Sugary drinks tax could prevent decay and increase health equity: study
monash.edu
monash.edu
I suppose we'd see something similar on a broader scale w/ a reduction in subsidies, but in terms of knock on effects and scale they're not _too_ comparable (i.e. SSBs are a single product, corn in general goes into a lot of different products, etc)
2) What corn subsidies? We are talking about Australia. I am no expert in Australian economics, nor agricultural policy, but my understanding after a bit of searching is that they do not subsidize corn
https://farmers.org.au/blog/farm-subsidies-in-australia-the-...
You could argue that the US subsidy is effecting Australia through the global market. However, to the extent that this is relevent, Australia'a recourse would be a tarif on such products entering the market; at which point you might as well tax that which you want to discourage.
3) The problem is not high fructose corn syrup. It is sugar water. Granted, the exact composition of the sugar does have some effect. For a given amount of sugar, excess free fructose is probably worse for you than roughly equal proportions of fructose and glucose. Having said that, fructose tastes sweater for a given amount of sugar. So I'm not sure how it plays out in general.
Having said that, according to the FDA, HFCS is either 42% or 55% fructose, which is lower than I would expect. (Actually. HFCS-42 sounds like low fructose. Most natural food has a 50-50 split.).
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fruct...
Having said that, I did find fairly consistent reporting that sodas are closer to 60% fructose.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089990071...
"But I don't want to stop doing the bad thing!" That's fine! You can keep doing it. It just costs money now.
"But that's unfair!" Is it? The societal goal is to reduce the bad thing. We don't want to ban it outright, and some kind of regulatory framework sounds complicated and expensive. This is the easiest and cheapest (from the government's perspective) way of reducing the bad thing.
"People are going to just keep doing the bad thing anyway!" What an opportunity to raise the price! Sounds like extra money for roads, schools, and parks. Or maybe a chance to reduce reliance on other taxes.
The first is a classic —- if your tax base requires money made from a vice, you’ve got a stream of money which either requires that the vice continues to exist, or else a stream of money which you hope to lose in the in future.
The second is a bit more basic. Who gets to decide what he vices are?
I'm all for a sugar tax, but I am fully aware that drawing lines is going to be difficult, you should be too, and it seems like a weird problem to gloss over because it's clearly the big problem here. What do we do with artificial sweeteners? I'm sure there will be vocal contingents saying we obviously should/shouldn't sin tax them. What about LaCroix? Same. I think the answer is obviously shouldn't/shouldn't, but I know people who get shouty because their fad micronutrient of the month isn't aggressively marketed by the FDA. It is possible to go too far: I grew up in a house that omitted salt from its cooking to a degree that I would now say constitutes a food crime, even though I'd fully agree that most prepared food errs on the side of too much salt. In any case, I fully expect that unless we exercise extreme restraint on this road, it won't be very long at all before someone will try to twist my arm into a dietary choice that I consider gross, insane, and completely detached from evidence-based reality.
A prime example of a "health tax" such as this is the Scottish Nationalist Party's tax on alcohol - in a bid to increase health by putting a minimum pricing on alcoholic beverages.
The result? Nothing has changed, there is still the same amount of health problems in Scotland caused by alcohol.
Sugar taxes have also been proposed in the UK, and heavily combated.
It just will not work.
The best you can do is to highlight how bad sugar is to health in general, and hope it influences people to change their habits - I for one try to reduce my sugar intake whenever possible.
> The result? Nothing has changed, there is still the same amount of health problems in Scotland caused by alcohol.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/21/scotlands-mi...
"Scotland’s minimum pricing linked to 13% drop in alcohol-related deaths, study finds Experts say research provides clear evidence minimum unit pricing has reduced harm caused by alcohol
Scotland’s pioneering policy of minimum pricing for alcohol has been linked to a 13% drop in the number of deaths from alcohol consumption, and hundreds fewer hospitalisations, according to a study.
The research was observational, so cannot prove conclusively that the significant fall in deaths was due to the minimum unit pricing policy.
However, experts said the study provided the clearest signal to date that the policy had reduced the harm caused by alcohol in Scotland, and added to a large and consistent evidence base on the effectiveness of alcohol pricing action."
"The study found that, since MUP was introduced in May 2018, there has been no change in the proportion of harmful drinkers. A small drop of 3.2 units per week in their consumption was “not robust” and disappeared when adjusted for the introduction of Universal Credit, which changed the regularity of benefit payments."
