Re: Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study
CCBYNCOpen access
Rapid response to:
Research
Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study
Re: Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study
We read Briggs et al's modelling paper on the effect of a putative 20% tax on sugar sweetened drink in the UK on obesity with interest[1].
We completely agree that obesity is a major public health problem which must be tackled.
However, whilst the modelling exercise described seems methodologically impressive, we are not convinced about the effectiveness of this taxation approach on obesity.
Although the authors have considered the possibility of consumers switching to e.g. diet soft drinks or milk, it does not appear that they have considered the possibility that consumers could mitigate the increased cost of sugar-sweetened drinks by switching from branded soft drinks e.g. Coca Cola to supermarket own-brand soft drinks, which are generally cheaper.
Our reservations also include the fact that this sugar-sweetened drinks tax is a very blunt instrument. It introduces a punitive tax on non-obese individuals, who still make up the majority of the population, in an effort to make a small impact on obese individuals. This does not seem just.
This kind of anti-obesity strategy seems fundamentally flawed to us.
Consideration should be given to measures which make it more expensive to be obese. Increasing the cost of purchasing calorific food & beverages avoids the core issue, in our opinion.
It is the state of being obese rather than purchasing calorific food items (which are consumed by the whole population) which should be disincentivised.
One example of this approach is the ticket pricing policy of Samoa Air, which links fare price to passenger weight[2]. This makes it more expensive to be obese and is, in our opinion, possibly a better strategy for tackling obesity.
References:
[1] Briggs A D M et al. Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of
overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. BMJ 2013;347:f6189 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6189
[2] Samoa Air on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoa_Air (accessed 12/11/13)
Competing interests:
Both authors consume sugar-sweetened soft drinks and are not obese.
The views expressed here are those of the authors alone and not their employer.
12 November 2013
Gee Yen Shin
Consultant Virologist
Rohini Manuel
Public Health England
Public Health Laboratory London, 3/F pathology & Pharmacy Building, 80 Newark Street, The Royal London Hospital, London E1 2ES
Rapid Response:
Re: Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study
We read Briggs et al's modelling paper on the effect of a putative 20% tax on sugar sweetened drink in the UK on obesity with interest[1].
We completely agree that obesity is a major public health problem which must be tackled.
However, whilst the modelling exercise described seems methodologically impressive, we are not convinced about the effectiveness of this taxation approach on obesity.
Although the authors have considered the possibility of consumers switching to e.g. diet soft drinks or milk, it does not appear that they have considered the possibility that consumers could mitigate the increased cost of sugar-sweetened drinks by switching from branded soft drinks e.g. Coca Cola to supermarket own-brand soft drinks, which are generally cheaper.
Our reservations also include the fact that this sugar-sweetened drinks tax is a very blunt instrument. It introduces a punitive tax on non-obese individuals, who still make up the majority of the population, in an effort to make a small impact on obese individuals. This does not seem just.
This kind of anti-obesity strategy seems fundamentally flawed to us.
Consideration should be given to measures which make it more expensive to be obese. Increasing the cost of purchasing calorific food & beverages avoids the core issue, in our opinion.
It is the state of being obese rather than purchasing calorific food items (which are consumed by the whole population) which should be disincentivised.
One example of this approach is the ticket pricing policy of Samoa Air, which links fare price to passenger weight[2]. This makes it more expensive to be obese and is, in our opinion, possibly a better strategy for tackling obesity.
References:
[1] Briggs A D M et al. Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of
overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. BMJ 2013;347:f6189 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6189
[2] Samoa Air on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoa_Air (accessed 12/11/13)
Competing interests: Both authors consume sugar-sweetened soft drinks and are not obese. The views expressed here are those of the authors alone and not their employer.