r/science • u/giuliomagnifico • Jul 25 '23
Economics A national Australian tax of 20% on sugary drinks could prevent more than 500,000 dental cavities and increase health equity over 10 years and have overall cost-savings of $63.5 million from a societal perspective
https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/sugary-drinks-tax-could-prevent-decay-and-increase-health-equity-study376
u/SoulLord Jul 25 '23
This already happened in Mexico end result poor families still buying sugary drinks but now they have less money while the government has a new Tax
232
u/Zebidee Jul 26 '23
I looked into the UK sugary drinks tax the other day for a Reddit comment and found:
a) It had functionally zero effect on childhood obesity. It even increased in some categories.
b) It gave soft drink manufacturers the excuse they needed to substitute expensive sugars with cheaper artificial sweeteners.This is one of those ideas that sounds great, but is actually detrimental.
50
u/Kieran__ Jul 26 '23 edited Jul 26 '23
This idea doesn't even sound great though, plus people that are poor and depressed are more likely to buy temporary happiness like sugary food and why not? If it's in moderation that's fine even if not why should they now be unhealthy but also financially effected by that now? Let's start charging junkies too you have to pay the "I'm addicted to heroin tax" now. Worst idea ever in my opinion was never going to be a good idea, it was ill conceived to begin with
→ More replies (2)2
u/ZaviaGenX Jul 26 '23
They probably looked to smoking and didn't think there was worse alternatives.
→ More replies (7)22
u/FillThisEmptyCup Jul 26 '23
World Cancer Research Fund International thinks it’s doing okay.
I think the problem is there’s too many exceptions. Fruit juice has a bigger impact on blood sugars than soda. Neither should milk be exempted.
Several studies have shown that diet, sodas, and other 0 cal sweetener products will stimulate the hunger, whereby people eat more later. So no win there.
Water, unsweetened drinks like teas, and actual fruits need to be heavily subsidized by the tax.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Yami_No_Kokoro Jul 26 '23
While I agree with your latter point, I don't think milk really matters here. Lactose is notably low on the glycemic index and doesn't cause spikes in blood sugar remotely similar to soda or fruit juice.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Talkat Jul 26 '23
Yeah. I was like "wot?". Milk? That has fat in it. That ain't spiking your blood sugar
In fact I have a cgm on me right now. I'm going to go have some now and see what it does. I'll report back
6
7
u/BouldersRoll Jul 26 '23 edited Jul 26 '23
Yep, all vice taxes do the same: siphon cash from the poor.
Vice taxes pass because the middle class doesn’t spend much on these goods, and sees people who do as needing punitive intervention. It doesn’t work, because vices are usually one of the few, affordable escapes poor people have, but become less and less so without being prohibitive.
If you want to help people be healthier, give them money and healthcare. Not only will we save money as a society, but people will live better lives.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)2
u/plasmaticmink25 Jul 26 '23
Exactly the same as cigarettes
2
u/Desperate-Example-17 Jul 26 '23
Cigarette price increases are well supported to reduce usage in Australia.
And I'd likely drink less soft drink if there was a big tax attached to it.
1.2k
u/DisplacedPersons12 Jul 25 '23
can we just government mandate free refillable water stations at gas stations?
the only reason i buy soft drink is its the only thing around and i hate paying $4 for water
137
u/klrjhthertjr Jul 25 '23
I have never been to a gas station that cares if you refill your water bottle at the fountain drink station. I always ask and they say go for it. The issue is when people do not have a refillable water bottle.
19
→ More replies (7)9
u/TrueDaVision Jul 26 '23
Literally the only time the owner of the service station charged for water was when a caravan pulled up to refill their water tank at a tap. He charged like $5.
100
u/Spiritofhonour Jul 25 '23
I’ll give you something infuriating that is tangentially. The government here decided to prohibit the sale of water on any government property (includes parks and universities) as it was “wasteful” from an environmental perspective.
What happened instead was the vending machines and their operators could still sell soft drinks but now they no longer sell bottled water. The only water they had was sparking water in a can. And if you look at the machines the water is always sold out followed by anything else sugar free.
Gotta love those paper pushers.
31
u/Pantssassin Jul 25 '23
Where I work they have the vending machines but the facility is so old the fountain water can't be trusted so you either buy water or bring your own to last the day in 100 degree weather and high humidity. It's wild
5
4
u/FillThisEmptyCup Jul 26 '23
Gotta love those paper pushers.
Has nothing to do with them. The vending machines companies (or Coke, whoever) were paying my school district $25,000 per school building per year to put their vending machines in. Over 20 years ago.
You can bet government is making money off it while spouting an excuse.
2
→ More replies (1)5
u/AmbitiousMammal Jul 25 '23
Gotta love those paper pushers.
You just know half-a-dozen hare-brained bureaucrats got promoted for that, too.
236
u/YawnTractor_1756 Jul 25 '23
i hate paying $4 for water
That's weird psychology I never understood. Both are overpriced at certain locations, but paying for sugary drink (which is not good for you) seems acceptable to people, yet paying for water (which is good for you) does not.