"Results: There was no significant change in the proportion of drinkers consuming at harmful levels (β = +0.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.1, +2.3) or moderate levels (β = +1.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval = −1.1, +3.8) after the introduction of MUP. The proportion consuming at hazardous levels fell significantly by 3.5 percentage points (95% CI = −5.4, −1.7). There were no significant changes in other secondary outcomes or in the subgroup analyses after correction for multiple testing.
Conclusions: Introducing MUP in Scotland was not associated with reductions in the proportion of drinkers consuming at harmful levels but did reduce the prevalence of hazardous drinking. This adds to previous evidence that MUP reduced overall alcohol consumption in Scotland and consumption among those drinking above moderate levels."
The study above also comments that the previous study (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...) is the "most direct evidence on the public health impact of MUP to date":
"Further research that would strengthen understanding of the impact of MUP on people drinking at harmful levels include studies of alcohol-related harm. Such analyses have recently been published, showing a 13.4% reduction in alcohol-attributable deaths and a 4.1% reduction in alcohol-attributable hospitalisations in Scotland. This provides the most direct evidence on the public health impact of MUP to date."
We've been trying that for years and it's clearly not working. Obesity, diabetes, pre-diabetes, heart disease, diseases of chronic inflammation, etc are all at epidemic levels.
Humans aren't perfect automatons that will make perfect choices if given information. We develop addictions, we prioritize the short-term over the long-term, we get tired and choose what's easy and available.
We should align incentives to better outcomes. We restrict alcohol and nicotine and opioids. Taking steps to reduce the societal harm of sugar is a good thing for society.
And yet, somehow, they will rationally conclude the best financial course to take is to realign to making healthier choices instead of switching to dollar-store sodas or making their own sugary drinks.
Seriously, fuck that nonsense. If I choose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, that' should be my choice - not to be dictated to by "those who know better". Note that I personally choose to minimise the amount of sugar I take. I may also even tut-tut at those whom choose to take all the sugar they want - but what I won't do is waggle fingers at them, nor do I want to utilise taxation - a very, very overused excuse by govts. to rake in more dosh - to discourage people from what "those who know better" want them to be like.
No. real solutions lie in getting manufacturers to reduce sugar and especially HFCS as ingredients in their products. Quite possibly not much can be done about cakes and confectionary in terms of sugar, but there sure is an awful lot of sugar in a lot of other food products.
I absolutely despise authoritarians, everywhere.
Abstract: "The[] findings suggest that SSB [sugar-sweetened beverage] taxes may work as intended in reducing demand for SSBs through higher prices, yet further research is needed to understand their associations with diet and health outcomes and heterogeneity of consumer responses."
I am ready to believe that drinking less SSB has a positive impact on my health. Looking forward to solid results proving or disproving that.
"further research is needed"
https://today.uic.edu/research-reveals-new-evidence-that-sug...
Something being fought by lobbyists seems like a sign it might be a good idea rather than the other way around.
Actually, no.
The price of alcoholic drinks that you and I would buy hasn't changed a bit. Pub prices haven't changed, because they weren't affected by this law. Retail prices in supermarkets haven't changed a bit. Well, that's not quite true, they've gone up but only at the same rate as everything else.
Pikey cider and various "vodka-style spirit drinks" made from food-grade industrial ethanol and synthetic flavourings have pretty much disappeared from sale. Before Minimum Unit Pricing - which sets the minimum price that retail outlets can sell alcoholic drinks at to 50p per unit of alcohol - it was possible to buy a 3 litre bottle of 8% "cider flavour alcoholic drink" for about three quid. That's essentially been priced out of the market, because no-one wants to pay nearly a tenner for a bottle of windscreen washer fluid without the detergent in.
MUP has not affected the price of "normal" drinks, because let's face it, £1 minimum for a can of beer or £5 for a bottle of wine is already on the cheap end of things.
Since MUP came in, deaths from alcohol-related illness has dropped by about 15%, and in the first year alone alcohol-related deaths (that's illness, accidents, fires, misadventure, etc) dropped by 10%.
More people with alcohol problems are seeking help. Fewer young people - the people who the pound-a-litre pikey cider is marketed to - are drinking underage, and those who are, are drinking less.
While there were fanciful tales in the newspapers that alcoholic drinks would be so expensive in Scotland that people would drive to England to load up with cheaper booze and drive back with it, it turns out that no-one really cares that much. Anyone who has the resources for the "booze cruises" that the trashy tabloids describe probably isn't buying anything affected by Minimum Unit Pricing anyway.
