A report commissioned under the previous National Government has found only weak evidence a sugar tax has been effective at improving health outcomes in other countries.

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research was commissioned by the Ministry of Health to look into the international evidence for sugar taxes. NZIER researchers reviewed 47 peer-reviewed studies and working papers from the last five years.

They said for a tax to be judged an "effective" health intervention, the tax must make the item more expensive, which must lead to less consumption of the item, reducing sugar or energy intake, lowering risk factors and thus improving health outcomes.

But while the researchers found some evidence a tax would cut sugar intake, the evidence of better health outcomes was "weak" at best, they said.


The report said while a sugar tax would probably cut demand - especially in poorer households - estimates of less sugar intake were often overstated.

A sugary drinks tax is the most likely tax on the table in New Zealand. But the reviewers found there wasn't enough evidence to judge whether sugary drink taxes in other countries had cut overall sugar intake, or if people had just swapped fizzy for other sources of sugar or calories.

Sugar tax on fizzy drinks: Majority want it
Robin Grieve: What would a sugar tax achieve?
Sugar tax: Where the political parties stand

But public health physician Dr Simon Thornley - who belongs to the anti-sugar group Fizz - said the report did not appear to appreciate the distinction between sugar and other energy sources, instead treating all forms of energy as equal.

Fizzy drinks are thought to be the most addictive form of sugar, and the concentrated fructose they supply is "uniquely harmful", he said.

"The epidemiological evidence is pretty clear that sugary drinks are the worst aspect of food in our food environment. So if you discourage sugary drinks, then whatever else you might replace that with is likely to improve your health."

Sugary drinks provide a
Sugary drinks provide a "uniquely harmful" type of energy in the form of concentrated fructose, public health physician Dr Simon Thornley says. Stock photo / 123RF

Thornley agreed with the researchers that there was not yet strong evidence that a sugar tax improved health - but there was evidence it led to people buying less sugar. Countries that had enacted a sugary drinks tax had seen "substantial" declines of 12-20 per cent in sugary drinks purchased, Thornley said.

He believed in a decade or more there would be much stronger evidence that sugar taxes in those countries had improved people's health.


Health Minister David Clark said while there was too much sugar in New Zealanders' diets, and that needed to change, "we have no immediate plans for a sugar tax".

"Instead we are looking at ways to reduce the amount of sugar in processed food and drink, and to develop a better labelling system. I expect business and government to work together on this issue."

Clark plans to meet with the food industry and ask how they intend to reduce sugar levels in food and drink.

"I want the industry to step up rather than have the Government immediately step in and regulate. However, if there is not sufficient progress we would need to look at other options."

Health Minister David Clark has ruled out a sugar tax for now, but wants the industry to come up with a plan to reduce sugar in processed food and drink. File photo / Mark Mitchell
Health Minister David Clark has ruled out a sugar tax for now, but wants the industry to come up with a plan to reduce sugar in processed food and drink. File photo / Mark Mitchell