Not so cool drinks: is it time for a sin tax?

2014-02-04 00:00

A FEW decades ago, city workers anticipated a cheap, relatively healthy lunch of a bunny chow — a dollop of stew or curry in a half-loaf, along with a pint of milk. Today, inflation and industrial food have shifted us to where a lunch-time visit to the corner shop or local supermarket reveals the extent of our dietary rot. For too many, lunch often means half a loaf of bread and a bottle of cool drink.

In our cities, cool drinks have almost become ubiquitous, the daytime drink of choice.

Sales are relentlessly driven by inescapable, hard-edged advertising, reinforced by aspiration, a sugar rush and high doses of caffeine as worker fuel. Yet the reality is that these are drinks from hell with no upside, either for productivity or health.

Despite pervasive industry spin, sugar, especially at such excessive levels, can never form part of a healthy diet. Sugar is basically empty calories, providing energy with no other nutritional benefit, all at considerable metabolic cost.

Extensive research has shown how sugar is linked, through its close relationship to obesity and metabolic disruption, to increasingly common diseases such as diabetes, cardiac and circulatory problems, along with numerous other so-called diet-linked lifestyle diseases.

The United Nations World Health Organisation (WHO), informed by numerous medical and scientific experts, has been convinced that excess sugar consumption essentially constitutes a dietary poison and it wishes to recommend a halving of sugar consumption. Predictably, the industry is counter attacking.

As far back as 2003, the WHO linked sugar consumption in South Africa to increased risk of chronic disease, including obesity and associated diseases.

Since then, sugar consumption has increased markedly. Figures from the sugar industry illustrate per capita consumption rising by nearly 15% over the past 13 years, to over 37 kilograms for every citizen.

Diabetes incidence has accelerated even faster, up by 3,8% in 2010 alone. Notably, deaths ascribed to diabetes have risen most among the black community, from 5 754 cases in 1999 to 12 513 in 2010.

But this unfolding epidemic has a far more sinister side. Individuals with diabetes are more likely to succumb to tuberculosis, our leading cause of death. They are more susceptible to hypertension and circulatory diseases. Diabetes complicates treatment of HIV/Aids. Even otherwise routine infectious diseases such as influenza are more risky in diabetics for several reasons.

Therefore, as an apparently distinct disease, diabetes has major impacts on other leading causes of death.

While sugar may not be proven as the sole cause of diabetes, it is nevertheless strongly associated with both causation and worsening of outcomes. Some population sectors are highly predisposed to diabetes, particularly those of Indian origin in South Africa, where it is the leading cause of death.

More worryingly, at least half, and up to 85% of local diabetics are undiagnosed. When they are, it is often too late.

This epidemic does not only affect South Africans. It is predicted to become a leading cause of mortality in sub-Saharan Africa by 2020. Drinking a single 330-millilitre soft drink daily is estimated to raise the risk of diabetes by 22%. Two litres of cool drink contains at least a cup of sugar, sometimes more. In 2011, South Africans each consumed nearly 50 litres of cool drink.

These excessive levels of sugar consumption affect everyone, from building-site labourers to mothers inadvertently preparing their children for obesity and diabetes.

Moreover, the market predicts accelerated growth in sales, with the consequence of an anticipated near doubling of diabetes cases over the next 15 years, as high sugar intakes are compounded by other poor dietary and lifestyle choices, such as a lack of exercise and excessive intake of fats and salt.

The financial burden of the cost of medication alone for diabetes patients in South Africa is staggering, at around R7 000 per individual, or a cumulative cost of over R14 billion a year to our health system, further treatment aside. So what can we do about this assault on our health?

Mexico recently proposed a one peso (80 cents) per litre tax on sodas, as they are called there. With Mexican obesity rates reported at 70% of adults and a third of children, action is clearly needed. The initiative was, predictably and bitterly, attacked both by manufacturers and the sugar industry.

They questioned New York’s ex-mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to promote the tax, which was recently rejected in his home city, accusing him of hypocrisy.

Other places around the world have mooted or instituted cool drink or sugar taxes to deal with the impacts of sugar consumption.

Thirty three states in the United States have soda taxes, as does France, with a 3,5% tax introduced in 2012. Norway has a broader sugar tax, as does Denmark, although the latter proposes to abandon it. Indian research shows a 20% cool drink tax could avoid nearly half a million cases of diabetes and make a dent in obesity rates.

The concept of these Pigouvian taxes is neither new nor unfamiliar. The economist Arthur Cecil Pigou suggested that if business profits by selling a product that creates high external costs — for instance, the health costs of tobacco and liquor — the state should mitigate these by taxing the product.

In South Africa, these are traditionally referred to as sin taxes. There is no reason that sugar, along with other unhealthy foods laden with fats and salt, should not be taxed in order, on the one hand, to offset health costs, while reducing consumption on the other.

Of course, the problem can arise, as with tobacco, that the state becomes as addicted to the tax revenue as consumers are to sugar or tobacco. This is not a glib comment; studies clearly show the addictive nature of sugar.

Food technologists constantly strive to make food as enticingly palatable as possible through subtle combinations of fats, salt and sugar.

Given the combined health effects of these ingredients, stricter regulation, combined with taxation, would seem to be the most sensible way to protect ourselves against ourselves from this premeditated assault by the food industry.

It is economically unsustainable to continue to subsidise junk food by absorbing the direct costs to our health system in order to treat the symptoms, while failing to tackle their causes.

— South African Civil Society

Information Service.

• Glenn Ashton is a writer and researcher working in civil society.

Join the conversation! encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions. publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24


Book flights

Compare, Book, Fly

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.