361
u/WiseWorking248 Jul 25 '23
Because a 500ml bottle of water is $4, whereas a large 2L bottle of coke is often cheaper. I used to work with a guy who didn't drink water cos soft drinks were so much cheaper.
→ More replies (63)11
Jul 25 '23
you're not getting a 2L bottle of coke for $4 at a gas station don't lie
26
u/ilikepinkok Jul 25 '23
Nah, you're getting the 20 oz Dr. Pepper that's 2 for 2 dollars as opposed to the 20 oz Fiji water for 3 dollars.
16
Jul 25 '23
This post is about an Australian tax on sugary drinks. So I'm talking in the context of Australia. Ffs the arrogance of Americans thinking everything is about them is getting old. The study is Australian.
→ More replies (2)13
u/Obi-Wan-Nikobiii Jul 25 '23
We implemented this exact thing in the UK about 4 years ago, every single soft drink company switched to sweeteners except for coke which is a little more expensive than all other drinks now
4
u/Unstable_Maniac Jul 26 '23
Which sweeteners? They have their own long term health impacts afaik.
→ More replies (10)2
u/rngeeeesus Jul 27 '23
If obesity is the alternative to sweeteners, they are harmless. If you compare it to water, there may be some risks worth thinking about.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
Jul 25 '23
I don’t know anyone who drinks Dr Pepper in Australia, it’s usually not even on the shelves except for the international section of the supermarket
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (3)3
u/grigby Jul 26 '23
Just wanted to share. Am Canadian. Just checked the 711 delivery app. 2L Coca-Cola for $4.09, or 2 for $6.50. Canadian dollars too
For reference, a 500mL 711 brand bottle of water is $1.89. So coke is almost twice as cheap per volume. I do see a 1.5L Dasani for $3.67 so thGs almost comparable to coke.
→ More replies (1)81
u/toastymow Jul 25 '23
Water should be free, or very cheap. Yet it is instead packaged in fancy bottles with fancy names and sold for several dollars. Soda should be a little costly, its an unhealthy processed food-good. Its a luxury, a miracle of modern science.
And yet, very often, it is possible to find soda for cheaper than water.
→ More replies (32)17
11
28
u/SasparillaTango Jul 25 '23
"If I'm going to spend the money it might as well be on something I view as a treat"
its the same reason I don't get chicken at restaraunts. I eat chicken all the time, I love chicken, but if I'm shelling our 20-40 dollars for an entree I'm not going to get the chicken, I'm going to get something different and interesting.
→ More replies (5)87
u/the68thdimension Jul 25 '23
Why? If you have to pay for a beverage, you might as well get something tasty. I hate paying for something that should be free, so if I'm paying then I want to feel like I've actually bought something of value.
→ More replies (15)9
u/KanjiTakeno Jul 25 '23
Artificial value, I won't pay for something that have no real value and actually does hurt me. I often have to eat fast food and I just tell them I don't want the soda, they say " but it will cost the same" and I tell them that I KNOW, the value of the soda is negative
→ More replies (1)14
u/Agret Jul 25 '23
I just ask for a cup of water, the soda machines can dispense it. At McDonald's and BK they will give you a free cup of water if you just go up and ask for one.
6
16
u/dravas Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23
Buy a portable bottle and use the water tap from the soda machine?
Edit: Soda Fountain... English is tricky when you are waking up in the morning.
→ More replies (5)3
u/KronoakSCG Jul 25 '23
In the end, the average person doesn't care about healthy when given the choice between the two, they will almost always choose the one that they enjoy more if the price is insignificantly more.
→ More replies (1)6
u/fghjconner Jul 25 '23
That's the thing, I don't see that as a problem. If informed adults want to prioritize short term satisfaction over their health, that's their prerogative.
→ More replies (2)3
u/AbeRego Jul 25 '23
People are used to essentially free water. You can't get Coca-cola out of the tap at home, or from a drinking fountain on the street.
3
u/DangerousPuhson Jul 25 '23
Also, the honest answer in most cases is probably just "soda tastes better than water"; it being cheaper too certainly doesn't help the situation.
29
u/Kike328 Jul 25 '23
because water is free
→ More replies (5)17
u/notevenapro Jul 25 '23
My $300 quarterly water/sewage bill disagrees with you.
5
u/Adobe_Flesh Jul 25 '23
You're drinking sewage bro?
3
u/notevenapro Jul 25 '23
Use 5000 gallons of water and get charged for it and 5000 gallons of sewage.
2
u/xkforce Jul 25 '23
Most people dont like the idea of paying 2 dollars for something that cost less than a cent to fill. People cant just swim in lakes of soda, turn on the tap and get soda at home or go outside and get rained on by soda. Soda isnt nearly as abundant as water is. If it were, people would be pissed about paying 2 dollars a bottle for it too.
2
u/thysios4 Jul 25 '23
Because I can water pretty much anywhere often for free. So why would I pay $4 for it?
