Sir, – Jacky Jones writes in favour of a sugar tax (HEALTHPlus, October 25th). At first glance this initiative seems to be a simple, effective way of controlling our “obesity epidemic”. She states that many attempts have not worked because the tax has been “too low”. This is not the case, unfortunately a sugar tax simply will not work at reducing obesity (although it may reduce sugar consumption).
Taxing the input (in this case, sugar) is an inefficient way to reduce an output (obesity), as people switch from sugary snacks such as soft drinks to fatty snacks such as crisps. Or, as a study in the Journal of Public Economics suggests, people will cut down on exercise along with consumption of sugary food, paradoxically increasing obesity rates.
The only efficient way to reduce obesity via the tax code is to tax obesity (taking into account certain inherited predispositions). Naturally, this would be socially unacceptable. But it reinforces the point that there is no simple answer to tackling obesity, and that we should not put all our hopes into plans such as a sugar tax that simply will not work well enough to justify the cost.
What cost? At a time when the less well-off segments of society are being hit hardest, a sugar tax would be profoundly regressive. People on low-incomes spend a higher proportion of their income on so-called junk food, and healthy food often remains unaffordable. To burden this group of society with a tax that is unlikely to achieve any health benefit would be ill-advised.
I am all for public health initiatives to tackle our serious obesity problem, but more thought (and research) needs to be put into proposals so that this aim is achieved without unfairly targeting any one segment of society. – Yours, etc,