• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Evidence in many countries proves that taxes on fizzy drinks would deter consumption


patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
See press release below. The key point:

"In their combined analysis of 32 studies (all from high-income countries from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the authors' model predicted a 0.02% fall in energy intake from saturated fat for each 1% price increase. Likewise, a 10% increase in the price of soft drinks could decrease consumption by 1% to as much as 24%."

The Minister of Health Reilly's request for a tax on sugary drinks in the budget was ignored by Finance Minister Noonan who presumably thinks preserving jobs in the junk food industry is more important than measures to stem the obesity epidemic sweeping Ireland.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public release date: 11-Dec-2012
[ Print | E-mail | Share Share ] [ Close Window ]

Contact: Sumrina Yousufzai
syousufzai@plos.org
415-568-3164
Public Library of Science
Taxes on sugary drinks and high fat foods could improve health
Press release from PLOS Medicine

Taxes on soft drinks and foods high in saturated fats and subsidies for fruit and vegetables could lead to beneficial dietary changes and potentially improve health, according to a study by experts from New Zealand published in this week's PLOS Medicine.

Helen Eyles and colleagues from the University of Auckland and the University of Otago (Wellington) reached these conclusions by reviewing all relevant modelling studies that investigated the association between food pricing strategies, food consumption and chronic diseases (often referred to as non-communicable diseases, which includes conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes).

In their combined analysis of 32 studies (all from high-income countries from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the authors' model predicted a 0.02% fall in energy intake from saturated fat for each 1% price increase. Likewise, a 10% increase in the price of soft drinks could decrease consumption by 1% to as much as 24%.

In contrast, the authors found that a 10% decrease in the price of fruits and vegetables could increase consumption by between 2% to 8%. However, the authors found evidence to suggest that such a subsidy might result in compensatory purchasing with people buying less of other healthy products, such as fish, or more of less healthy products (e.g. sugar), which may not be beneficial to health overall.

The authors also found that studies that compared food pricing strategies by socio-economic group estimated improved health outcomes for those on lower incomes, which may be relatively greater than for those on higher incomes. This suggests that food pricing strategies also have the potential to reduce inequalities.

The authors say: "Based on modelling studies, taxes on carbonated drinks and saturated fat and subsidies on fruits and vegetables are associated with beneficial dietary change, with the potential for improved health. "

The authors continue: "It must be noted that the impact of any given food tax or subsidy is likely to differ by country depending on factors such as the type of tax system implemented, health status, co-existent marketing, cultural norms, expendable income, and the social role of food."

The authors add: "Given the limitations of the current evidence, robust evaluations must be planned when food pricing policies are implemented by governments."

The authors conclude: "Additional research into possible compensatory purchasing and long-term population health outcomes for different socio-economic groups is needed."

###

Funding: This research is funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (grant # 10/077). HE holds a Heart Foundation of New Zealand research fellowship (grant # 1463). CNM holds the Heart Foundation of New Zealand Senior Fellowship (grant # 1380). NN and TB are funded by a Health Research Council of New Zealand Programme Grant (#10/248). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Citation: Eyles H, Ni Mhurchu C, Nghiem N, Blakely T (2012) Food Pricing Strategies, Population Diets, and Non-Communicable Disease: A Systematic Review of Simulation Studies. PLoS Med 9(12): e1001353. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001353



IN YOUR COVERAGE PLEASE USE THIS URL TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE FREELY AVAILABLE PAPER (THIS LINK WILL BECOME LIVE WHEN THE EMBARGO LIFTS):

PLOS Medicine: Food Pricing Strategies, Population Diets, and Non-Communicable Disease: A Systematic Review of Simulation Studies

CONTACT:

Helen Eyles
National Institute for Health Innovation
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
h.eyles@nihi.auckland.ac.nz


[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [ Print | E-mail | Share Share ] [ Close Window ]
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,599
You take a lot off a cork man, but ye'll never get his Tanora. No Surrender.
 

neiphin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
5,581
 

'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,538

carruthers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
4,197
See press release below. The key point:

"In their combined analysis of 32 studies (all from high-income countries from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the authors' model predicted a 0.02% fall in energy intake from saturated fat for each 1% price increase. Likewise, a 10% increase in the price of soft drinks could decrease consumption by 1% to as much as 24%."