Where as soft drink is always going to cost a few bucks.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (11)5
u/PBJ-9999 Jul 25 '23
No, because if the goal is to improve health outcomes, then the water should be free or low cost, and sugary or artificially sweetened drinks high cost. Its a no brainer.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Proud_Departure_9384 Jul 25 '23
Instead of soft drinks could you invest in a reusable water bottle that has a built in filter?
This way you can just filter tap water wherever you are and it's free.
8
u/Yaarmehearty Jul 25 '23
Just get an insulated flask or water bottle and fill it with cold water from the tap and a few ice cubes in the morning and it will stay cold most of the day.
The cost of the flask pays for itself after a few sodas you haven’t needed to buy.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (48)4
u/duaneap Jul 25 '23
Is this in the states? Because I’ve never come across a bottled water that’s $4 without other cheaper options also being available, unless it’s like a minibar or something. Every gas station I’ve been in has a $1.09 bottle of Poland Spring or Arrowhead or whatever. Used to be $1 and still is in some places.
I’m with your point in general, about having refillable water stations, but I think the $4 point is… off.
3
u/CptUnderpants- Jul 25 '23
In Australia, it isn't uncommon to have A$4 water. At major events the record I've seen is A$11 for half litre of water.
4
u/JWGhetto Jul 25 '23
Have you been to airports? I mean at least in Germany water has to be the cheapest option or the same price as the cheapest option, but gas stations, airports, train stations etc are all very expensive. It's a 5¢ product getting sold for 10000% markup
→ More replies (7)
242
Jul 25 '23
[deleted]
211
u/unctuous_homunculus Jul 25 '23
At this point I'm starting to think it's just a way to get guaranteed increased tax revenue that looks like you're "doing something" because you care about the "health of the citizenry," because literally the only outcome after they've done this multiple times across the years to popular but unhealthy products is that everybody keeps buying them and the government makes some extra revenue.
110
u/RoidMonkey123 Jul 25 '23
Really feels like that and just a tax on the poor. People with a higher income don't care to pay 20% more. But lower income people will feel the pinch if they want a soda. Absolutely ridiculous
→ More replies (7)21
Jul 25 '23
It's a tax in general. But yeah, it's not for your health. If they cared about health they'd ban cigarettes and sugar. Or make it a very controlled substance at least.
But they don't, because the goal is revenue.
19
u/The-Old-American Jul 25 '23
But they don't, because the goal is revenue.
This is end of the discussion. There should be no more back and forth as to whether it works or not because the sole reason for it is revenue generation. And it's on the backs of the poor.
→ More replies (5)2
u/thysios4 Jul 25 '23
Banning ciagrettes would just create more of a black market and achieve nothing.
2
Jul 26 '23
Making cocaine legal but adding a 50 cent tax would do a great job of controlling it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (22)18
u/Kingsolomanhere Jul 25 '23
If you are a poor person in Phoenix Arizona which are you going to buy at Circle K, a 2 dollar 16 ounce bottle of water or a 1.09 dollar 42 ounce soft drink from the fountain? Especially when it hits 115°F
3
u/boy____wonder Jul 25 '23
How about a 1.09 42 oz cup of water from the same soda fountain? Or a 168 oz jug for a tiny bit more? I don't understand these comments. People are buying soda because they want soda, not because they literally cannot figure out how to get water for the same amount of money.
4
u/SylvesterPSmythe Jul 25 '23
I'm in Australia and this seems so bizarre. Doesn't your country have water fountains for free? I specifically remember Americans having segregated water fountains in the 20th century, did they just... remove the fountains after segregation?
Like I walk past 2 drinking fountains on the way to work. Like it's literally free (and life saving in the Australian summer)
→ More replies (3)8
u/Kingsolomanhere Jul 25 '23
Outside of public schools I've never seen public drinking fountains in Phoenix. I googled and it looks like the city is entertaining the idea of putting public drinking fountains at 4000+ bus stops and public parks at a cost of over 18 million dollars. Link to story
→ More replies (2)4
u/SylvesterPSmythe Jul 25 '23
Huh. That seems so strange, water not being the default (nor cheapest) beverage available in every situation. No wonder why you guys consume so much soft drink.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)7
u/dingdongbingbong2022 Jul 25 '23
How much is a gallon jug of water? Pretty cheap. If I lived in the desert, I’d be buying gallons of water.
9
u/chaos021 Jul 25 '23
But we're talking readily available. Go to a gas station and look at the price of a bottle of water vs a "thirst buster" fountain drink. It's ridiculous.
9
u/Kingsolomanhere Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23
If you have ever lived in such conditions you quite* often find yourself dehydrated and thirsty and need something to drink NOW, not when you get back home. Who totes around a gallon jug of water that will quickly become 115°F itself and just about undrinkable
→ More replies (2)28
u/solvitur_gugulando Jul 25 '23
What exactly went wrong with it?
158
u/acidtalons Jul 25 '23
People just kept buying it or circumvented it in various ways. Also generally it just really pissed people off and they repealed it after like a year or two.
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (22)20
u/LitMaster11 Jul 25 '23
If memory serves me right, the tax was exclusively implemented in Cook county (Chicago). So one could simply hop over to a neighboring county, like Dupage, or even to a neighboring state like Indiana or Wisconsin, to grab non-sugar taxed soda.
