Expect some fizz in pop tax debate

Mention the idea of a government-imposed pop tax at your next dinner party and there’s a good chance you’ll spark a lively debate. Professor Guy Faulkner of the Faculty of Physical Education and Health — who authored a recent paper that recommends we do just that — knows the issue is contentious, but insists it’s a discussion worth having to better the health of the nation.

“There are some people who jump to the conclusion that you’re meddling with individual choice,” he said. “But of course when there’s something like a flu epidemic people expect government to intervene, so there’s a disconnect there.”

The peer-reviewed paper, set to be published in the next issue of the International Journal of Behaviour, Nutrition and Physical Activity, is the result of consultations between international experts tasked with generating ideas for economic policies that could help to lower obesity rates and improve health in Canada. Adding a 20 per cent tax to sugary beverages was the most dramatic recommendation that received near unanimous support among the experts.

While that number may sound high, the team concluded 20 per cent is the minimum required to change behaviour, pointing to taxes on tobacco in Canada and the United States that more than double the retail price of cigarettes. In turn, such taxes have been identified as one successful component of broader tobacco control efforts.

A junk food tax is an increasingly hot-button issue around the world. Denmark made headlines last week when it announced a new tax on any food that contains more than 2.3 per cent saturated fat; Sweden is said to be considering a similar move with discussion on the issue bubbling up in France and England. But Faulkner acknowledges that attitudes about the role of government in everyday life in Canada are much different than in the Netherlands. Such a policy would be far too severe and complex to introduce here he says.

“Food taxes can penalize low income families. An additional challenge is that some foods have a mixture of good and bad nutrients, such as cereals with added sugar. Taxing these foods might eliminate both good and bad sources of nutrients from people’s diets.”

But, according to Faulkner and the panel, caloric sweetened beverages have no nutritional value, so this proposed tax is not nearly as controversial.

The experts, including representatives from Yale and Cornell universities, also point to the trickle-down health benefits of the beverage tax.

“It’s all interlinked,” Faulkner says. “Any revenue from this tax must be redirected towards a broader anti-obesity measures, whether that is subsidizing fruits and vegetables or physical activity opportunities for low income families, or building more parks and recreation centres."