Doctors press for 'cola tax' in bid to fight child obesity
Experts raise spectre of economic sanctions on unhealthy products
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The battle to contain the global obesity crisis stepped up a gear yesterday as American public health experts demanded a sugar tax on the country's most popular source of refreshment – sweetened carbonated drinks and fruit juices.
In what is certain to become a world-wide debate on the use of economic sanctions to tackle obesity, a group led by academics from Yale and Harvard universities proposed a "cola war", with a 1 cent tax per fluid ounce on sweetened beverages, raising the price of the average can of cola by 15 to 20 per cent.
They say this would cut calorie consumption from drinks by a minimum of 10 per cent (enough to prompt weight loss) and contribute almost $15bn towards the health costs of obesity.
"The reasons to proceed are compelling. The science base linking the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages to the risk of chronic disease is clear. Research suggests a tax... would have strong positive effects on reducing consumption. We believe that taxes on beverages that help drive the obesity epidemic should and will become routine," the experts say in the New England Journal of Medicine.
British nutrition specialists backed the move but said other economic measures, such as a tariff on sugar imports, could have the same impact but be less politically controversial.
Tam Fry, spokesman for the UK National Obesity Forum, said: "We have got to start thinking very seriously about taxing unhealthy food and drink as part of the drive to improve the nation's health and cut obesity. The amount of sugar that goes into these soft drinks is staggering and it has a double whammy, increasing obesity and rotting teeth."
The US proposal follows a report by the respected Institute of Medicine this month calling for an increase in local taxes on soft drinks and junk food. In the UK, the British Medical Association narrowly defeated a proposal for a chocolate tax at its annual meeting in 2008. Gordon Brown vetoed a plan for a tax on burgers and sweets in 2004, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the grounds that it would disproportionately affect the poor.
Consumption of fizzy drinks, fruit juices, smoothies and other sweetened beverages is soaring around the world and is recognised as a major contributor to the obesity epidemic, especially among children. Americans are drinking twice as much of the drinks as they did 25 years ago, and they now contribute 172 calories daily to the average US child's diet. Experts say the UK is close behind.
Jack Winkler, professor of nutrition policy at London Metropolitan University, said: "I support this. It would be a massive public acknowledgement about the danger sugar poses to health."
But he proposed raising the price of sugar permanently by reforming the world commodity markets. Imposing tariffs, which are invisible, would be much better than raising taxes, he said.
The British Nutrition Foundation said that, instead of altering food choices, increasing taxes "could simply mean higher prices for consumers – especially those on lower incomes".
Sugar rush: Sweetened drinks
* A can of Coca-Cola contains 34.98g of sugar, 38.86 per cent of GDA
* The same size Pepsi contains 36.3g or 40.3 per cent of GDA
* A similar serving of Sunny Delight contains 27.4g or 30.5 per cent of GDA
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Your NHS arguement would allow almost any activity to be banned.
1) The choice to bring a child into this world with defective Genes when these things can be detected is a choice not the childs but the parents.
2) the idea that children will pay my pension (as Im not a public sector worker) and health bills in my old age is at best an assumption and furthermore if I were not paying their way now probably completely unecessary - as that money invested now would cover me.
but let me throw another less sensational couple at you:
Sporting/exercise related injuries - treated on the NHS coupled with time of from work cost society as well.
Or how about STDs? thats a choice or rather an ill-informed choice that again costs society as a whole and could be ascribed to behaviour and lifestyle.
The only difference here is theres no way to tax them and won't curry popular opinion.
I not defending this particular case per se but rather the increasing trend for one vocal minority to use the tacit approval of an unnaffected majority to single out another minority.
We all have our faults and foibles but when it becomes acceptable to restrict healthcare and/or levy against legal activities simply because the medical profession(als) dissaprove and its fashionably acceptable to vilify; then it isn't much of a National Health Service and if our collective lifestyles mean it costs more then it costs more - although again if you die young you cost less overall (Geriatric costs being second only to peadiatrics; and given time/population demographic that will change)
As to the particular issue of taxation - it is self evident that the duties raised on Smoking and drinking do not go exclusively on the treatment of smoking and drinking related illness but rather into an amorphous pot from which all benefit and for that reason as well I'm against such a practice as I find it unjust.
... personal responsibility ?
Has the medical profession been overrun by obsessive monomaniacs who can think of no other strategy for dealing with health problems than to slap a tax on those commodities whose excessive consumption contributes to the, perceived, malady ?
Most soft drinks have reduce or no sugar varieties. If the medics feel the need to act then a better plan would be to provide information to enable consumers to make rational choices.
If this was about health then why not a negative tax, i.e. a subsidy on healthy options. This would have the affect of making these items more affordable to those on a low income.
But no, it's about revenue.
Cadbury's
Coca Cola
McDonalds
THat should fatten everyone up nicely.
2 Palm oil
3 Margerine
4 Rats that eat these as the Chinese eat plenty of these
5 TV the old 27" CRT and the XT printers
6 The round old plugs 13 amps
7 Doctor's fees too fat also Brown is putting on weight
Let us eat only fish good for braing bones cold wrist watches, Grand father, few kids, bottled juices as there are acids in these.
1000 items My ISP is very thin. 34bphr
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
If 'sugar' is to be targeted, we have to be specific and an alternative will be required.
Unfortunately, the most common non caloric sweetener ,Aspartame,is potentially harmful in its own right.
'Splenda'(eg in USA as McNeil Nutritionals' brand of sucralose,maltodextrin and sucralose)is a non caloric sweetener,not known to be harmful(yet)!
However,the most desirable diet avoids 'processed' foods of any stripe.
The 'mediterranean diet'has it almost right.