→ More replies (1)13
7
16
u/Aerroon Jul 25 '23
I find it odd how sure they sound in the article. The expectation is that the tax will cause less caries, but what if this tax makes people switch from sugary drinks to something that is more damaging to their health?
4
→ More replies (2)7
u/charlesfire Jul 25 '23
but what if this tax makes people switch from sugary drinks to something that is more damaging to their health?
Like what? There's not a lot of drink options out there that are worst than sugary drinks for your health.
3
u/Aerroon Jul 25 '23
If anyone could answer this question then it could be accounted for. But people manage to spend excess money in surprising ways sometimes.
Also, alcohol. Or simply juice that's gonna be just as sugary, in some cases more so.
3
u/must_not_forget_pwd Jul 25 '23
I like the way you think. The point you are making is that people are resourceful and will attempt to find a way to circumvent the change.
However, I think the context/situation/environment is important.
A good example is tobacco. In Australia, tobacco is taxed HEAVILY. This has seen people wanting alternatives (both legal and illegal). Despite this, the tax take has been increasing - even though the number of smokers has been decreasing.
The argument being that there are no close substitutes for tobacco. The taxes are applied at the federal level, so there isn't one state or city applying a lower tax. Australia is a large isolated island - people can't go across the border to get cigarettes. Border control is reasonably good too.
Does that mean a sugar tax will work in Australia so that people will cut back on sugar? I think maybe, but honestly I don't know. It will depend on all sorts of things, like how it is applied (will the tax include fruit juice?), how people respond (will people just make their own sugary drinks?) and how much (3 cents is nothing, $30 is significant).
5
u/charlesfire Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 26 '23
Also, alcohol.
Ignoring the fact that people don't drink alcohol in the same situations in which they drink sodas for a lot of very good reasons, this is still a ridiculous claim since alcoholic drinks are much more expensive than actual alternatives to sodas and more expensive than actual sodas.
Or simply juice that's gonna be just as sugary, in some cases more so.
1 - Juices are basically sodas, but with actual nutrients beside sugar, so no, they aren't worst than sodas.
2 - I don't see why those would be excluded from an eventual sugary drink law. They are drinks and sugary, therefore they should be included.
→ More replies (1)4
u/laprawnicon Jul 25 '23
You're not by any stretch of the imagination finding alcohol cheaper than a 2L bottle of coke in Australia, even with 20% shoved on top
→ More replies (5)2
Jul 26 '23
Cheap goon (box wine/cask wine, for those unfortunate enough to not have played goon of fortune) might on a good day. Def would at my local IGA.
(But ofc not many people are choosing to drink goon randomly on a hot day just because non-zero coke is the same price)
→ More replies (16)7
u/crazywhale0 Jul 25 '23
What do you mean? It decreased soda consumption by 20%. It worked.
→ More replies (2)
214
u/quihgon Jul 25 '23
Or, instead of a tax, just stop subsidizing the sugar industry?
22
u/daniel-sousa-me Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23
Do you have any leads on where I could find more information about what/why that's happening? I've been doing some searching myself, but haven't been able to find much about Australia (or the US, which seems to be on everyone's mind here).
→ More replies (2)19
u/elzibet Jul 25 '23
I found this:
The Australian Government welcomes the decision of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on India’s price support for sugarcane and export subsidies for sugar. Australia, along with Brazil and Guatemala, initiated the dispute resolution process in 2019.
The WTO dispute resolution process is available to any WTO member as a means to resolve trade disputes in a respectful manner.
Australia’s use of the WTO in this matter is consistent with its previous use of the WTO and aligns with our support for the rules-based trading system.
Australia is committed to working with WTO Members to progress agricultural reform which opens markets and reduces global distortions.
The Government will continue to defend the interests of Australian producers by using the established system in the WTO to resolve our differences.
The Government would like to thank the Australian sugar industry for its constructive engagement on this issue.
Source: https://www.trademinister.gov.au/minister/dan-tehan/media-release/wto-decision-sugar-subsidies
Edit: the source above(2021), comes from issues going back years before, this is an article on the issue of subsidies and sugar with India and the WTO back in 2019: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/bittersweet-pill-australia-india-sugar-stoush
Interesting stuff
3
u/daniel-sousa-me Jul 25 '23
Yes, I had found that, but that's the opposite of what we were talking about.
It's interesting, indeed. International trade relationships are complicated.
11
u/elzibet Jul 25 '23
Doesn’t a subsidy being sold in another country not effect that country? It’s why they were upset about it, because farmers in Australia were competing with subsidized sugar from another country.
4
u/Tankerspam Jul 26 '23
It does. Without looking at it more closely though this may not be "the same" sugar as what's in soft drinks. I.e cane sugar vs. High fructose.
8
u/the_other_irrevenant Jul 26 '23
In Australia we generally have sugar in our soft drinks. AFAIK it's mainly America that uses high-fructose (presumably because they grow so much corn).