In general, MUP has been a resounding success. It's worked so well that Ireland are now doing it too.
- Sugary drinks tax could reduce diversity in health outcomes: study.
- Sugary drinks tax could boost diversity in healthier lifestyles: study.
Or perhaps a more stodgy, economical way of thinking:
- Sugary drinks tax could incentivize participation in health initiatives: study.
Or perhaps an article shared on facebook:
- BOOM! SUGARY DRINKS TAX PUTS COUNTRY BACK ON TRACK!
Equality: Equal opportunity, everyone treated the same
Equity: Equal outcomes, people treated differently in order to achieve equity
The only way you get equity is through extreme top down authoritarian control and force. Think about what you'd have to do to enforce equity with one's own relatives, or even brothers and sisters, let alone society wide.
I've always thought that these kinds of "vice taxes" shouldn't go into the general fund. They should go toward things that are related to helping the cause. In this case, the funds could go into awareness programs, subsidies for healthy foods, etc.
https://efficiencyiseverything.com/food-nutrition-per-dollar...
I suppose the counter to that is that you could drink oil, but that is a bit unrealistic.
Something to consider is that not all fresh foods are equal. Lettuce is way healthier and cheaper than imported raspberries that need to be basically overnighted to maintain freshness.
Seems like eating healthy is an education problem. Although even as myself, who I consider educated in the manner, I find myself overeating healthy foods out of hedonism and putting on weight.
You can get around this. I've personally spent years of my life eating just rice and beans with a bag of frozen vegetables. You can get a really low priced rice cooker ($20-30) that you can spend <1 minute setting up (it'll steam the veggies while it cooks the rice) and then let it run while you're in the shower or doing something else. In the end you get a reasonably health albeit bland meal with less time spent prepping than actually eating. I get why it starts to make sense to just grab a $5 burrito at taco bell as a meal when you're rushing to your second job though.
The comments suggesting people would just decide to have fewer sugary drinks to save money seem to be forgetting how humans act when something they like is made less available. It will be a wake-up call to exactly no one. Cheaper brand-X sodas would fill the void left by more expensive ones, enterprising individuals might even make their own sodas or switch to lemonade, etc. The perceived scarcity might even lead more people who don't normally drink soda to start.
I'd think that incentivizing the proliferation of taste-alike low/no-sugar sodas would have a much better outcome anyways. Tax credits to businesses that adequately serve and promote low-sugar sodas could be a good start.
There's also the complication that the excise taxes become a recurring source of revenue, causing a new addiction.
Just like all the "Master Settlement Agreements" with Big Tobacco.
It doesn't work. Half of my neighbors sit outside and constantly smoke, regardless of the danger, regardless of the constant warnings, regardless of the tremendous expense via taxes.
And the tax never makes it back into healthcare, it's abused by politicians.
You want to end bad self-destructive behavior? Give people an education and motivation into giving a damn about their own bodies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8565856/
And in relation to sugary drinks
I'm defending the need for a nanny-like actor, under public oversight, and with opposite financial incentives to reduce healthcare expenditure by improving public health.
Surely, those subsidies shape behavior just as much as a tax shapes behavior.
Sin taxes are a tricky thing!
It’s not like there are mustache-twirling villains coming up with ways to punch down even harder here. Diets high in sugar are more likely to lead to painful and even dangerous oral health issues, pancreatic/kidney/liver issues, diabetes, and obesity with all of its knock on effects.
It only has a negative effect for people who will never reduce the sugar in their diet, and those are the people who should be paying into socialized healthcare at a higher rate because they’ll need lots of benefits later. So really they’re saving to take care of themselves, making this a net positive long term.
I know it’s harder than “just stop eating sugar” but feelings or preferences don’t change the facts of biochemistry. Until you can disprove the findings, the policy should reflect the state of the science.
And by all means find more/better ways to incentivize or even subsidize healthier options for those on the low end of the socioeconomic ladder. That is absolutely one of the things taxes like this should fund.
Edited because it did not convey my actual feelings on the topic, just a heated rant I corrected
> Edited because it did not convey my actual feelings on the topic, just a heated rant I corrected
I don't know what this looked like before the edit, but it's still just a heated rant.
Taxation is equivalent to theft and corporate destruction.
Do you really want to be the person who destroys a corporation just so some kid doesn't get dental caries?
Are you going to be the person to put the gun to Coke's head and pull the trigger?
What about all of Coke's subsidiaries?
Where does it end?
Would you tax millionaires? Just because they make more money than average?
Is this post parody?