
Sugary drink tax models show health gains, cost reductions, but vary by design - hhs
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/sugary-drink-tax-models-show-health-gains-cost-reductions-but-vary-by-tax-design?preview=cd61
======
Someone1234
No doubt people will arrive shortly to knee-jerk against sugary drink taxes;
but would they mind explaining why sugar is made artificially cheap to start
with?

Obesity massively increased internationally after the mid-1970s US agriculture
policy changes ([0]). Specifically look at corn production after the mid
1970s[1]. One of corn's products is HFCS, the massive influx of this sugar
substitute drove international raw sugar prices down until 2007[2].

This had the side effect of sugar being a cheaper food ingredient than most of
the alternatives, even in countries that didn't directly import HFCS (since
the US was no longer removing as much raw sugar from the market, driving down
costs).

A lot of people who bring up HFCS try to paint it as an even less healthy
sugar, my point is more nuanced than that: That HFCS is driving down prices
and causing more, even raw sugar, to appear in foods as both sugar/HFCS are
subsidized by US aggro policy (and tax payer cash) since between mid-1970s and
today.

We can pass sugar-drink taxes, but it feels like fixing a leak with duct tape.
Instead, we should fix the whole pipe, by changing US aggro policy so that
HFCS isn't unnaturally cheap. This will cause both food manufacturers _and_
consumers to consider the healthier and cheaper alternatives.

PS - I'm not against sugar-drink taxes as an interim step.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#History)

[1]
[https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/image20.png](https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/image20.png)

[2]
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_raw_sugar_pric...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_raw_sugar_prices_since_1960.svg)

~~~
Lazare
> No doubt people will arrive shortly to knee-jerk against sugary drink taxes;
> but would they mind explaining why sugar is made artificially cheap to start
> with?

It's a bit more complicated than that. US agricultural policy subsidises corn
production (driving prices down), but US trade policy keeps cheap sugar out of
the country, while US energy policy diverts corn into making biofuels, both of
which drive prices back up. It's not clear what the net effect is.

Even the impact of corn subsidies alone does not seem to be enormous, however.
Some estimates have corn subsidies driving the cost of corn down by ~27%, with
flow on effects to the prices of meat, dairy, and yes, HFCS. However, HFCS
make up ~3.5% of the cost of a soft drink, and the cost of corn is less than
half the total cost of making HFCS, which means the total impact of corn
subsidies on the price of a soft drink is a couple of pennies.

In other words, if we wanted a sugary drink tax to counteract the impact of
corn subsidies in the US, it would probably need to be on the order of 1-2%.
Would a 1% tax have any measurable impact on consumption? Unlikely.

Meanwhile, Australia has no subsidies, mostly uses sugar (and not HFCS) but
has the same obesity patterns as the US. Analysis of obesity and agricultural
policy across countries finds no trends.

Source: [https://grist.org/article/farm-subsidies-bitter-and-
sweet/](https://grist.org/article/farm-subsidies-bitter-and-sweet/)

Also, small point:

> This had the side effect of sugar being a cheaper food ingredient than most
> of the alternatives, even in countries that didn't directly import HFCS
> (since the US was no longer removing as much raw sugar from the market,
> driving down costs).

Only in the short term; that effect would have ended years ago. The global
price of sugar now is driven by the marginal cost of production in Brazil,
mostly. Americans don't consume (much) imported sugar, but they also don't
export much HFCS, and most of what they do export goes to a single country
(Mexico). There's no glut of "sugar the US would have consumed" on the market.

Second, global sugar prices have been pretty flat for the last 20 years; I
don't think your link 3 is really showing what you say. You can poke at the
chart here: [https://www.macrotrends.net/2537/sugar-prices-historical-
cha...](https://www.macrotrends.net/2537/sugar-prices-historical-chart-data)
but I'm not sure what I'm meant to be seeing.

~~~
mc32
For anecdotal support, let's walk over to Starbucks.

The drinks aren't cheap and people pile on the sweet options. You even have
the option of no sweetener (which few people take advantage of).

I can see if,

    
    
      Sweetened drink = $8.00
      Unsweetened = $4.00
    

And take away the sweetener packets.

