When the terms disease or health problems In light of rising obesity rates, increasing health problems, and the evident general abuse of sugar by the American populous, the federal government ought to levy a sugar tax on commercial produced goods.
Sugar sweetened beverages are implicated in the problem with obesity and related diseases and therefore should be taxed to reduce consumption and sales. The sugars in sweetened drinks are especially problematic as they contribute less to the feeling of fullness, thus making it easier to consume additional calories and sugars Based on the concept of taxes alone, it is evident that taxation on a specific product will aide in reducing consumption (Haspel). According to the University of Cambridge, 8,000 cases of type II2 diabetes a year were linked to sugary drinks consumption and the British Medical Association reported that a tax on sugar would combat escalating rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes (Diabetes.co.uk). Numerous states, countries, and governments have already begun introducing taxes on sugary beverages as of 2017. However, opposition to these ideologies still stand strong in America, with regions like Santa Fe and Cook County in the US still rejecting the idea (Wan, Watson, and Arthur). For the majority of countries that have enacted these sugar taxes, the implementation techniques have been similar to and modeled after tobacco taxes. According to economist Robert H. Frank, tobacco taxes have been largely successful in reducing smoking and improving public health. Furthermore, he adds that tobacco taxes are not high enough and that taxes on sugar in soda could be more effective if they were higher and more widespread (Leonhardt). Most taxation rates are based on a flat fee tax on drinks and foods with a high level of sugar content. This direct method has been used in countries like Mexico, where the tax places one peso a liter on all sweetened beverages (SSB) and an 8% tax on foods high in sugar and has already seen a 6% reduction in sugary drink sales in the first year (“The 2018 UK Sugar Tax”). Many countries like Chile, Barbados, Mauritius, and Belgium and regions like Berkeley, California in the US have followed this precedent and introduced similar tax plans (Thornton). The first US sugar tax in Berkeley, California cut soft drink consumption by 21% and increased the water consumption by 63% (Lee). In the United Kingdom the system is more indirect and is based on a amount of money per liter on drinks that contain a certain amount of sugar. Drinks with more than 5 grams per every 100 ml are taxed 23 cents USD per liter, and drinks with more than 8 grams of sugar per every 100 ml are taxed 31 cents USD per liter. Through this, the UK plans to incentivise sugar reduction as manufacturers have an option of lower sugar content to avoid this tax and according to the UK Treasury, over 50% of soft drinks manufacturers have already reduced sugar levels (Hawkes). A UK study further suggested that a 40% “gradual reduction in sugar content” in sugary beverages over five years would reduced the number of obese adults by around half a million and prevent new cases of type II2 diabetes by approximately 300,000 (Thornton).
In addition to the facts that a sugar tax limits the consumption of sugary soft drinks, the revenue that is gathered from this tax can be reinvested into furthering health care efforts. Nancy Brown, the CEO of the American Heart Association stated that “the revenues from the tax is being invested in health and wellness across the city”, and this is evident in many countries (Boseley). In the UK, where all revenue from the tax is to be utilized in generating grants for investment in children’s exercise and healthy eating (Nature.com). In Canada, its nationwide sugar tax will save 13,000 lives over the next 25 years and contribute 8.6 billion USD in health care savings according to numerous health organizations such as The Childhood Obesity Foundation, Diabetes Canada, and Heart & Stroke (Wan, Watson, and Arthur). In Portugal, the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages will raise approximately 90.45 million USD in its first year. It is clear that such a tax is beneficial to not only make up for the shocking heath costs produced by obesity related problems, but also provide additional funds for investment opportunities and further health programs.
Although it may be apparent that these sugar taxes have a significant impact on the sales and consumption of sugary beverages, opponents to this policy argue that these sugar taxes still do not accomplish what they are meant to; to reduce obesity rates and promote health through curbing consumption. Although consumption of sugary beverages in the United States has been dropping since 2000, obesity rates have held steady and until 2010, diabetes levels have been increasing and leveling off in 2011. In 2013, two reviews on the statistics and data on the effectiveness of a sugar taxation policy concluded that “the effectiveness of a taxation policy to curb obesity is doubtful.” The multifactorial nature of type 2 diabetes makes the correlation between sugary drinks and obesity complicated (Hapsel). Christopher Snowdon, head of Lifestyle Economics, Institute of Economic Affairs states that “The costs are significant while the benefits are wholly unproven” in reference to taxes on soft drinks. Further, the World Health Organization holds no concrete evidence in proving their assumption that taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages “may contribute to a reduction in overweight and obesity” (Sarantis).
Another opposition to sugar taxation is that the policy is unfairly implemented against the sugary beverage industry. Perhaps, this is true as lawmakers find it simpler to focus on sugary drinks as they are easier to define and thus tax. There is a rather simple solution to overcome these issues. A more holistic and encompassing policy must be enacted. The taxation of sugar should be targeted at where the manufacturing or importing occurs, along the supply chain. Ingredients that not only include sugar, but also fruit juice concentrate or high-fructose corn syrup can be taxed and therefore, all products with these added levels of sugar content may be taxed. As Helen Jensen, a professor of economics at Iowa State University puts it, “An economist wants to place the tax as close to what you want to reduce as possible” (Haspel). By enforcing a more widespread taxation policy, more sugar consumption can be reduced beyond simply sugary beverages, which lead to lowered obesity rates. This method also helps counter the argument that inconsistencies exist in different policies across different jurisdictions (Wan, Watson, and Arthur). Other arguments also exist stating that this tax will predominantly hurt the poor economically by increasing grocery bills and lower incomes (Reuters). However, a study by Barry Popkin of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Lynn Silver from the Public Health Institute found that the average grocery bills in Berkeley, California, remained the same after the tax policy was put in place. Popkin and Silver both suggest that consumers are “shifting away from sugary drinks to healthier ones”, which may remove the possible economic hardship as the spending did not change (Boseley).
The path to a sugar tax implementation is not straightforward or simple. Although many countries and several states in the US have enacted sugar tax policies, more widespread and stronger policies should be adopted. It is clear that sugar consumption through sugary beverages have a clear causation to obesity rates and diseases related to such. To help curb this consumption, it has been found that taxes do work and should be enforced more strictly to see a greater correlation in reducing obesity rates. It is the state and governments’ responsibility to regulate and manage public and social health. With noncommunicable diseases now causing more deaths than communicable diseases, it is important that the government implement plans that have shown signs of success and effectiveness to combat these public health issues, specifically with obesity and the abusive consumption of sugar.