The Minister of Health Reilly's request for a tax on sugary drinks in the budget was ignored by Finance Minister Noonan who presumably thinks preserving jobs in the junk food industry is more important than measures to stem the obesity epidemic sweeping Ireland.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public release date: 11-Dec-2012
[ Print | E-mail | Share Share ] [ Close Window ]

Contact: Sumrina Yousufzai
syousufzai@plos.org
415-568-3164
Public Library of Science
Taxes on sugary drinks and high fat foods could improve health
Press release from PLOS Medicine

Taxes on soft drinks and foods high in saturated fats and subsidies for fruit and vegetables could lead to beneficial dietary changes and potentially improve health, according to a study by experts from New Zealand published in this week's PLOS Medicine.

Helen Eyles and colleagues from the University of Auckland and the University of Otago (Wellington) reached these conclusions by reviewing all relevant modelling studies that investigated the association between food pricing strategies, food consumption and chronic diseases (often referred to as non-communicable diseases, which includes conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes).

In their combined analysis of 32 studies (all from high-income countries from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the authors' model predicted a 0.02% fall in energy intake from saturated fat for each 1% price increase. Likewise, a 10% increase in the price of soft drinks could decrease consumption by 1% to as much as 24%.

In contrast, the authors found that a 10% decrease in the price of fruits and vegetables could increase consumption by between 2% to 8%. However, the authors found evidence to suggest that such a subsidy might result in compensatory purchasing with people buying less of other healthy products, such as fish, or more of less healthy products (e.g. sugar), which may not be beneficial to health overall.

The authors also found that studies that compared food pricing strategies by socio-economic group estimated improved health outcomes for those on lower incomes, which may be relatively greater than for those on higher incomes. This suggests that food pricing strategies also have the potential to reduce inequalities.

The authors say: "Based on modelling studies, taxes on carbonated drinks and saturated fat and subsidies on fruits and vegetables are associated with beneficial dietary change, with the potential for improved health. "

The authors continue: "It must be noted that the impact of any given food tax or subsidy is likely to differ by country depending on factors such as the type of tax system implemented, health status, co-existent marketing, cultural norms, expendable income, and the social role of food."

The authors add: "Given the limitations of the current evidence, robust evaluations must be planned when food pricing policies are implemented by governments."

The authors conclude: "Additional research into possible compensatory purchasing and long-term population health outcomes for different socio-economic groups is needed."

###

Funding: This research is funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (grant # 10/077). HE holds a Heart Foundation of New Zealand research fellowship (grant # 1463). CNM holds the Heart Foundation of New Zealand Senior Fellowship (grant # 1380). NN and TB are funded by a Health Research Council of New Zealand Programme Grant (#10/248). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Citation: Eyles H, Ni Mhurchu C, Nghiem N, Blakely T (2012) Food Pricing Strategies, Population Diets, and Non-Communicable Disease: A Systematic Review of Simulation Studies. PLoS Med 9(12): e1001353. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001353



IN YOUR COVERAGE PLEASE USE THIS URL TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE FREELY AVAILABLE PAPER (THIS LINK WILL BECOME LIVE WHEN THE EMBARGO LIFTS):

PLOS Medicine: Food Pricing Strategies, Population Diets, and Non-Communicable Disease: A Systematic Review of Simulation Studies

CONTACT:

Helen Eyles
National Institute for Health Innovation
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
h.eyles@nihi.auckland.ac.nz


[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [ Print | E-mail | Share Share ] [ Close Window ]
Best leave parenting to parents not politicians.
 

Tin Foil Hat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
2,900
High taxes don't work for alcohol. They don't work for tobacco. And they won't work for sugar.
Anyway, sugar is only a part of the cause of our obesity epidemic. Fat is a major part, as are carbs. Both are necessary components of a balanced diet. You can't tax large portion sizes of foods that are otherwise healthy, necessary even, in sensible does. Lack of exercise is probably the biggest problem. How about a ban on banning running in school playgrounds for starters?
The only affect of a sugar or fat tax would be a new addiction - an addiction of our government to the excise duties on sugary or fatty foods.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
Why did you exclude this important point from your 'key point'?

'....and subsidies for fruit and vegetables could lead to beneficial dietary changes and potentially improve health'.
 

Deep Blue

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
2,422
See press release below. The key point:

"In their combined analysis of 32 studies (all from high-income countries from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the authors' model predicted a 0.02% fall in energy intake from saturated fat for each 1% price increase. Likewise, a 10% increase in the price of soft drinks could decrease consumption by 1% to as much as 24%."