Yes, that would likely have an effect.

~~~
chucky_z
IIRC, a 12oz coffee is ~$2.

The equivalent 12oz coffee milkshake is ~$4.

Guess which one is more popular?

That said, I do actually buy the non-sugary drinks because they're cheaper. I
tend to buy Blonde Americanos to get the lowest bitterness espresso flavor
from them, at the lowest price.

------
ebg13
I'm hugely in favor of sugar consumption taxes as a matter of public health,
but the premise of these taxes always seems to be a bullshit facade where the
"-y" in the word "sugary" outweighs the "sugar" part.

For instance, the article says:

> _In the U.S., seven cities (Philadelphia... currently have volume-based
> taxes for sugary drinks_

Philadelphia has a tax on certain beverages that has very little to do with
whether those beverages contain sugar or not. Diet sodas and low-carb protein
drinks (think atkins meal replacements) are taxed heavily in Philadelphia.
100% juice is not. What Philadelphia has is a "sweetened beverage" tax that
specifically doesn't care about sugar, regardless of health consequence,
regardless of how it is sweetened, regardless of how much sugar exists in the
product "naturally".

The other cities do specifically target sugar-sweetened beverages, and then
exempt 100% fruit juice despite Minute Maid 100% Apple Juice containing even
more sugar than Coca-Cola.

~~~
dominotw
> even more sugar than Coca-Cola.

would you target a vanilla latte? What if you get latte without sugar?

~~~
ebg13
> _would you target a vanilla latte?_

My first line started with "I'm hugely in favor of sugar consumption taxes". I
don't understand which part of that was unclear, but I'll attempt to clarify.

> _What if you get latte without sugar?_

True fact: milk has sugar in it.

I favor a model that taxes proportionally by total mg/ml, not just "added".
This is what the American Heart Association advocates for too, though even
they dance around the fruit juice problem.

~~~
alistairSH
What's the "fruit juice problem"? At the end of the day, it's a sugary
beverage. Why shouldn't it be taxed in the same way as any other sweet drink.

~~~
ebg13
> _What 's the "fruit juice problem"?_

The fruit juice problem is that fruit juice is basically just sugar water but
nobody in the general public seems to realize or care and medical associations
continue to drop the ball. The American Academy of Pediatrics only recently
started saying to not give children juice. The American Heart Association
should be hammering that drum loudly when talking about sugar in drinks...but
they don't.

> _At the end of the day, it 's a sugary beverage. Why shouldn't it be taxed
> in the same way as any other sweet drink._

Correct, it _should_ be taxed. But municipalities keep exempting it despite
extremely high sugar content because people are brainwashed into thinking that
fruit juice is healthful and magically forgetting all the sugar.

~~~
alistairSH
Got it, I thought the parent comment was arguing for the status quo (keeping
fruit juice untaxed).

The other thing that amuses me is the size of juice servings in the US vs UK.
I enjoy a glass of OJ with breakfast. In the UK, that's a little "half-size"
glass and in the US it's a full-size water glass (pint?). I much prefer the UK
size (though admittedly, I'm also consuming coffee and water at the same
time).

------
standardUser
I still don't understand the approach to these taxes. Why single out one very
specific form of food with added sugar? If added sugar is contributing to a
health crisis - and I believe it is - then taxing it may be a reasonable way
to address that crisis. But focusing on such a narrow subsection of foods with
added sugar seems insufficient and just plain bizarre.

Do you never eat candy bars or sugary pastries but enjoy soda sometimes? You
get taxed. Do you eat piles of candy bars and sugary pastries everyday but
never drink soda? No tax for you! What?

~~~
sesuximo
I think since the us govt sponsors corn syrup (correct me if I’m wrong), it
would be weird for them to also tax the same thing. They could... you know...
do neither thing...

~~~
nerdponx
It makes perfect sense. It's income redistribution from American food
consumers to Big Ag shareholders.

------
throwaway4666
My (admittedly anecdotal) experience with taxing an addictive/harmful thing
"for people's own good" is that it just results in said people cutting their
budget to afford the tax, making their life worse overall. This ranges from
heroin addicts somehow always finding the daily $$$ to fund their dose, to
people mildly grumbling about the price of cigarettes yet buying them anyway.

