Around the globe, governments, international organisations, and industry are making major efforts to encourage people to reduce their sugar consumption. Taxing low- or no-calorie beverages opposes these efforts and is counterproductive: consumers are not motivated to reduce their beverage calories, and the tax is effectively disincentivising manufacturers from innovating and offering more lower-sugar options.
According to the European Commission’s report “The Mapping of Fiscal Measures and Pricing Policies Applied to Food, Non-alcoholic and Alcoholic Beverages”, taxes based on the nutrient content of foods and beverages have better chances of achieving positive results in addressing non-communicable diseases:
‘’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 (i.e., taxes based on the nutrient content) have 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. If a tax is implemented in sugar products, a tiered approach should be adopted. A soft drink tax on low- and no-calorie soft drinks does not encourage consumers to purchase low- and no-calorie beverages nor offers manufacturers any incentive to continue to reformulate their products, undermining the soft drinks sector’s ongoing efforts to nudge consumers towards healthier drink options.
It also neglects the role of low- and no-calorie sweeteners in helping reduce overall daily sugar/energy intake and therefore their positive contribution to weight management.
At a time when the rates of obesity and non-communicable diseases remain a concern worldwide and public health authorities are encouraging food manufacturers to replace sugar and reduce calories, the recognition of low- and no-calorie sweeteners as a safe and useful alternative to sugar is paramount:
The inclusion of low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages in taxation schemes undermines the benefits that these provide to consumers, including people living with obesity and people with diabetes whose food and beverage choices are more limited1.
Taxes covering beverages with low- and no-calories do not take into account that health organisations globally recognise the role low- and no-calorie sweeteners can play in helping people manage their weight and diabetes2.
Evidence also shows that low- and no-calorie sweeteners do not raise blood glucose levels or affect blood glucose control. The availability of approved low- and no-calorie sweeteners has therefore made possible a wider range of lower sugar products that can provide a greater choice for people with diabetes7.
1 Reynolds, A., et al., 2023 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-023-05894-8; Brown, J., et al., 2022 https://obesitycanada.ca/guidelines/nutrition/
2 Reynolds, A., et al., 2023 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-023-05894-8; Brown, J., et al., 2022 https://obesitycanada.ca/guidelines/nutrition/; Skurk, T., et al., 2022 https://doi.org/10.1055/a- 1624-5095; Dyson, P. A., et al., 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13603; Helsedirektoratet.
Nasjonal faglig retningslinje for diabetes. 2022; Available from: https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/diabetes
3 World Health Organization, M. Rios-Leyvraz, and J. Montez, 2022 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240046429
4 WHO Europe HBSC Surveys, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018.
5 Laviada-Molina, H., et al., 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13020; Katan, M.B., et al., 2016 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159771
6 Phelan, S., et al., 2005 https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2009.147
7 Nichol AD, Holle MJ, An R., 2018 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0170-6
We cannot deny the current water challenges our world is facing. We are experiencing increased water scarcity, with demands for safe, usable water exceeding supply in many areas, including in Europe.
This situation entails severe risks for the world’s population.
The deterioration of the natural water cycle stems from a confluence of factors: growing urbanisation, growing populations, increased consumption, poor management, pollution, lack of or damaged infrastructure, and climate change.
Agriculture was responsible for 59% of total freshwater use in Europe in 20179, while industrial and domestic uses are the main drivers of increasing water demand. Indeed, as economies industrialise, populations urbanise and water supply and sanitation systems expand.
Additionally, rising temperatures and more extreme weather patterns are causing more droughts and flooding. Climate variability is also bringing more uncertainty as to the availability, predictability and geographical distribution of water. Water and climate change are inextricably linked. From unpredictable rainfall patterns to shrinking ice sheets, rising sea levels, floods and droughts – most impacts of climate change come down to water (UN Water).