People seem to be buying and consuming less sugar from soft drinks since the UK introduced a tax on sugary drinks, suggests research published by Am BMJ.
The researchers found that total sales of soft drinks have not changed. This, combined with previous decisions that the tax has no long-term effect on the share price of soft drinks and domestic conversion, shows that the drinks industry has not been hit financially as a result of the levy. designed to improve public health.
High consumption of sugary sugary drinks (SSBn) is associated with an increased risk for tooth decay, obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Therefore, the World Health Organization is proposing taxes on these drinks to try to reduce consumption.
The UK soft drink industry tax (SDIL) is a bilateral tax levied on soft drink manufacturers from April 2018 to encourage them to reduce the level of sugar in their products.
Under SDIL, beverages with more than 8 g sugar / 100 mL (high level) are charged at £ 0.24 / L and beverages with more than 5 g but less than 8 g sugar / 100 mL (low) are tax at £ 0.18 / L. Beverages with less than 5 g of sugar / 100 mL (excluding tax) will not be taxed.
While previous studies have examined the impact of SSB charges on consumers, none have examined the impact of SDIL implementation on purchasing, taking into account existing trends in purchasing.
To address this gap, a team of researchers led by the MRC Epidemiology Unit of the University of Cambridge decided to study changes in home buying of beverages and sugars before and after the implementation of the SDIL.
They examined changes in quantity, and the level of sugar, the purchase of home-made drinks in all tax rates, cheap beverage categories (including alcoholic beverages), and sugars from two years before the SDIL. announced to one year after implementation (March 2014 to March 2019).
Their decisions are based on approximately 31 million purchases with an average of 22,183 households recording all food and drink brought into the home (including those ordered on- line and delivery) weekly during this period.
Overall, they show that, compared to pre-announced trends, the total number of tax-free and unlicensed soft drinks purchased did not change a year after implementation.
When all taxed and untaxed soft drinks were combined, the number of drinks purchased did not change, but sugar purchased in these drinks decreased by about 30 g per household per year. a week, or nearly 10% – the equivalent of three smaller teaspoons, or one 250 mL serving a drink with 5 g of sugar per 100 mL per person per week.
The purchase of sweets and alcoholic beverages has not changed.
The authors acknowledge some limitations of study. For example, data only included home-made purchases, which may limit the generality of the decisions. However, they used a big data set that was nationally representative, included a control segment, and analyzed changes in two potential surrogate regions – alcohol and sugars.
Therefore, they say SSB serial charges such as the SDIL could “benefit public health (by reducing sugar purchased from soft drinks without replacing sugars and alcohol) without cause any equivalent harm to the soft drink industry (by not affecting the total volume of soft drink purchased). “
These findings show that the UK sugar tax is working exactly as expected – and offer lessons for other countries exploring strategic management options to promote a healthier diet, say researchers at George Institute for Global Health, in linked edition.
They discuss ways in which SSB taxes have been used to improve health and say there is scope to further strengthen governance. For example, the introduction of thresholds for taxes that gradually decrease over time to encourage continued sugar reduction, and to tax a wider range of sugary beverages.
Finally, they point out that as the world moves towards policies that promote a healthier and more sustainable diet, “the challenge is to design rules that improve the quality of nutrition and reduce the environmental impact of foods. which we eat. “
There is potential here to deliver not only health benefits but also benefits to the planet and all those whose lives depend on it now, and for future generations, ”they conclude.
###
Peer review? Yes (research); Not (linked editor)
Type of evidence: Data analysis; Opinion
Subjects: People
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! they are not responsible for the accuracy of press releases posted to EurekAlert! by sending institutions or for using any information through the EurekAlert system.