Sugar Taxation Most Effective for Public Health Compared to Salt, Fat and Junk Food

This was the findings of a study on “The effect of food taxes and subsidies on population health and health costs: a modeling study,” published in The Lancet.  The study was conducted by University of Otago researchers and modelled the effects of a hypothesized 20% fruit and vegetable subsidy as well as taxes on saturated fat, salt, sugar and junk food (defined as non-essential, energy dense foods) on a New Zealand population over 30 years based on New Zealand National Nutrition Survey data.  

The sugar taxation was modelled based on tax for all foods and beverages with sugar, not sugar-sweetened beverage alone.  Two of the main outcomes investigated were: The effects of these on public health disease incidences for 17 diet-related diseases (coronary heart disease, stroke, osteoarthritis, diabetes, and 13 types of cancers) and the potential public health gains (calculated based on the number of Health-Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) gained.  

Results showed sugar taxes emerged as the most powerful intervention in terms of reducing the incidences of these diseases when compared to salt, saturated fat, or junk food taxes, or the 20% fruit and vegetable subsidy.