Taxing sugary drinks could be back on the menu in Australia. Photo: pexels.
As a fat man who identifies as skinny (trans-slender), I couldn’t help but shudder upon hearing that a sugar tax is again up for debate in Australia.
But the simple truth is that raising the price of soft drinks and/or confectionery won’t properly address the obesity epidemic unless something is done to make healthy alternatives cheaper and easier to access for low-income earners and those with busy lives.
A federal parliamentary inquiry into diabetes recommended the federal government impose a levy (they don’t like to say the word ‘tax’) on all sugar-sweetened beverages, including fizzy drinks, cordial, energy drinks, sports drinks, fruit drinks and even flavoured mineral waters.
Last week, Labor MP Mike Freelander told media that he supports a 20 per cent levy on these beverages, which would push the cost of a can of Coke up from $2 to $2.40 (although Health Minister Mark Butler says there are ‘no plans’ for the levy).
In addition to combating Type 2 diabetes, advocates for this reform argue it would reduce the 66 per cent of Australians who are considered overweight (the percentage figure, not their actual bodies).
A tax on sugary drinks already exists in several countries, including the UK, Ireland, Norway and Thailand.
Mexico has gone a step further and imposed an 8 per cent tax on junk foods such as chocolate and ice cream.
These nations see the tax as a win-win, as evidence suggests they have reduced consumption of unhealthy products, thus lowering pressure on the public health system while also raising revenue for the government.
However, even if taxes were imposed on these products in Australia, in many cases, they would still be cheaper than the healthy alternatives.
At my local supermarket, mushrooms are $11 a kilo, lettuce are $3.50 each and eggs are $8 a dozen. It would cost more to buy the ingredients for a stir fry than to get a greasy MSG-packed version at my local Chinese restaurant, not to mention the time it takes to cook and wash up.
A recent study by the UK’s Food Foundation has found healthier foods cost more than twice as much as less healthy options at the supermarket. Moreover, the prices of more nutritious and less fattening products have increased at a significantly faster rate over the past two years.
The research also found that the most deprived fifth of British households with children would need to spend up to 70 per cent of their disposable income on maintaining a healthy diet. It would be a similar predicament for the most disadvantaged in Australia, where paying for skyrocketing prices of groceries is a huge challenge for families already spending half (or more) of their income on putting a roof over their head.
Maintaining a balanced diet is also an issue for anyone who has a busy life and puts in long hours at work while raising a family. If you don’t have time to prepare dinner, takeaway may be the only option, but check your Uber Eats app and you’ll see unhealthy choices vastly outnumber healthy ones. If you find a high-quality salad, it generally costs upwards of $20.
Subsidising nutritious food to make healthy eating more affordable is a lot less common as a policy remedy across the world than taxing the sin foods. This is obviously because it costs the government money rather than making it revenue.
But if we truly want to reduce growing waistlines across Australia during a cost-of-living crisis, we need to consider the carrot as well as the stick.
