7th March 2014, Volume 127 Number 1390

Terence Quirke

It is valuable for Ni Mhurchu and colleagues to have demonstrated the potential positive impact on health outcomes and equity of taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages in the New Zealand context.1 However, an emphasis on the taxation of carbonated soft drinks alone detracts from the need to consider the wider soft drink market.

The soft drink market includes products other than carbonated drinks, that can contain significant amounts of sugar, and make up about a quarter of the sales of Coca Cola Amatil, the premier seller in New Zealand.2,3Artificially sweetened drinks also act as an appropriate substitute product for sugar-sweetened soft drinks and so it is important that a tax on soft drinks is applied to sugar-sweetened drinks alone.

How a tax is applied can impact its effect. A duty applied to volume or sugar content rather than as a percentage of value reduces the potential of consumers to respond by purchasing cheaper brands or buying in bulk.4

The use of fiscal measures to reduce the consumption of simple sugars to improve nutrition and health is warranted as health education has a limited effect on behaviour5 and non-regulatory measures alone are considered to be insufficient.6 However, the impact of taxation should be enhanced with concomitant education,7 as the awareness of health harms reinforces the impact of taxation on food consumption.8 The earmarking of the funds raised, for health programmes as the authors suggest, may improve societal acceptability9 and would be similar to the taxation of alcohol.10

In two Pacific nations taxes on sugar drinks were initiated expressly for health reasons and to generate revenue to enact preventive health interventions.8 Let’s hope that this option gains traction in New Zealand as it has done in other parts of the World.

Terence Quirke
Public Health Physician and General Practitioner
Wellington, New Zealand

Correspondence

Terence Quirke Public Health Physician and General Practitioner Wellington, New Zealand

References

  1. Ni Mhurchu C, Eyles H, Genc M, Blakely T. Twenty percent tax on fizzy drinks could save lives and generate millions in revenue for health programmes in New Zealand [letter]. N Z Med J. 2014;127(1389):92–5. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/127-1389/5989/content.pdf
  2. The Fact Book 2012 [Internet]. Coca Cola Amatil Limited; [cited 2014 Feb 24]. Available from:http://ccamatil.com/InvestorRelations/ShareholderInfo/Documents/2012%20CCA%20Fact%20Book.pdf
  3. Coca-Cola [Internet]. Coca-Cola Journey. [cited 2014 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.coca-colajourney.co.nz/brands/coca-cola/
  4. Chen L, Appel L, Loria C, Lin P-H, Champagne C, Elmer P, et al. Reduction in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with weight loss: the PREMIER trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May 1;89(5):1299–306.
  5. Swinburn BA, Caterson I, Seidell JC, James WPT. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of excess weight gain and obesity. Public Health Nutr. 2004 Feb;7(1A):123–46.
  6. House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee. Behaviour Change [Internet]. The Stationery Office London; 2011 Jul. Available from:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldsctech/179/179.pdf
  7. Dellava J, Bulik C, Popkin B. Price changes alone are not adequate to produce long-term dietary change. J Nutr. 2010 Oct 1;140(10):1887–91.
  8. Thow AM, Jan S, Leeder S, Swinburn B. The effect of fiscal policy on diet, obesity and chronic disease: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Aug 1;88(8):609–14. doi: 10.2471/BLT.09.070987. Epub 2010 Feb 22. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908970/
  9. Brownell K, Frieden T. Ounces of Prevention — The Public policy case for taxes on sugared beverages. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(18):1805–8.
  10. Alcohol In Our Lives: Curbing The Harm [Internet]. New Zealand Law Commission.; 2010 Apr. Report No.: 114. Available from: http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/review-regulatory-framework-sale-and-supply-liquor?quicktabs_23=media_and_speeches#node-778