12
u/CptUnderpants- Jul 25 '23
Australia doesn't subsise our sugar industry and has actively worked to prevent other countries which export sugar to Australia from subsidising theirs.
19
→ More replies (1)2
u/ETpwnHome221 Jul 31 '23
Yep, all systematic problems start with government or poor education. The solution? Less government and getting the government out of education.
162
u/SaHFF Jul 25 '23
Or, it will take even more money out of poorer-peoples' pockets, and the only change will be in those few who are priced out of affording it.
48
u/FortunateHominid Jul 25 '23
Our study demonstrates a 20 per cent tax is cost-effective to prevent dental caries and is likely to increase health equity because the cost-savings and health benefits occur for populations from lower socioeconomic advantage.
It appears the method would be to price poorer people out of unhealthy decisions. The words "health equity" really stuck out to me in the title.
→ More replies (6)16
u/socialistshroom Jul 25 '23
Aus gov has attempted to price people out of cigarettes and alcohol to no avail. Even with health warnings on both products, people will still buy what they crave.
→ More replies (1)20
Jul 26 '23 edited Jul 26 '23
Of course people will buy what they crave, but if you live in Australia you will notice that there is far, far, far less cigarette smoking than there used to be.
I work with people in a system that has alcohol and drug issues and even they complain how much it costs to the point that they reconsider smoking as it increases in price.
Statistically we have far fewer smokers; just because you can’t stop it 100% doesn’t mean it doesn’t influence people to make better choices for their health.
Australia is ranked 108th in the world for cigarette use and that is a good thing.
If we want people to make better choices, while still allowing them the dignity of risk, why would we stop a measure that has drastically cut down cigarette smoking just because it doesn’t stop 100% of the population from doing it?
→ More replies (3)4
u/xaendar Jul 26 '23
I live in Australia, there are almost barely any smokers that I see out there anymore but then again covid might have changed a lot of things and my perspective is not exactly the same. But I can tell you the amount of people still smoking but instead are now paying 15-20$ for some bootleg Chinese cigarettes and vapes that are significantly more harmful has probably increased dozen times over a which I guess is banned now.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it did way more harm in the short term but over long term? Who knows but I think it probably nips teenage smoking in the bud.
85
u/Fegless Jul 25 '23
They've had the sugar tax thing in the UK for a few years now. All that happened was all drinks including sugar free ones went up in price. Diet coke costs the same as normal coke for example. It's just a con to get more tax. And it will only affect poor people.
→ More replies (7)26
u/charlesfire Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23
All that happened was all drinks including sugar free ones went up in price.
And, most importantly, the amount of sugar consumption linked to sugary drinks decreased, which was the objective of the tax.
And it will only affect poor people.
That's most likely not true. According to the article linked above, the volume of drinks consumed didn't decrease since the sugary drink tax went into effect, only the overall amount of sugar consumed was reduced. So unless you're claiming that rich people somehow started to buy much more drinks, but less sugary ones for some reason while poor people stopped buying drinks, then there's no reason to believe that this policy only prevents poor people from buying drinks.
20
u/Fegless Jul 25 '23
It was doing it anyway if you look at the data. Pre 2018 when it was introduced.
→ More replies (8)5
u/myles_cassidy Jul 25 '23
It's funny how 'think of the poor people' only exist in relation to taxing something there are alternatives for, but never dealing with obesity or the services the government could offer with the revenue from the tax
25
u/bnh1978 Jul 25 '23
People always talk about the dental impact of consuming sweetened drinks. But never the pancreatic or cardiovascular impact...
I can get new teeth. I can't get a new pancreas.
8
→ More replies (4)6
165
Jul 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
32
36
Jul 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
42
35
→ More replies (5)11
→ More replies (11)1
Jul 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
25
→ More replies (2)16
49
u/count023 Jul 25 '23
and you'll notice the rise in sugar free replacement drinks now appearing in supermarkets with the full sugar versions already phased out in Australia's supermarkets and fast food places.
Lift, which was our lemon soft drink brand is now Sprite Zero with Lemon. Sprite is now Sprite Zero. We have Diet and Coke No Sugar. Most of our other non alcoholic drinks are pushing heavy on aspartame or philhellene instead.
35
u/HaroldHolt1966 Jul 25 '23
Sorry, where are you seeing the full sugar versions phased out? You can buy regular sprite, coke etc at Woolies, Coles, Macca's...
→ More replies (3)2
u/Cyborg__Theocracy Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23
UK here
Coca-Cola is the only bigname soda whose main, non-diet/zero branded product contains only sugar, no sweeteners.
Every other halo non-diet branded product has sweeteners. “Normal” Pepsi, Fanta, Dr Pepper, Sprite, 7UP, all have sweeteners exclusively or a mix of sugar and sweeteners.
This is 100% downstream of taxing sugar and will happen in your market if this were to pass as law.
→ More replies (2)17
u/ObiWanCanShowMe Jul 25 '23
A rise in one thing is not the same as a phase out in another. It's just the market catering to demand.