The Minister of Health Reilly's request for a tax on sugary drinks in the budget was ignored by Finance Minister Noonan who presumably thinks preserving jobs in the junk food industry is more important than measures to stem the obesity epidemic sweeping Ireland
Coca Cola is probably the largest, most powerful, global corporate entity there is.

For good or ill, depending on your point of view, it would be more than able for even the most enthusiastic, reforming Health Minister you could imagine anywhere.

And we have Dr. Reilly....
 

Deep Blue

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
2,422
Why did you exclude this important point from your 'key point'?

'....and subsidies for fruit and vegetables could lead to beneficial dietary changes and potentially improve health'.

I think because they more or less conclude that any savings made on fruit & veg purchases would be spent on sweets...:confused:
 

Tin Foil Hat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
2,900
Why did you exclude this important point from your 'key point'?

'....and subsidies for fruit and vegetables could lead to beneficial dietary changes and potentially improve health'.
Because that doesn't argue for his predetermined opinion?
The human brain is a biased beast to the point of farce. We all hope we work on logic (or at least some of us do), but the truth is that most of us can't ingest information without it being filtered by the phenomenon of confirmation bias. Some of us do better than others at overcoming this. Some of us are particularly poor.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
I think because they more or less conclude
that any savings made on fruit & veg purchases would be spent on sweets...:confused:
Yet the authors say

"Based on modelling studies, taxes on carbonated drinks and saturated fat and subsidies on fruits and vegetables are associated with beneficial dietary change, with the potential for improved health. "

Something for everyone in here
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
Because that doesn't argue for his predetermined opinion?

The human brain is a biased beast to the point of farce. We all hope we work on logic (or at least some of us do), but the truth is that most of us can't ingest information without it being filtered by the phenomenon of confirmation bias. Some of us do better than others at overcoming this. Some of us are particularly poor.
Perhaps. Seems strange to exclude it, as it would make a tax rise an easier sell if combined with subsidies.
 

Tin Foil Hat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
2,900
Perhaps. Seems strange to exclude it, as it would make a tax rise an easier sell if combined with subsidies.
This is Ireland. A tax on unhealthy foods won't be combined with a subsidy on healthier foods. It will be combined with paying Gilmore's wife, and the rest of the PS, their increments - despite the alleged 'pay freeze'. And it will have sweet fukkall impact on our obesity epidemic. In fact, our government will depend on our continued consumption of the newly taxed foods.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
This is Ireland. A tax on unhealthy foods
won't be combined with a subsidy on healthier foods. It will be combined with paying Gilmore's wife, and the rest of the PS, their increments - despite the alleged 'pay freeze'. And it will have sweet fukkall impact on our obesity epidemic. In fact, our government will depend on our continued consumption of the newly taxed foods.
Your last line is probably the truth of the matter.
 

Tin Foil Hat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
2,900
Your last line is probably the truth of the matter.
There's no 'probably' about it. When the green party were in government they implemented low taxes on environmentally friendly cars. The reasoning, they said, was to change consumer behavior - to encourage consumers to buy cleaner cars. What happened? For once, we did what they claimed they wanted us to do. We bought cleaner cars. The result - motor tax receipts fell, and the hole needed filling. So motor tax rose, VRT rose and it will now cost €75 for a driving licence instead of €12.

Taxes introduced under the pretence of wanting to change our behaviour are an absolute lie.
 

Feckkit

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
5,889
The only legitimate justification for tax imposition is the gathering of necessary revenue to fund the legitimate functioning of the state.

Undermining personal autonomy to bring about 'behavioural change' is not a legitimate function of the state, no matter how much the OP would like it to be and, no matter how many threads he begins on it.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
High taxes don't work for alcohol. They don't work for tobacco. And they won't work for sugar.
Anyway, sugar is only a part of the cause of our obesity epidemic. Fat is a major part, as are carbs. Both are necessary components of a balanced diet. You can't tax large portion sizes of foods that are otherwise healthy, necessary even, in sensible does. Lack of exercise is probably the biggest problem. How about a ban on banning running in school playgrounds for starters?
The only affect of a sugar or fat tax would be a new addiction - an addiction of our government to the excise duties on sugary or fatty foods.
You ignore the evidence of the study in your opinionated attitude.
 
Top