First there was the suggestion of a “fat tax,” then came the idea of taxing high-sugar drinks, and now, sugar itself is in the tax spotlight.
But an Australian expert thinks it’s a crack, and singling out sugar will not solve the complicated problems associated with obesity.
A report by researchers at the University of California San Fransisco (UCSF) released this week said the consumption of sugar “largely mirrors the effects of drinking too much alcohol,” and therefore should be subject to the same government regulations.
It’s not the first time the parallels between unhealthy eating and cigarette smoking have been identified, as earlier this year experts began labeling the obesity crisis “ the new smoking.”
The recommendation of a tax on sugary drinks came out of another study from the US, which found that a tax which reduced consumption by 15 per cent could save 26 000 lives per year.
But while a tax may be necessary in America, which still has the highest rate of obesity in the world, the head of research at the Australian Diabetes Foundation, Dr Alan Barclay, does not believe it applies to Australia.
“The commentary is a provocative piece intended to encourage debate,” he said.
“Many of the statements simply do not apply to Australia and on certain issues there is little evidence to support their views.”
Barclay disputes the US study’s claims that sugar consumption has tripled across the globe in the last 50 years, saying Australian sugar consumption has reduced by more than 20 per cent since 1980.
However, Barclay did concede that while sugar consumption is down, obesity has increased two-fold and the diabetes rate has tripled in that time.
He also disputed the suggestions that the sweeteners containing the molecule fructose which is added to food during processing, and which is referred to as ‘added sugar’ in the study, are having a significant impact.
The report states that the additive can lead to chronic diseases including liver toxicity, but Barclay said the facts about its consumption in Australia differ from the US.
“One would need to eat at least 135 grams, or about 32 teaspoons, of pure added fructose per day on top of what one already eats to attain that degree of toxicity,” he said.
“The only disease proven to be related to excess frequent sugar consumption is tooth decay – a significant problem – but even then, refined starch is at least equally as cariogenic but is rarely acknowledged as a problem”.
Barclay agreed with The Heart Foundation’s Julie Ann Mitchell, who said controlling and taxing sugar is not as simple as taxing tobacco.
“While you can draw parallels between smoking and obesity, it is different,” she told Food Magazine.
“We didn’t realise how damaging smoking was, and it has no benefit to lifestyle.
“We have to eat food, so it’s not a black and white situation like it was with smoking.
“It took 25 to 30 years of implementing a whole range of anti smoking campaigns and restrictions to curb that.
“With food its much more complex, certainly our lifestyle has changed, there’s a greater reliance on convenience.
Barclay said the suggestion of taxing snack bars, vending machines and food retailers would not work, as sugar is “not avoidable.”
“To suggest that consuming sugar is a form of abuse is one of the worst cases of Puritanism that I have seen in a while.”
“It’s ridiculous.
“It’s nutritionism at its worst – pick on a food and demonise it.
“Singling out one component of our diet will not solve the problem.”
Would you support a tax on sugary foods, or do we already pay enough taxes?