PUBLIC HEALTH
Sugar Tax and Its Efectiveness The Sugar Tax has been used by some European countries to reduce sugar consumption, has it really worked?
Asad Ali, UK £6.1 billion (3) for treating obesity related diseases, and such there is a huge financial implication to the taxpayer which should be reduced. In addition to obesity, sugar is a risk factor for dental caries which cost the NHS £3.4 billion in 2014/2015 with an estimated additional £2.3 billion cost to the private sector. Although, this cost is less than the cost of treating obesity related diseases, one must consider that on average each child lost 3 days of schooling due to caries, 2/3rds of children had pain in their teeth and 38% of children had sleepless nights due to the pain. This social cost must be factored in and the effect dental caries has on people’s lives is stark.
Has it worked?
The image has been used with the approval from the Tax Fountation.
F
ew with a sweet tooth would be thrilled at the prospect of paying more for their sugary drinks. However, according to the Tax Foundation the countries shown in figure 1 have imposed the sugar tax to reduce sugar consumption. Since its introduction, it has not been without significant controversy, and begs the question from businesses, politicians and public health officials: does the sugar tax really work? The tax is imposed to companies that produce a drink with added sugar above a certain threshold which varies
10 | EDSA Magazine
per country. By increasing the cost of production for companies, this increases the cost to the consumer, thus reducing demand and consumption. Sugar is a risk factor for numerous diseases such as obesity, cancer and caries. By lessening the consumption of one risk factor, multiple diseases are reduced known as the ‘common risk factor approach’. This holistic approach to health care is one which reduces the cost of treating obesity via prevention. In 2014/2015 the UK’s national health service (NHS) paid
Having introduced this tax many are questioning whether it has actually achieved its goals in reducing sugar consumption. According to a meta-analysis in 2019, a 20% increase in price showed an average 20% decrease in consumption thus preventing obesity and diabetes. This is a substantial decrease and should be considered to be a major success of the tax. Further evidence by Public Health England shows drinks which are not subject to the sugar tax (have less than 5g per ml) were purchased more than those which were subject to the tax as shown in figure 3, showing that consumers were picking drinks which are lower in price, therefore lower in sugar. Research from PHE showed that across socioeconomic groups total sugar consumption per 100ml had decreased between the baseline 2015 and 2017, once the tax had been imposed. However, the effect is lessened in the poorest group with only a 7% decrease in total sugar. This maybe due to the 22% increase in
