Editorial: Rising support for tax on sugar

NOT SO SWEET: Can a tax on sugar drinks work? PHOTO/FILE

The argument for a sugar tax on soft drinks is a compelling one and it seems there is growing support among Kiwis for such a move.

Last week it was reported that polls carried out by a group of doctors found support for such a tax - where money would go back into fighting childhood obesity - had grown from 44 per cent to 52 per cent in 18 months.

Gerhard Sundborn from the University of Auckland's School of Population Health says the speed at which public opinion had shifted in favour of such a tax indicated that New Zealanders are more aware of the harms sugar-sweetened beverages pose to health, especially for children. Labour and the Greens have expressed support for a sugar tax, but National has no plans for such initiatives.

The results of that poll came after another report found about 2400 lives a year could be saved by putting a 20 per cent tax on our saltiest, fattiest foods and by cutting the price of fruit and vegetables with a 20 per cent subsidy. A system of penalties and rewards will swing purchasing towards healthier options, gradually leading to a healthier population, researchers say.

Food and Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich believes computer modelling does not accurately reflect the complexities of people's purchasing decisions. "I don't think using the New Zealand tax system to subsidise brussels sprouts by 20 per cent will make people eat more of them, or any vegetable for that matter."

I disagree. I think cost plays a major part in purchasing decisions. If vegetables were cheaper and unhealthy food options were more expensive then it is likely people would choose healthier options. While moves to regulate our food choices might be met with resistance, the cost of doing nothing is high. Official figures show 11,130 people were diagnosed with diabetes as of December 2012. The figure was up 8.2 per cent on the 10,281 diagnosed in 2011, which was itself up 8 per cent on 2010. That represents a huge cost to the health system and, in turn, the taxpayer.