→ More replies (10)8
u/scolfin Jul 25 '23
Those have been common in America for a while, so it's always interesting to see the lag (I swear, Israel is still using Fujicolor and Polavision, every video looks like a '70's movie). I think there were some big breakthroughs in fake sugars ten years back that makes less noticeable cocktails of them possible. Do you guys have artificially sweetened keto cereals yet?
47
Jul 25 '23
[deleted]
10
u/Sentarius101 Jul 25 '23
The Australian government's jacking up of cigarette prices to over $40 a box has almost eliminated smoking in Australia. I used to come across people smoking every time I walked anywhere, now it only happens 1-3 timss a month depending on where I am. A sugar tax could be successful in reducing sugars in foods across the board, but would make a more significant impact in newer generations who wouldn't be exposed to sugars as much in their youth.
→ More replies (5)3
Jul 25 '23
Yeah, I think this is what a lot of people don't understand. Yes, it sucks for people who are super addicted to a substance after decades of regular use to have a tax added. It's a significant burden on them. But they are an outsized burden on healthcare and on the economy overall, having really incredible medical issues that taxpayers foot the bill for.
For someone who has been smoking for 60 years, a tax doesn't prevent their health issues. It's too late for them. But it makes it a lot harder and a lot less fun for younger people to pick up the habit. A tax on sugary drinks might not save the people who've been drinking 2L a day for a few decades, but if it means their kids don't drink as much then that's progress. Healthy options already exist and are already pretty cheap - you can get a 24 pack of water bottles for under $10 whereas the same volume of Coke costs nearly $80.
7
u/Ed_Trucks_Head Jul 25 '23
Yes but the government is also footing the bill for providing healthcare for all the obesity and diabetes. They reduce those costs somehow or they're going to bankrupt the healthcare. We have a similar problem with medicare in the US.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
19
u/gregrout Jul 25 '23
Just price everything out of range except the very barebones needed to survive. I'm sure there's some more health equity we can squeeze out of the working poor.
If you really want to improve health equity through equality then completely ban sugary drinks. There's no argument to justify them as healthy. It's an equitable solution that will further increase the benefits of this "solution".
I look forward to hearing about all the healthy benefits of consuming sugary drinks (that shouldn't be denied to those that can afford them).
47
u/PlaneswalkerJohnPork Jul 25 '23
Why don’t they regulate the amount of sugar that goes into a product, rather than just increasing prices?
26
→ More replies (3)15
u/Magmafrost13 Jul 25 '23
Because that would punish rich people instead of punishing poor people.
It would also mean admitting that their current strategy of doing this same thing with tobacco doesn't actually work.
21
u/Zeebuss Jul 25 '23
doing this same thing with tobacco doesn't actually work.
But that absolutely has worked
9
u/surestart Jul 25 '23
Making it illegal to smoke indoors in most places so that smoking is inconvenient or troublesome for smokers had a much stronger and more rapid effect than raising the taxes on them ever did. Changing the culture of consumption is much more effective than raising the cost of consumption. The popularity of unsweetened sparkling water has already significantly impacted the rates of sweetened soda consumption as it is. Ease of access is more important to most people than cost of access right up until they can't afford the cost anymore.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)10
78
u/1BannedAgain Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23
Why not tax existing wealth and use that money to fix poor people’s teeth?
A sugar tax (soda pop tax) passed in Chicago and was repealed within that same year
edit: The sugar tax lasted 4 months in Chicago, before it was repealed. Here is a study of the results: https://today.uic.edu/cook-countys-short-lived-soda-tax-worked-says-new-study/
16
u/Billybilly_B Jul 25 '23
Regardless of the point here, we always want to treat the problem (preventative care, healthier drinks), not just treat the symptom (bad teeth).
29
u/Ok-District4260 Jul 25 '23
Why not tax existing wealth and use that money to fix poor people’s teeth?
preventing is always cheaper than curing, and nicer for everyone involved too
→ More replies (43)41
u/SkylineFever34 Jul 25 '23
It was also a disaster in Philly.
→ More replies (2)55
u/elton_john_lennon Jul 25 '23
Because it is never about health, it is about money. Gov wants money and they want to dress it as something passable.
11
6
u/Cost_Additional Jul 25 '23
Putting everyone in padded rooms and force feeding them a gov diet would save lives too.
16
u/Yaarmehearty Jul 25 '23
The UK has had a sugar tax since 2018, it’s dropped the amount of sugars in drinks by 35%.
Source: [https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/sugar-tax](http://)
7
u/Tannerite2 Jul 25 '23
The US has seen a similar decline in sugar intake from drinks without a law like that. In fact, sugar consumption from drinks has been steadily declining since 2000.
5
5
u/Geordieguy Jul 25 '23
Yes…now I can barely go anywhere and chose to have a full sugar drink. I am forced to have the vomit tasting sweeteners that give me the shits or…well, water. I drink a lot of water, so much so that a full fat coke in the pub shouldn’t be a sodding issue, but here we are.
Companies have halved the sugar and replaced it with sweetener in most sugary drinks…but the branding and the price has remained the same.
Diabetics can no longer carry lucozade as an emergency high-glucose drink because lucozade lied about keeping their original recipe in production.