On the other hand, forbidding a thing altogether seems to have disastrously
ineffective results too (see: the prohibition, war on drugs, etc.).

Maybe a better solution is to simply forbid companies from putting addictive
things in their products to sell them, but keep the addictive thing legal,
e.g. don't put too much sugar in the soda you make (so people won't expect too
much sugar as a matter of course) but let people add sugar to the soda if they
really want to. In other words, regulate companies' practices but not
individuals'.

~~~
himinlomax
This argument does not fly IMO for sugary drinks, for two reasons:

First, there are healthier alternatives. Sugar-free sodas are probably not
ideal but they can't be worse than sugary drinks.

Second, while sugar may be addictive, it is not _that_ addictive. Some people
would murder to fuel an heroin addiction, but no sugar addict would walk a
mile to get their fix instead of drinking water. And if they did the exercise
would burn some of the calories :)

~~~
bluedino
>> Sugar-free sodas are probably not ideal but they can't be worse than sugary
drinks.

At least in Chicago, they included diet drinks in their tax.

~~~
Icathian
This was my huge complaint with it. Leaving aside for a moment the morality of
vice taxes, raking zero calorie soda into the policy makes it very obviously
just a cash grab.

~~~
ardy42
> raking zero calorie soda into the policy makes it very obviously just a cash
> grab.

Not necessarily. Maybe the goal was to discourage people from the habit of
drinking sweetened drinks in general, instead of just encouraging them to
drink Diet Coke instead. It would probably be better for everyone except the
drink manufactures if everyone just switched to plain water.

------
agurk
One thing that's not mentioned in this article (and it's too soon to access
the original manuscript) is if they control for how markets change their
products in response to the sugar tax.

I've noticed after the UK brought in the sugar tax the formulations for a lot
of drinks changed to have a lower sugar content with sweetness boosted with
artificial sweeteners. This allows them to avoid the sugar tax as they are now
lower sugar. I realised this as occasionally when I was in England I'd enjoy
something like an Irn-Bru (orange Scottish soda made from girders), but a few
years ago I noticed it now tasted horrible to me as I really can't stand
artificial sweeteners. Coca-cola seems to be a notable exception that didn't
change their formula.

Denmark also has a sugar tax (higher than the UK's) but the market kept the
existing products and just charged more for them. An interesting example is
the original formula Ribena (blackcurrant cordial) is made in England and
freely available in Denmark, but the new formulation (less sugar, more
sweeteners, less fruit juice, more thickeners) is the only one available in
the UK.

It'd be interesting to see if there was an effect from sweet drinks now being
a different thing in the UK and if that's a positive outcome from the
legislation. I certainly avoid most soft drinks now when in the UK.

~~~
vidarh
> Coca-cola seems to be a notable exception that didn't change their formula.

Coca Cola is an interesting one in that the Coca Cola Zero Sugar introduction
seemed to have been mostly about introducing a replacement for Coke Zero that
had labeling making it easier to confuse with regular Coke, with the design
dominated by the "regular" red and just some black added (in Europe; in some
other markets the design is more distinct from regular Coke)

> blackcurrant cordial

Interestingly, blackcurrant is almost exclusively a European thing (99%+ of
production).

~~~
user5994461
>>> Interestingly, blackcurrant is almost exclusively a European thing (99%+
of production).

It's a UK thing as far as I am aware. Never seen it in any quantity outside of
the UK.

~~~
agurk
It's definitely common in Denmark. France has crème de cassis[0] and produces
16 million litres annually of the stuff. In Germany and Eastern Europe I've
seen it commonly sold as fruit juice and I've certainly drank a lot of
(Schwarze) Johannisbeereschorle - blackcurrent juice mixed with sparkling
water - in Munich.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A8me_de_cassis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A8me_de_cassis)

~~~
user5994461
I am French so there you go ^^

Creme de cassis is a strong liquor. It's quite expensive due to being alcohol
(alcohol taxes and regulations) and generally being a luxury mixer at that.

