Rita Panahi: Terrible sugar tax idea simply won’t work
Yet another Australian of the Year has used the occasion to immediately scold the nation. And while Dr James Muecke is well intentioned, his terrible plan to introduce a tax on sugar simply won’t work, writes Rita Panahi.
Rita Panahi
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rita Panahi. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Prepare to hear plenty about the evils of sugar and why we need to introduce a new tax to save the masses from themselves. Sin taxes are all the rage among public health advocates including this year’s Australian of the Year, ophthalmologist Dr James Muecke.
The Adelaide eye doctor has made it clear that he plans to use his platform as Australian of the Year to lobby for a sugar tax, claiming that sugar is “as addictive as nicotine”.
Is there any danger of having an AOTY who is not going to immediately scold the nation? Whether it’s David Morrison lecturing Australians not to use “gendered terms” such as “guys” or Adam Goodes telling us to “remember whose lands you are on”, the AOTY honour has become a pulpit for the preachy and sanctimonious.
As for the Australia Day honours list, why is it full of professionals handsomely rewarded for doing their jobs, whether they are in the entertainment industry, public servants or in the media?
The honours, whether it’s the AOs, ACs, AMs and OAMs, should be reserved for those who work tirelessly in the community; the volunteers who make an invaluable contribution to the nation but receive no financial reward, recognition or applause.
But back to the sugar tax and why it’s a terrible idea. Now, I have no doubt the good doctor who has an exemplary record both in Australia and overseas in helping to prevent and treat blindness, is well intentioned in wanting to tackle the scourge of obesity and type 2 diabetes which can lead to blindness.
“Sugar is cheap and ubiquitous, so it’s readily accessible to everyone. You walk into a service station and there’s a counter of lollies as you walk in,” said Dr Muecke. “I think we need to take sweet products away from checkout counters, particularly when they’re discounted … we’ve got to make them less accessible to the public.”
These nanny state proposals have a simplistic appeal but they do little to influence change in consumer behaviour. A sugar tax will disproportionately hurt low income earners but do little to curb consumption.
When British Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised to review the UK’s sugar tax with the intention of removing it, the public health advocates screamed about its effectiveness but their data did not match the rhetoric.
Despite what its cheerleaders claim, much of the data shows that sin taxes are highly ineffective in motivating better nutritional choices. For a sugar tax to have any meaningful impact it must, like the tax on tobacco, be prohibitive. The massive hikes in tobacco excise have seen the cost of a packet of cigarettes soar past $35, with another 12.5 per cent price increase coming in September. The exorbitant cost of tobacco has contributed to the smoking rate almost halving since 1995.
A 10 or 15 per cent tax on high sugar products such as soft drinks, while being a rich new source of income for the government, would do next to nothing in reducing sugar consumption.
EVEN if you cherry pick the studies that claim sugar taxes work, they show only a minimal drop in the consumption of sugary drinks, an average of 10 per cent. But that doesn’t mean those people aren’t getting their sugar hit elsewhere.
Cranberry juice has slightly higher sugar content than Coke. Obviously, cranberry juice is far better for you than whatever is in a Coke can but if we are focusing on reducing sugar intake, then it may be added to the list to be taxed along with most other juices.
The fact that nowhere in the world has a sugar tax led to a drop in the obesity rate tells you everything you need to know about its effectiveness or lack thereof.
There is no doubt that obesity is a serious public health concern, with one in three Australians obese, according to data compiled by Torrens University using Australian Bureau of Statistics figures.
It’s a sobering reminder for those who insist we must celebrate all body types, including those in the obese and morbidly obese categories. One wonders whether the body positivity movement led by the likes of model Tess Holliday and singer and rapper Lizzo does more harm than good.
Instead of simplistic faux solutions such as new taxes, it would be more beneficial to teach children from a young age the benefits of a healthy lifestyle and give them practical advice on food preparation.
Home economics classes may seem archaic in this modern Uber eats age but they provide children with valuable information and hands-on experience in how to prepare a healthy meal.
It seems rather bizarre that two agendas we keep seeing pushed from public health advocates are calls for new sin taxes on alcohol, fast food, sugar, and a push to legitimise illegal drug use. In recent years there’s been a plethora of public health advocates pushing pill testing, drug injecting facilities and calling for sniffer dogs to be banned from music festivals because their presence “is making people choose to take drugs earlier, faster or in higher quantities”.
Dr Muecke will spend the next 12 months pushing the merits of a sugar tax but as it stands, both the Coalition and Labor remain opposed. Let’s hope it stays that way.
Rita Panahi is a Herald Sun columnist.