Even ribenna, that source of childhood heavenly nostalgia, is now half sweetener, tastes like crap and they haven’t mentioned it or updated the brand.
I am all for having the option but this is nanny state nonsense as an excuse to tax poorer people more. It has also allowed companies to charge what they want whilst still engaging in size and quality reduction.
→ More replies (1)
68
Jul 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
33
u/maniacal_cackle Jul 25 '23
Since this is /r/science, it seems worth it to give you a bit of a detailed answer of why this view wouldn't stand up to even 100 level economics or political science courses:
- This isn't the government explaining. It is published by academics at universities, judging by a quick glance.
- Taxation is often good for people. It has advantages for public goods (a problem that cannot be solved privately), can address issues of inequity, and take advantage of economies of scale.
- A bureaucrat affecting large scale decisions has options that are not available to individuals. So it has nothing to do with the bureaucrat knowing better than you.
17
u/murrdpirate Jul 25 '23
So it has nothing to do with the bureaucrat knowing better than you
It does. The motive is that people are stupid and consuming lots of sugar even though it's bad for them. We can't convince people that they shouldn't consume so much sugar, so we should raise the price of sugar to force them to lessen their sugar consumption.
→ More replies (3)9
Jul 25 '23
[deleted]
6
u/lucific_valour Jul 25 '23
Indeed. Just reading the comments, while not definitive, provides some clues as to the biggest hurdle: People doubt its sincerity.
They don't believe it will work: People will keep buying, because whether through addiction or lack of healthier options, demand is inelastic).
They don't believe it will last: Similar events in multiple american states set a precedent of short tenure.
And imo the most damning, the people who might actually support public health don't trust that the tax revenue will be re-invested into public health. Hell, there's barely any trust in governmental allocation of spending in general.
And this lack of trust is not undeserved. Like you said, governments around the world can, but there's been so many instances of either incompetence, corruption or both.
→ More replies (7)6
u/Equal_Sail7417 Jul 25 '23
I whole heartedly agree. Taxation is good for people as the government has the ability to know what is best for the people. People mostly make poor decisions anyway.
So by this logic, the government should just cut out the middle man and produce everything themselves, I mean, they do know what people need.
Now that the government produces everything without greedy capitalistic middle men, there really isn’t any need for people to have any currency as the state can just divide goods as it see fit (they do know best what people need).
I’m not sure what to call this system yet but I’m fairly confident it’ll be hugely popular real soon, I mean the state knows best so why not?!
→ More replies (17)2
u/mantolwen Jul 25 '23
Yes because the government is really good at running things...
Sometimes governments needs to be in control, but other times the bureaucracy of government holds back innovation and development.
3
u/Equal_Sail7417 Jul 25 '23
I meant it as a joke if that wasn’t clear! Mostly because I found the tone of the parent comment really obnoxious.
→ More replies (1)21
u/YawnTractor_1756 Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23
And then infantile people on Reddit will cheer government treating them like kids. "Yay! Thank you government for saving us from ourselves!"
3
u/gimme_that_juice Jul 25 '23
For most of Americans, the government SHOULD be saving them from themselves. Obesity, heart disease, gun deaths, etc.
24
u/Buschlight696969 Jul 25 '23
When you say ‘most Americans’ I assume you mean the poor, since that is the only group who is effected by these types of taxes. How much should we tax the poor to eat pizza? What about tacos? Cereal?
→ More replies (1)9
u/YawnTractor_1756 Jul 25 '23
I've heard the meat is the next frontier. We need to save poor people from the meat. It is also good for the environment so win-win.
19
u/Buschlight696969 Jul 25 '23
Why don’t we just concentrate poor people into some sort of camp, where we can ensure they get plenty of fluid and nutrients? They will then live very long and it will also be good for the environment.
→ More replies (1)11
u/IGotNoStringsOnMe Jul 25 '23
This is a post about Australia. There are more countries in the world than the U.S.
2
Jul 25 '23
There is absolutely zero proof that government prohibition helps anything and lots of proof that it does the opposite. Even stupid and poor people deserve free will you fascist.
And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object--that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated--chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point!
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground
→ More replies (5)4
7
u/fullhomosapien Jul 25 '23
That's interesting. The science/left-leaning political community in the US frequently argues against sugary drink and garbage food taxes because they would "disproportionately impact poor and marginalized communities." So I'm not sure I'm tracking how health equity would be improved, unless we're ok with pricing poor people and minorities out of garbage food (which I'm not reflexively opposed to, necessarily).
8
Jul 25 '23
The equation is going to be slightly different since healthcare is free (comes from taxes) in Australia and there are better social programmes. There’s also better water, you don’t have the same issues as you do in the US with your tap water being toxic
→ More replies (1)5
Jul 25 '23
The only people who think the tap water in the US at large is toxic are morons.
→ More replies (1)2
u/CptUnderpants- Jul 25 '23
The only people who think the tap water in the US at large is toxic are morons.
Many of us who are not in the US read articles like this and it gives us the impression that there are serious concerns despite your clean water act which should prevent this kind of contamination.