It's never drinked alone. It is not drinkable, it's very strong and it has a
thick consistency akin to a smoothie. (You could try a sip but you're
definitely not going to down a glass of that).

Main use is a mixer for cocktails. The most common is "kir". Put a bit of
creme de cassis at the bottom of the glass and fill the rest with a white
wine. The fancy version is the "kir royale", using champagne in place of white
wine.

------
coldpie
Sugary drinks are absolutely the next Big Tobacco and should be treated as
such. It's promising to see the positive results of the experiments that have
been performed worldwide over the past decade or two. Adjusting the prices of
these products to better reflect their externalities seems to be the best way
to address the problems (as opposed to just banning them, for example), and
these studies show that it works.

~~~
bendergarcia
Agree, we need big education campaigns though. So people understand the side
effects. Then they can decide to consume sugar at the high price.

------
Wolfenstein98k
In theory, this idea is great.

In practice, it's a failure every time.

Not every sin need be taxed.

[https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-evidence-
is-...](https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-evidence-is-clear-
sugar-taxes-just-dont-work)

~~~
ethbro
> Not every sin need be taxed.

Absolutely... as long as every individual is willing to pay the full costs of
their sins.

~~~
elric
I'm going to have to disagree with that. There are many "sins" that are not
entirely (or entirely not) the individual's fault or choice. Addictions are
hard to overcome. It's easy to fall into the trap of needing distractions
(food, drugs, sex, whatever) because you happen to be stuck in a dead-end job
or have family issues or whatever.

Making each and every individual responsible for the cost of their own "sins"
completely removes society's responsibility for creating the circumstances in
the first place.

------
Ancalagon
This PBS documentary on sugar and diabetes was incredibly eye-opening for me:
[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/blood-sugar-rising/](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/blood-
sugar-rising/)

I had no idea America was on track for 50% of the population to be pre-
diabetic by 2025, and that a vast majority of americans would be overweight or
obese in the next 20 years. Its really made clear to me that I need to be 100%
about what I'm putting in my body, and if you look at the ingredients of most
food in grocery stores, you find it has some level of sugar. Its also drawn my
attention to my own sugar and carb addiction tendencies. As much as I know I
should not eat that bar of chocolate, even having the option available sways
me to buy it.

To round out my own opinions: sugar is the next tobacco and should be
regulated as such.

------
kop316
Is there a link to the actual study? I can't seem to find it on this website.

~~~
cinntaile
[https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042956](https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042956)

------
momokoko
I was just thinking the other day how refreshing it was that HN had not had
many diet and nutrition links on the front page recently.

Like this one, they tend to be filled with highly polarized and extremists
views and conspiracy theories with very little hard science or data to back
things up.

I thought it had already happened, but I hope someday these topics can be
penalized from ranking highly like other issues that tend to have very low
quality discussion.

Edit: To clarify, I’m referring to the discussion here on HN as opposed to the
article.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Why not share specific examples from this article instead of generalizing?

------
rantwasp
as far as health effects and addictiveness imho sugar should be classified as
a schedule I drug (the whole idea of banning drugs is stupid - but i’m saying
this as an indication of how bad it is)

people just don’t get how harmful it is. sugar and alcohol are two things that
- although socially acceptable - everyone should avoid in everyday life.

~~~
dredds
I think caveat emptor also applies in this case. We don't ban sky-diving, or
any other extreme sports to protect people's life or health.

.. "the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality
and __suitability __of goods before a purchase is made. "

~~~
rantwasp
sure. in the end you’re responsible for the choices you make. it’s just that
it’s stupid hard to eat a healthy diet based on what you normally find in your
average supermarket. sugar and added sugars are the norm.

it’s also shocking - to me - seeing people attempt to minimize the health
impact of sugar.

~~~
dredds
People actually travel to Asia for their cheap and delicious food. Rice takes
a little more effort, but so does exercise. Recipes are free.

------
user5994461
The tax worked amazingly well in the UK.

Right after it went into effect. Ribena cut sugar by half in all their drinks,
to fall under the floor of the higher tax rate.

I'm saying Ribena because that's the free drinks we had the most of in the
company fridges. All other vendors of artificial drinks did the same
overnight.

------
mberning
It will disproportionately punish low income people, just like all other “sin”
taxes.

I would prefer to see a campaign of public education and encouragement towards
healthier alternatives.

In the US we have had very good success in curbing tobacco consumption without
resorting to crazy high taxes like Australia and New Zealand.

