The Grattan Institute's proposal for a tax on high-sugar drinks will probably get short shrift from federal Treasurer Scott Morrison. His is a government that has strongly resisted introducing new taxes or lifting existing ones – except those aimed at backpackers (and cynics would argue that it's only because they don't vote that backpackers now face a higher rate of income tax). And if the Coalition needed further grounds for opposing the introduction of a sin tax, one suspects its pro-business, libertarian wing would be happy to oblige. Yet the report recommending an excise of 40¢ for every 100 grams of sugar on non-alcoholic beverages is compelling and persuasive.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Nearly two-thirds of Australians are now classified as overweight or obese, and that rate among children is one in four. The complications that can potentially arise from overweight and obesity (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers) cost the taxpayer-funded health system about $500 million annually.
The number of people with a high body mass index (related to overweight and obesity) was negligible in the 1980s. But it's grown rapidly since then to become the second highest contributor to the national burden of disease. For governments to try to stem the growing incidence of high BMI by taxing one of its most significant contributors – non-alcoholic drinks that are incredibly high in sugar – would seem sensible and prudent. Indeed, many countries have already done so, including Britain, where the term nanny state was coined.
It's still too early to conclude what impact these taxes have had, though in Mexico consumption has begun to climb two years after a roughly 10 per cent tax was imposed on sugary drinks. That tends to rebut the pronouncements of doom that soft drink manufacturers frequently raise whenever a sugar tax is canvassed. The other argument bottlers resort to – that the poorest in society are hit hardest by sugar taxes – is harder to counter.
Yet, governments readily impose ever-greater rates of excise on the tobacco and alcohol that low-income earners consume with equal gusto, firm in their conviction that that the harmful health effects of smoking and drinking to excess need to be both minimised and offset. That, of course, is the nub of the Grattan Institute's argument.
Sugar is added to a dizzying array of food, frequently to excess, and it might be argued that ignoring this fact and taxing only soft drinks would constitute a symbolic gesture unlikely to make a serious difference to obesity. But few foods are as packed with sugar and empty calories as soft drinks.
If governments are serious about wanting to stop their citizens getting fatter and overloading public health systems, sugary drinks are an appropriate place to start. There are plenty of healthier alternatives to which consumers could readily turn, and most soft drinks could easily be reconstituted to contain less sugar without consumers even noticing.