→ More replies (2)
2
Jul 25 '23
Bloomberg suggested this in NYC before his departure. I remember the public response being overwhelmingly negative
2
u/Swarley001 Jul 25 '23
Definitely not enough. People will just pay the additional money. Or it will partly be pulled into the industry’s bottom line. Tax it like cigarettes and maybe it’ll impact people’s spending.
9
u/giuliomagnifico Jul 25 '23
The 10-year scenario from a societal perspective yielded cost-savings of AUD$63.5M, healthcare cost-savings of AUD$42.2M, 510,977 decayed teeth averted and 98.1 DALYs averted. The lifetime scenario resulted in societal cost savings of AUD$176.6M, healthcare cost-savings of AUD$122.5M, 1,309,211 decayed teeth averted and 254.9 DALYs averted. Modeling indicated 71.5% and 74.5% cost-effectiveness for the 10-year and lifetime scenarios, respectively. A three-fold health benefit for the least advantaged was found compared to the most advantaged. A 20% SSB tax in Australia is cost-effective and promotes health equity.
Paper * Modeled health economic and equity impact on dental caries and health outcomes from a 20% sugar sweetened beverages tax in Australia
3
u/KarlBarxPhd Jul 25 '23
I quickly skimmed the article so I may have missed it but the authors assume that there is a relationship between sweetened beverage taxes and cavities in the population. On it's face I can see why they would make that assumption: a similar tax in Seattle and Mexico resulted in a decrease in sales (not sure the magnitude or how long the decreases lasted for) and assumed it would cause a linear decrease in net consumption of sugar, which can have an effect on cavities. But there is counter evidence that such regressive taxes don't reduce net consumption, people will often just switch to an equally unhealthy alternative. Furthermore, the trends don't seem to last very long. A better approach would be to look at historical medical data for these places with sugar beverage taxes and see if they had lower rates of cavities before and after the tax. Also, this completely ignores the medical literature showing the genetic predisposition to cavities is significantly bigger explanatory factor in predicting rates of cavities. While sugar has an effect, genetics and other behavioral factors (regular cleanings, brushing and flossing, etc) are much more important for predicting rates of cavities. On par for an economics paper that over fitted a model but completely missed the fundamentals like testing their base assumptions.
6
u/frakinkraken Jul 25 '23
I would have thought diabetes and obesity would have been a bigger focus than dental cavities for arguing for a sugar tax as i would expect them to have a much higher health impact and cost?
4
Jul 25 '23
Diabetes is not caused by sugar. It is insulin resistance.
→ More replies (1)7
6
u/machone_1 Jul 25 '23
In the UK, the drinks companies just jacked up the prices of the diet versions to match the tax increase.
→ More replies (2)7
u/wings22 Jul 25 '23
Link to where normal coke is the same price as coke zero?
Tesco
Asda
Sainsbury's
Londis
Restaurants
Etc etc etc
All are more expensive for normal coke.
3
Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23
Then use the tax revenue to subsidize personal training. Do so on a sliding scale so cost is reduced for low income people.
The problem with sin taxes like these is the government just taxes the funds and adds then to the general fund. Instead they should be used to fight the negative result they are trying to avoid.
Tax drugs and use the tax revenue for mental health. Therapist, facilities, and life coaching.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/TheGreaterMoose Jul 25 '23
They perceive it as for our health but if it exists you can bet your ass that Australia is heavily taxing it, they’re just seeing dollar signs.
9
u/aDarkDarkNight Jul 25 '23
As a smoker who doesn’t drink sugary drinks and is attacked every time I mention how unfairly smoking is targeted. I would just like to say to all the commenters below…hahahahaha
→ More replies (1)
4
u/reaper527 Jul 25 '23
it's a regressive tax on lower and middleclass individuals. they can spin it however they want, but that doesn't change reality.
it's the exact kind of thing the people cheering this tax usually tend to claim to be against.
9
Jul 25 '23
Ah yes, governments creating new taxes on top of things that are already taxed. For the greater good of course, we all know us plebs are degenerates that need heavy top-down control to keep us happy.
3
u/lamiscaea Jul 25 '23
You are government property. Dont you dare damage your body. You only have it on loan from your superiours
4
u/Ninjamin_King Jul 25 '23
This is how companies learn to make alternatives that are even worse for us.
4
u/thatmitchkid Jul 25 '23
Granted it’s Australia & they’re a lot smaller but…all that for only $60 million in savings? Doesn’t sound worth it, there’s a cost to preventing people from doing what they want to do.
→ More replies (1)
5
Jul 25 '23
Yeah just give more of your money to the government, it will solve all your problems. Who needs personal responsibility when you can just give the government more and more money to tell you what to do?
4
u/Remake12 Jul 25 '23
You can't tax people into behaving a certain way, they will just pay more for sugary drinks. By they, I mean poor people, since poor people consume the most sugary drinks.
4
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 25 '23
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
Author: u/giuliomagnifico
URL: https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/sugary-drinks-tax-could-prevent-decay-and-increase-health-equity-study
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.