Sugar tax lobby’s war on the working class

NOT content with burdening Australians with some of the world’s highest alcohol and tobacco taxes, the nannies ravenously pursue their next target — sugar, writes Satyajeet Marar.

ARGUMENTS for ‘sin taxes’ on popular vices such as drinks and comfort foods are often portrayed as the struggle of valiant underdog public health activists, who simply want what’s best, against big corporates peddling evil goods to a hapless populace incapable of responsibly living their own lives.

In reality, the opposite holds true — a taxpayer-funded machinery of nanny state activists lobby for more of our money to dictate how to live our lives while demanding tax hikes on our favourite indulgences, often even if these won’t meaningfully address public health issues such as obesity and alcoholism.

Not content with burdening Australians with some of the world’s highest alcohol and tobacco taxes, the nannies ravenously pursue their next target — sugar.

This week’s ABC Four Corners story dealt with the sugar tax lobby and public health programs such as the healthy food partnership and health star ratings for food products. These programs are set by a committee including government bureaucrats, activist groups and industry representatives: a reasonable balance between the interests of interest groups, decision-makers and the businesses actually impacted by regulations. Yet even this is too much democracy for some.

“Industry should be consulted around what policies should be implemented, but they shouldn’t have a role in deciding what they are” says Jane Martin, Executive Director of the Obesity Policy Coalition. This would create a monopoly on policy by giving one interest group the power to overrule another, effectively putting the interests of the public health industry above those of the workers and businesses hit by regulations.

Those ultimately affected by any changes to taxes on sugar products aren’t just business owners. (Pic: iStock)

Those ultimately affected aren’t just business owners. They’re workers from regional NSW and Queensland where jobs and industry are doing it tough enough by already paying more in taxes and electricity costs here than they would in many other developed economies. Denying affected industries a place at the table would also uphold a perverse and long-running theme in public health policy — the entrenchment of publicly-funded organisations colluding with the governments funding them and usually pushing the same policy line. Is it any surprise that their ideas usually involve bigger revenue grabs from consumers and businesses?

“Big industry knows that if you’re going to have influence then you’re going to have to talk to members [of parliament] … this is where the influence happens. Industry can put much more into it than public health and consumer voices,” grumbles Public Health Association CEO, Michael Moore, as he states the bleeding obvious.

Not only does this ignore the fact that activist groups are just as capable of meeting politicians, informing public debate and presenting evidence as businesses are, it also begs the question of where this mythical chorus of consumers lining up and demanding to pay more for their bread, ice creams and drinks can be found.

Perhaps the reason politicians in Australia have largely declined to support a sugar tax is because of evidence that it will not reduce obesity, cuts into the household budgets of our poorest and patronises consumers capable of making informed decisions.

The 300 per cent rise in obesity in Australia since 1980 has occurred concurrently with a 23 per cent decrease in per capita consumption of refined sugar between 1980 and 2003 and a 14.3 per cent drop in sugary drink consumption between 1995 and 2012. Furthermore, obese consumers who overindulge in sugar are far less likely to be sensitive to price hikes — meaning that a vast majority of those impacted by the tax will be Australians who consume sugar as part of a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle.

Consumers concerned about the health impacts of sugar have also already responded without government intervention — per-person sugar intake from carbonated beverages has reduced by 26 per cent over the last 15 years as low and zero sugar alternatives have entered the market.

Sugar taxes introduced in other countries around the world have had mixed results. (Pic: iStock)

Finally, we benefit from international experience. Four nations have taxed sugary drinks in recent years — Denmark, France, Hungary and Mexico. Average Body Mass Index and obesity prevalence has increased or remained the same in all four between 2008 and 2014, with increases in 2015 and 2016. A University of Washington study canvassed American states that adopted their own taxes and similarly found that “research does not support the theory that soda taxes have a negative effect on body-mass index.”

The Menzies Research Centre also found that none of the five Australian research papers calling for a sugar tax actually established any link between the tax and obesity reduction.

Sugar taxes are also regressive. The poor and working class are far more likely to choose sugary drinks and foods as their indulgence of choice after a hard week than the rich, who have better access to more expensive alternatives. Even the left renewal faction of the Australian Greens opposes sugar taxes for this reason.

The public health lobby might wonder if it is out of touch with mounting evidence against sugar taxes, their effects on business and workers, and the reluctance of ordinary Australians to see more of our personal freedoms taken away.

No. We consumers are wrong and must pay more.

Because nanny knows best.

Satyajeet Marar is the Director of Policy at the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance.

The ATA has received no funding from any industry group or company with an interest in the sugar industry.