Researchers say that if a 20% tax was slapped onto all sugary drinks
then this would help to bring down the total number of obese adults in
the UK by an estimated 180,000.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, the researchers from
Oxford and Reading argue that the 20% tax on Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Fanta and
other sugar-sweetened drinks, would help to curb the worrying rise in
sales of such drinks which they say is merely adding fuel to the fire of
the nation’s obesity crisis.
The authors of the paper have spent time
to calculate both the financial impact of introducing a 20% tax, and how
much effect it could have in regards to trying to curtail the problem
of obesity.
Dr Adam Briggs, lead study author from the Nuffield Department of
Population Health at Oxford University, said their research has shown
that taxing sugar-sweetened drinks “is a promising population measure”.
He commented: “Sugar-sweetened drinks are known to be bad for health
and our research indicates that a 20% tax could result in a meaningful
reduction in the number of obese adults in the UK. Such a tax is not
going to solve obesity by itself, but we have shown it could be an
effective public health measure and should be considered alongside other
measures to tackle obesity in the UK.”
Dr Briggs and colleagues modelled the health effects of a 20% by
using the information extracted from several separate surveys. These
surveys had provided data on the trends of drink purchases, drinks
consumption, and the prevalence of obesity throughout the UK.
They calculated that a 20% tax would equate to a 60p can of 330ml
Coca-Cola now costing 72p, and help to cut the number of overweight
adults in the UK by 0.9% (285,000 adults) and reduce the number of obese
adults by 1.3% (180,000) adults. The tax would also result in roughly
40p being added to the cost of two-litre bottle.
The age group most effected would likely be those aged 16 to 29 the
researchers say, as these typically consume a lot more sugary drinks in
comparison to other age groups.
Because it is merely the over 30s who would be impacted by the
introduction of the tax, this has led to some groups arguing that the
tax would be misguided and simplistic, not having much of an impact on
older people who could actually benefit most from losing weight.
Gavin Partington, director general of the British Soft Drinks
Association, argued that soft drinks should not be blamed for Britain’s
obesity problems.
He said: “There’s ample evidence to suggest that taxing soft drinks
won’t curb obesity, not least because its causes are far more complex
than this simplistic approach implies. Indeed, the latest official
guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
points to the need to look at overall diet and lifestyle. Trying to
blame one set of products is misguided, particularly when they comprise a
mere 2% of calories in the average diet.”
In addition, Tom Sanders, professor of nutrition and dietetics at
King’s College London, argued that the findings of the study were
somewhat “naive”.
He said: “Most nutritionists agree it would be better to drink water
than sugar-sweetened beverages. However, many consumers like sweet
drinks and if they could not afford to buy sugary fizzy drinks they can
always revert to drinking tea with added sugar as in the past. The cost
of sugar-sweetened beverages is currently so low that any price increase
would be so marginal that it would be unlikely to affect intake.”
However, the facts do not lie when it comes to fizzy drinks and the
fact remains that a typical sugary drink still contains a shocking six
to 15 teaspoons of sugary. Just one teaspoon of sugary works out at
around 16 calories and 4g of sugar. On top of this, a regular
consumption of the drinks has been linked to an increase in the risk of
tooth decay and diabetes as well as obesity.
In fact, earlier this year doctors led calls for a tax on sugary drinks,
in addition to other recommendations such as the number of fast food
outlets close by to schools and colleges to be severely limited and a
ban on junk food advertising before the watershed.
No comments:
Post a Comment