Taxing sugar-sweetened drinks

Information New Zealand soft drinks contain more sugar than in most Western countries is disturbing.

Research from the University of Waikato, promulgated last week by advocacy group Fizz, includes a claim that on average New Zealand fizzy drinks and juice have one and a-half times more sugar in them than their like in Canada, Australia and the United States. This gives weight to growing calls for taxes on sugary drinks.

Mexico, with the second-highest obesity rates in the world - the US is first and New Zealand third - has a 10% tax on sugar-sweetened drinks and Britain is taxing them from April. The World Health Organisation recommends the tax as does the New Zealand Dental Association on the back of last week's findings.

Without doubt, the amount of sugar in many fizzy and ``sports'' drinks is astounding. A 355ml can of Coca-Cola in New Zealand contains about nine teaspoons of sugar, and high sugar content is common in all sorts of drinks.

Given those obesity and teeth issues, calls for government taxes is a natural and widespread reaction. The growing Type-2 diabetes epidemic is associated with weight and the cost will be staggering. It would seem, too, many of the public are reasonably sympathetic towards the tax, at least in principle.

Sugar-sweetened drinks provide energy with little or no nutrients. A higher cost, it is argued, should discourage consumption. Governments in New Zealand and Australia, however, have been reluctant to pursue the tax, at least for now. They have good reasons.

First is the issue of how much difference a tax would make. To really affect consumption it would have to be large, especially to significantly affect prices for the large drink containers from supermarkets. And it is always likely to be much cheaper than milk. Consumers could also just shift to the cheapest brands.

As with so many ``worthy'' social causes, the poor will be hit hardest. The educated middle classes are already likely to have limited consumption.

An Australian health survey found sugar drinks contributed only 3.2% of total energy intake, and numbers drinking them and the amount they drink has been falling. Among discretionary foods, sugar drinks were actually seventh in energy supply - after confectionery, sweet biscuits, alcohol, pizza, burgers and tacos, pastries and fried potatoes.

Consumers, too, could compensate by shifting the drink energy intake to something else, a bit like the situation where someone buys the extra large burger and extra chips but thinks they are doing well to limit sugar intake with Coke Zero. It is surmised switching might have happened in Mexico. After apparent early tax success, effectiveness there depends on whom is listened to.

It is too easy to call for the Government to step in to ``fix'' problems. Surely, that should be considered last after other options. Surely, within limits, freedom of choice and action and personal responsibility are worthwhile ideals. A new form of puritanism appears rampant.

Where, too, should such a tax end? In the spirit of battling obesity, why not tax sugar in sauces, confectionery, ice cream? Why not tax saturated fat? Denmark tried a fat tax before rejecting it. What about double extra taxes on alcohol, one for the damage drunk people cause and its direct health impact, and one for sugar content?

Sugar-sweetened drinks are an issue. But before taxes are imposed, it is worthwhile intensifying pressure on manufacturers to reduce sugar quantities. Education efforts can be stepped up and ``switch to water'' campaigns initiated. Schools can be encouraged, as some already do, to introduce water-only policies. An icon on drinks might help, showing how many teaspoons of sugar are in each.

Excessive sugar consumption is serious. But sugar should not be viewed as an evil poison because in moderation it is not a problem. Taxes should be a last resort.