Healthy Kids’ initiative is going to make a different by working to change policy around issues that impact childhood obesity.”

The news comes in the same week that the French Parliament is said to be working to push through a ‘fast-food’ tax on products that cause cardiovascular diseases. The tax, which is similar to steps taken by other European countries, focuses specifically on soft drinks, which currently benefit from low taxes.

The new junk-food tax was presented by the French Senate in Parliament on 19 March. The report, ‘Taxation and public health: evaluation of behavioural taxation’, is designed to evaluate a behavioural tax to counter poor dietary habits, which could compensate for the public health costs associated with the consumption of junk food.

It follows recent reports that obesity is on the rise in Europe. While 16% of France’s population is obese (according to a survey in France last year by polling institution Opinion Way), 52% of Europeans in general are overweight or obese. This represents half of all adults and one in three children. Other nations are also working to tackle obesity. Mexico is one country which has established a taxation of soft drinks, while the Philippines is considering this move.

The French report will be presented to the Minister of Health, Marisol Touraine, at the beginning of April. In the summer of 2015, the Council of Ministers will present a public health legislation in response to the report.

The report underlines that “if the consumption of tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy food is deemed high risk in relation to public health, then they are synonymous to considerable costs to society. Behavioural taxation could therefore be envisaged as a way to reduce costs and generate the funds necessary to offset their negative externalities.”

The report calls for harmonised taxes on vegetable oils, and to apply a 20% tax on soft drinks, with a view to limiting the risks of cardiovascular diseases and the risk of cardiovascular events, in particular.

According to the report, “Behavioural taxation aims to reduce the consumption of drinks known to cause serious cardiac accidents in genetically predisposed consumers, notably by implementing a tax on energy drinks.”

The senators who led the report, Yves Daudigny (socialist) and Catherine Deroche (UMP), encourage talk of “contribution to public health” and not the frequently used term “behavioural taxation”.

“The term behavioural taxation has a moralistic nature and makes the citizen feel guilty. Our objective is to say that certain products are unhealthy. The fact that these products are subject to a tax which contributes to public health, seems completely coherent”, said Senator Catherine Deroche.

By Sonya Hook