Taxing unhealthy food and drinks to improve health
BMJ 2012; 344 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2931 (Published 15 May 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e2931All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Price Instruments for Nutrition Policy
In their article on “health related food taxes”, Mytton and colleagues make an important contribution to nutrition policy. They thoroughly review existing examples and recent proposals. They record the small scale of current taxes, too low of affect demand. They dissect many of the limitations in the methods that underlie arguments for new taxes. They are uncommonly candid in acknowledging that such taxes have limited, even negative, effects.
All this is valuable. Prolonged efforts to educate consumers to “informed healthy choices” have failed. In country after country, people grow fatter and fatter. Against that background, price instruments -- incentives as well as penalties -- could play a key role in reforming unhealthy diets. They need serious public debate. The rigour of this analysis is a corrective to the recent enthusiasm of many, that taxing “bad” foods is a panacea.
Sad, then, that the authors do not follow their analysis to its logical conclusion. Instead, in the three-sentence conclusion, they hop on the bandwagon, proposing their own tax, just a bit larger. It is unlikely to ever be adopted and would be ineffective if it were.
The principal tax they discuss, and on which most evidence exists, focuses on sugar/soft drinks. The first detailed proposal for such a tax in the UK, based on British data, was published just months ago (1). It showed that a 10% tax would only reduce soft drink consumption by 7.5ml/pp/pd –- less than a sip (2). With the authors’ proposal for a 20% tax, raise that to less than a swallow.
Even at 20% the tax is much too small. Recently, the EU reduced its support price for sugar by 36%. The tax would not even restore the cost to previous levels.
The tax is too small for another reason – it would be swamped by price promotions. Currently, in a recession, 40% of all food and drink is purchased on some kind of discount. With soft drinks, “buy-one-get-one-free” and “better than half price” promotions are commonplace. With marketing discounts of 50-60%, a 20% tax would be easily concealed or absorbed.
The authors also do not consider the politics of policy. In the US, in 2010, consumers voted down soft drinks taxes all over the country. In the UK, no political party has ever seriously considered any “health related food tax”. And after the recent debacle over the non-health, but food-related “pastie tax”, none is likely to do so.
The companion proposal, of using revenues from “bad” food taxes to subsidise “good” foods, is wishful thinking. The Treasuries in both the UK and the US have always opposed “hypothecated” or “earmarked” taxes. Now, when “deficit-reduction” is the principal goal, ring-fencing any new revenues for health is improbable.
If price instruments are important, but visible taxes are politically unacceptable as well as technically ineffective, what can be done?
Strategically, the goal is to create a price differential between healthier and less healthy foods. Raise the cost of the bad, lower the cost of the good, or both. Make the healthy choice the cheaper choice. Create economic incentives for health. Options include:
Agricultural policy: raise the support prices, for limited production quotas, of milk fat, meat fat and sugar. Increasing prices would attract political support farm interests. They would raise the cost of less healthy ingredients to food manufacturers, applying pressure to reformulate products. And they would be invisible to consumers.
Government catering: the government is Britain’s largest caterer, through schools, hospitals, offices, residential institutions, military messes. It has the purchasing power of a supermarket group. Incorporating nutritional standards into supply contracts would reward progressive companies producing healthier ingredients. Then, adjusting the already subsidised prices in canteens would give consumers incentives for healthier choices. Save money by eating right.
Corporate margins: healthier products often carry higher prices, not because they cost more to produce, but because manufacturers and retailers add on extra margin. They know that many nutritionally aware consumers are affluent, willing to pay more for products they think will do them good. So companies charge a “health premium”. Name-and-shame surveys, at local as well as national level, would expose companies perpetrating this form of nutritional extortion.
Soft drinks are a classic example. Sugarless carbonates and squashes cost significantly less to produce than sugared variants. They should cost consumers less too. Cut the price of sugarfree.
if advocates are determined to tax something, they should reconsider the world’s oldest food tax -- on salt. The prospects are better than for any other nutrient. No big corporate interests defend salt. It is very cheap, so taxes could be very high, higher even than the 348% currently on tobacco. The effect would be to cut manufacturers bulk purchases, not raise retail prices. This would strengthen the already successful programme to reduce the salt added to a wide range of popular foods.
That, in turn, would bring a second benefit, reducing strokes. Strokes are the most expensive disease, with high direct health care costs and large social aftercare costs. A salt tax would reduce expenditure substantially. It should be supported by any economically rational health minister.
In sum, price instruments are likely to become an increasingly important part of nutrition policy. But taxes on “bad” foods are only one of many options.
* * * * *
(1) Shu Wen Ng, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Susan A Jebb and Barry M Popkin (2011), Patterns and trends of beverage consumption among children and adults in Great Britain, 1986–2009. British Journal of Nutrition. DOI:http://0-dx.doi.org.emu.londonmet.ac.uk/10.1017/S0007114511006465
(2) J T Winkler (2011), Why soft drink taxes will not work. British Journal of Nutrition. DOI: http://0-dx.doi.org.emu.londonmet.ac.uk/10.1017/S0007114511006477
Prof J T Winkler
Nutrition Policy Unit (Retired)
London Metropolitan University
jtw@blueyonder.co.uk
via delle Mantellate 1a
Florence 50129
(0039) 340 726 6234
Competing interests: No competing interests
I just read the release from Eurekalert "20% Fat Tax". Wouldn't it make more sense to alter the FDA guidelines to take care of this at the manufacturer/production level?
It's obvious the consumer can't control what he/she eats (with 60+ percent of people being overweight) after all fat, sugar, and salt taste good and some think in proportion may be addictive along with some added flavonoids. Why not have standards that make unhealthy foods unavailable. I think that since there are far less manufactures than consumers it would be more efficient (controllable) to set standards through the FDA instead of punishing those who can't/won't alter what they eat.
Although taxation has reduced smoking, we still have 20/25% of the population still smoking and 450,000 dying (USA) of related diseases. My opinion is why are we still allowing manufacture of a product/products that essentially kills all of its users?
Other than the obvious fact that Government is bought and paid for by people with no conscience which in both cases, tobacco and sugar/fat/salt laden food, probably will be on the market for years to come.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Taxing unhealthy food and drinks to improve health
Whilst it is apparent that there is a huge health risk from obesity, and the direct links between food consumption and weight, I wonder whether a food-tax is the real answer to the problem. For some people, certainly a tax and therefore price increase in unhealthy foods may encourage the purchase cheaper and hopefully therefore healthier alternatives, but there are many other factors at play here.
When walking around supermarkets the easy to eat foods are all 'junk': pizzas, fat-rich ready meals and take-away style meals which can be simply heated in the oven or microwave. Patients who currently eat these sorts of meals regularly will have a huge lifestyle change to make if they are to start purchasing healthier alternatives, as this will almost certainly mean more raw ingredients and cooking processes. This relies on patient knowledge of the ingredients, ability to cook a meal and having the home equipment to do so. A price increase on unhealthy foods is not going to address the underlying issues of poor food education and lack of skills in the kitchen. Perhaps these confounding factors are affecting the evidence base surrounding taxes on food-stuff.
Competing interests: No competing interests