~~~
bendergarcia
We definitely need education. It will affect poor people for sure, but with
more taxes collected ideally more us put towards food education and programs.
Same way it has worked for tabacco

------
pmlnr
Yeah, because everything is with sweeteners, and thus undrinkable, so people
instead avoid all of them.

------
Synaesthesia
In South Africa they’ve now reduced the amount of sugar in soda (we call them
coolrdrinks).

However they’ve added artificial sweeteners to make up for the lost sweetness,
which I don’t like. I would prefer it just with less sugar and that’s it.

------
rootusrootus
I am skeptical. The gov't has a demonstrated record of acting on bad
nutritional 'science' when making policy, so why should we trust them to do a
better job this time? We've certainly been convinced in the past that we had
all the right information, only to find out we did not. And the consequences
have been catastrophic.

------
dennis_jeeves
Taxing is a slippery slope to tyranny. I'm no fan of sugar but will not oppose
or restrict someone who wants to have sugar. Side note: there appears to be
therapeutic benefits of sugar (for diabetes and other conditions) that I have
read but I have not been able to confirm.

------
bluedino
What about taxing high sodium, frozen prepared foods?

edit: I appreciate the downvotes, but I feel they have just as much of an
impact on public health as sugary drinks.

~~~
rabanne
>high sodium

Normal people have ability to filter out sodium from the bloodstream on high
intakes without any problem. They might develop problems with the kidney but
kidney problems due to sodium is doubtful. I'd say tea is more dangerous for
kidney than sodium. But same does not apply for sugar. If you eat excess sugar
it will turn into blood sugar, and it will cause insulin to spike. The body
eventually stores the excess in fat, but the process is so harsh for the body
that it will definitely cause cardiovascular problems and diabetes.

Sodium is problematic because it makes us easy to eat carbs (i.e. sugar) more.
Try to eat excess sodium by itself or with protein or fat. You really can't.
But with carb you can. Sodium isn't toxic per se. Carb is the problem. Thus
the sugar tax.

Lots of innocent food ingredients have been blamed for cardiovascular disease
and diabetes. Fat's been exonerated. But I really dobut that sodium is bad for
those two. Fat and sodium have the same thing in common. They make carb taste
good.

>frozen prepared foods

As long as they use good quality ingredients it's OK. Taxing them would make
them less profitable and result to using worse ingredients.

~~~
dredds
Imagine if we taxed pre-existing conditions, like propensity to diabetes or
obesity. Your genetics will set your tax bracket. Politically-incorrect
enough?

Right, so target drinks.. slippery slope.. all sugar.

Then people buy the cheaper cuts of meat to afford a soda or two. Bacon ends
with huge chunks of fat. Congrats, we just swapped one issue for another.

Isn't orange/apple/etc juice full of sugar? What about whole fruits? What
about flying in bananas from the other side of the planet? Can we do that with
less carbon emissions?

I'm just getting started. :P

~~~
rabanne
Taxing sugary drinks can lead to more consumption of proven-safe sugar
subsitutes like saccharin and erythritol. And that's a good thing. It will
definitely boost sales of all-subsitute drinks such as diet coke, and regular
sugar drinks will try to use low sugar and more sugar subsitutes.

We've already seen producers lowering on sugars due to the trend of avoiding
sugar. People won't buy cheaper cuts of meat. Producers will try to dodge the
tax by using sugar substitutes, and it will result to overall positive effect
to the public health. Also, Bacon does not have bad influence on your body.
Fat does not cause cardiovascular problems, diabetes or other accusations of
diseases it faced in the 70s.

Fruit juices are bad for you because of, you guessed it, sugar. Creating an
incentive to swap out juices for real fruits? Or an incentive to drive
producers to extract sugar and replace them with sugar substitutes? I'm in.

