Send your letters to the Editor, British Dental Journal, 64 Wimpole Street, London, W1G 8YS. bdj@bda.org. Priority will be given to letters less than 500 words long. Authors must sign the letter, which may be edited for reasons of space.
Sir, in April 2018 the sugar tax will be introduced. Hailed as one of the biggest UK health initiatives in recent years, it seems a huge step towards curbing increasing rates of childhood obesity and paediatric hospital admissions for extractions. However, can this leap forwards in oral disease prevention and health promotion actually work?
Evidence cited for the potential success includes that of a similar 10% tax introduced by Mexico in 2014, resulting in a 12% decline in sugary drink purchases in year one.1 Yet, recent data show purchase figures beginning to rise.2 Denmark's now infamous 'fat tax' was abolished within 15 months and thence plans for a similar sugar tax. A recent paper argued their tax minimally impacted 'unhealthy foods' consumption.3 Consumers switched to cheaper brands, even going so far as to cross into Sweden and Germany to shop! Effects included increased prices on everyday foods and an increase in inflation. Much tax revenue was eaten up by administration costs. Argued to be 'regressive', hitting the poorest, hardest; a similar argument was cited here in the UK and demonstrated in Mexico with the highest reductions in lower SES households.1
California's 2015 soda tax saw only 22% tax value passed onto the customer causing prices to raise less than half the tax amount.4 Soft drink consumption has been falling across the US regardless, argued to be a 'halo effect' from increased discussion and health awareness surrounding tax proposals. In the UK, manufacturers are already reformulating drinks to below taxable thresholds. A sugar tax may be successful short term, but there are no long-term data as to successes of similar schemes. Marketing strategies including end-of-aisle and till-point locations can increase sales by up to 50%5 as well as promotional bias towards discounting sugary items. Public Health England suggests 6% of sugar volume sold is preventable6 and addressing these marketing tactics could go a long way towards reducing sales. We must wait and see what effect the new sugar tax will have.
References
Colchero M A, Popkin B M, Rivera J A, Ng S W . Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ 2016; 352: h6704.
Guthrie A, Esterl M . 2016. Soda Sales in Mexico Rise Despite Tax. Wall Street Journal 3 May 2016. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/soda-sales-in-mexico-rise-despite-tax-1462267808 (accessed 24 January 2017).
Snowdon C . The proof of the pudding: Denmark's fat tax fiasco, IEA Current Controversies Paper No. 42, Institute of Economic Affairs. 2013. Available at: https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The%20Proof%20of%20the%20Pudding.pdf (accessed February 2018).
Cawley D, Frisvold D . The Incidence of Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: The Case of Berkeley, California. The National Bureau of Economic Research. 2015. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21465 (accessed February 2018).
Nakamura R, Pechey R, Suhrcke M, Jebb S A, Marteau T M . Sales impact of displaying alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages in end-of-aisle locations: an observational study. Soc Sci Med 2014; 108: 68–73.
Tedstone A, Targett V, Allen R . Sugar Reduction: the evidence for action. Public Health England, 2015. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470179/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_action.pdf (accessed February 2018).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tebbutt, J. Oral health: Sugar tax doubts. Br Dent J 224, 200 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.138
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.138
