European Commission’s taxation report concludes that other policies than taxation on soft drinks and high fat sugar salt (HFSS) foods can have a positive effect on European consumers’ health
Are soft drinks taxes effective to fight obesity and overweight in Europe? UNESDA reacts to the European Commission’s new taxation report On 19 July 2022, the European Commission published a new report entitled “Mapping of Fiscal Measures and Pricing Policies Applied to Food, Non-alcoholic and Alcoholic Beverages”. It maps existing fiscal measures and other pricing policies aiming to reduce the consumption of alcohol and of products high in fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS), including non-alcoholic beverages, in the countries participating in the EU health programme as well as Australia, Chile and the United States. UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe appreciates the efforts made to assess the most efficient policies to create a healthier environment in the EU. The European soft drinks industry is committed to playing a meaningful role in the fight against overweight and obesity and welcomes the new data provided by the European Commission’s report. In particular, UNESDA would like to highlight the following conclusions: Other policies than soft drinks and HFSS foods taxation can have a positive effect on Europeans’ health Today, there is no concrete, empirical evidence that selective taxation policies have reduced obesity, overweight and associated NCDs Soft drinks taxation applies to products that represent only a small share of total food and beverage intake Taxes based on the nutrient content of foods and beverages have better chances of changing consumer behaviour towards improved health & nutrition, encouraging cross-industry reformulation Obesity is a complex issue requiring a multi-faceted approach First of all, the report acknowledges the role of other policy measures to achieve positive health outcomes and recognises that “the impact on people’s overall dietary intakes is not large enough to allow these taxes to be viewed as a stand-alone strategy for dietary improvement” (page 2). Overweight and obesity are indeed complex issues with multi-factorial causes requiring a multi-stakeholder approach with governments, industry, the healthcare community and civil society, among others, working together. It is UNESDA’s position that the complexity of obesity does not lend itself to an isolated simplistic solution like a soft drinks tax. For many years, our industry has made far-reaching and successful commitments to reduce the average added sugar content of its drinks and promote moderate consumption. We are committed to continuing our actions to reformulate existing products, innovate to develop new products with lower sugar profiles, place promotion behind low- and no-calorie options to nudge consumer behaviour, and reduce pack sizes to help portion control. No silver bullet – Taxation does not achieve wide health impacts The report also confirms the lack of evidence to demonstrate that soft drink taxes are an effective approach to reduce obesity, overweight and associated NCDs: “While purchases of SSBs and HFSS foods are reduced following the initiation of fiscal measures, the degree to which this affects overall health outcomes, such as obesity and blood pressure, remains unclear based on current evidence.” (page 53) UNESDA already reported that the European markets with soft drinks taxes in place, such as Finland, France, or Ireland, continue to report rising obesity rates with no evidence that taxation has had a positive impact on public health, while at the same time intake of sugar-sweetened soft drinks has fallen. For more information about soft drinks consumption and its relation to obesity and overweight in Europe, please click here Taxing soft drinks only is a simplistic approach that ignores the contribution of other nutrients and food categories to obesity or non-communicable diseases (NCDs) The report also recognises that other types of foods and beverages should be considered in the scope of fiscal policies in order to maximise the impact on public health: ‘’The taxes are small in absolute terms and apply to products that represent only a small share of households’ overall food and beverage expenditures. Therefore, the impact of SSB taxes alone on dietary intake and health is likely to be small at best, despite consistent evidence of their effectiveness in reducing purchases of the taxed products in the available evidence base.’’ (page 11) Soft drinks taxes discriminate against one product category by excluding some of the main food categories contributing to consumers’ sugar intake. This ignores the fact that soft drinks are often not the main contributor to free sugars intake. The EFSA Opinion on Dietary Sugars concluded that ‘sugars and confectionery’ (e.g. table sugar, honey, syrups, confectionery and water-based sweet desserts) are the food groups contributing the most to the intake of added and free sugars in European countries. In its analysis of the tax implemented in the UK, the report states that to have “a more significant effect on overweight and obesity and corresponding non-communicable diseases, it has been recognised that the scope of the policy should be widened to apply to salt as well as sugar in all food and drink products” (page 192). According to UNESDA, this confirms the need for fiscal policies not to discriminate against one particular product category but to encourage reformulation in all product categories contributing to consumers’ sugar, fat and salt intake. Taxes based on the nutrient content of foods and beverages have better chances of achieving positive results Finally, the report supports taxes based on the nutrient content in the foods and beverages targeted by the measures: ‘’Taxes based on the nutrient content in foods and beverages, rather than the volumes of foods and beverages purchased, have better chances of changing consumer behaviour in the direction of improved nutrition and health. Additionally, they can promote product reformulation with even larger effects on nutrient intakes than those deriving from a reduced demand for the taxed products.’’ (page 3) Differentiated taxes (based on the nutrient content) have indeed a greater chance of stimulating reformulation and encouraging consumers to make alternative choices by nudging them toward lower-sugar beverages and of encouraging reformulation by manufacturers. It is UNESDA’s firm position that any sugar taxation scheme should exempt no and low-calorie products or adopt a tiered approach. A soft drink tax on no- and low-calorie soft drinks does not encourage consumers to purchase no and low-calorie beverages nor offers manufacturers any incentive to continue to reformulate their products, undermining the
2022 European study conducted in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe demonstrates that taxation is not necessary to impact sugary soft drinks consumption
According to a 2022 European study conducted in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, taxation is not necessary to impact sugary soft drinks consumption. In the main, larger, or at least similar, declines in the proportion (%) of adolescents drinking sugary soft drinks daily have been reported in countries which have not introduced a soft drink tax, compared to similar countries with soft drinks taxes. The data comes from the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study (HBSC), which estimates frequency of sugary soft drink consumption in nationally representative samples of adolescents. HBSC data is collected as part of an international study in collaboration with the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. (HBSC study | Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study) This study compared data from six European countries which introduced a soft drinks tax between 2001-2002 and 2017-2018 with data from neighbouring countries which had not introduced a tax. Daily sugary soft drink consumption was found to have declined in Poland (no tax), but not in Hungary (with tax); declined in Italy (no tax), but not in France (with tax); experienced a larger decline in the Netherlands (no tax) compared to Belgium (with tax); experienced a larger decline in Spain (no tax) compared to Portugal (with tax); experienced a similar decline in Sweden (no tax) compared to Finland (with tax); Latvia was the only country where the proportion of adolescents drinking sugary soft drinks daily declined post-tax compared to its neighbour – Lithuania (no tax). Download the study