The UK sugar tax: international context and potential impact on public health

Transcription

1 @ADMBriggs British Heart Foundation Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention The UK sugar tax: international context and potential impact on public health Adam Briggs Food Matters Live 23 rd November, 2016

2 Conflict of interest statement Funded by the Wellcome Trust (independent charitable foundation) Member of the UK Faculty of Public Health, has a position statement supporting sugary drink taxes No other relationships or circumstances that present a potential conflict of interest

3 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Food Statistics Pocketbook, 2015

4 Taxed or not taxed? Foods subject to VAT Mars bar Crisps Cola Mineral water Chocolate biscuits Ice-cream gateau Tuna sandwich eaten in Starbucks Foods not subject to VAT Butter Sausages Orange Iced biscuits Cream cakes Sandwich taken from Starbucks Slide from Prof Mike Rayner

5 Source: Evening Standard; Daily Telegraph; BBC News website

6 Examples of health-related food taxes 0.95/kg 0.220/L since 2014 (Confectionary and ice cream tax to be removed in 2017) Tonga 2013 Soft drinks containing sugar or sweeteners Animal fat products (e.g. lard and drippings) Soft drinks $0.50/L; animal fats $1 /kg. Mexico 2014 Sugary drinks Energy dense foods i.e. >275 calories /100g (e.g. snacks, confectionary; etc.) Belgium 2015 Non-alcoholic drinks with added sugar/sweetener 0.068/litre Sugary drinks 1 peso/l ($0.80/L); energy dense foods 8% Barbados 2015 All non-alcoholic sugary drinks 10% Dominica 2015 Sugary drinks and confectionary 10% Chile 2015 All non-alcoholic drinks with added sugar/sweetener 18% if >6.25g sugar/100ml; 10% if <6.25g sugar/100ml (was 13% for both categories in 2014) UK 2018 Levy on soft drink manufacturers for drinks with >5g added sugar/100ml 18p/litre if 5-8g sugar /100ml; 24p/litre if >8g/100ml Ireland 2018 Volumetric levy on all drinks with >5g added sugar /100ml Anticipated to be 10c/can (30c/litre) Adapted from data taken from Mytton et al. BMJ. 2012

7 Reasons why sugary drinks might be a suitable target for a tax 1. Linked to adverse health outcomes 2. No beneficial nutrients beyond calories 3. Substitutes likely to be healthier 4. Don t substitute calories with food 5. Correct negative externalities 6. Easy to define Briggs. Nature. 2016;531:551

8 Slide from Public Health England

9 Slide from Public Health England

10

11 The UK Soft Drink Industry Levy Unique, the first to introduce a two-tiered levy structure Aimed at industry, not consumers Not explicitly aimed at increasing prices

12 Tax rate pence/litre Zero tax Low tax 18p/litre 10 5 High tax 24p/litre grams sugar/100ml Source: Tesco and Sainsburys online, as of October 2016

13 Slide courtesy of Sinne Smed

14 Carbonated and non carbonated soft drinks : Evolution of the sales volumes (super and Hypermarkets) France Carbonated Non carbonated Source : SymphonyIRI 2013

15 Colchero et al. BMJ 2016;354:h6704

16 UK levy unknowns New product entrants Reformulation Pass-on rates (regular and diet drinks) Portion size Inclusion of other products in the tax

17 Briggs et al. Lancet Public Health. In Press.

18 Preliminary findings All types of industry response would lead to falls in prevalence and incidence of obesity, diabetes, and dental caries Children benefit more than adults, men more than women Reformulation likely to do more than price changes or changes to market share

19 Implications Health benefits reduced if: price rises occur across product range rather than just high sugar drinks increase in mid-sugar drink consumption comes at expense of low-sugar drinks Likely to be a combination of responses Significant uncertainty in levy s potential health impact Evaluation is crucial

20 Acknowledgements Oxford University Peter Scarborough, Mike Rayner, Ahmed Elhussein, Susan Jebb Cambridge University Oliver Mytton Reading University Richard Tiffin, Ariane Kehlbacher University of Otago Tony Blakely Wellcome