Introduction
The Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) is recognized principally as a non-governmental organization that is tasked with the promotion of the health and well-being of all Australians. Since its inception, the PHAA has been working with interest groups to ensure that it achieves the objective of addressing the health of the people of Australia ( Backholer et al., 2016) . Some of these interest groups include the Food & Nutrition SIG, Health Promotion SIG, and the Ecology & Environment SIG. The Food & Nutrition SIG has the primary objective of discussing the action plan on public health food and nutrition issues ( Roache & Gostin, 2018) . The association is currently working on the public health issue of sugar tax of soft drinks, which is perceived to benefit the health of the citizens ( Veerman et al., 2016) . The association wants the government to use the tax policy to increase the sugar-sweetened drinks and to change the behavior of consumption with the consequent improvement in health ( Bond et al., 2010) . The issue of increasing the levies on sugar to regulate consumption dates back to the 2011-2012 statistics that showed that 52% of free sugar intake in the country was from beverages sweetened with sugar.
Introduction of Sugar Tax in Australia
Findings
The Public Health Association of Australia has noted that the locals consumer too much free sugar. It gives reference to the World Health Organization (WHO) that strongly recommends that adults and children should restrict their daily free sugar intake to levels that are lower than 10% of the total energy intake (Lal et al., 2017). This recommendation is in response to more than 5% additional health benefits. The association has also found out that over half of the Australians aged 2 years and above exceed the recommendation given by the WHO (Jou & Techakehakij, 2012). It is evident that 52% of the free sugar intake in the country's diet is utilized from the sugar-sweetened drinks.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The sugar-sweetened beverages are defined as the non-alcoholic beverages that are sweetened by the addition of sugar (Dunstan et al., 2010). They include among other beverages, the sweetened soft drinks, the flavored mineral waters and the energy drinks. Research has also shown that the fruit and vegetable drinks are also sweetened by the addition of sugar, which makes them be classified as the sugar-sweetened beverages (Bond et al., 2010). The analysis shows that in a single day, more than a third of the citizens aged 2 years and over consume these sugar-sweetened beverages. It is also evident that the adolescents and the young adults fall among the group that highly consumes these beverages.
Why SSB have been Singled out for Health Tax
The sugar-sweetened products contain starch and are meant to provide energy to the body even though they pose health risks that cannot exchange with the positive outcome. This implies that they provide minimal or no virtual nutritional benefits, where their consumption has been associated with the increase in the weight, dental carriers and the increase in chronic diseases that are highly prevalent across the country. Basing on the increase in the evidence of the cost-benefit analysis of the sugar-sweetened beverages, it is critical for the government to come up with a policy of regulation of the consumption. It is evident that the opponents of taxation of the sugar-sweetened beverages and manufacturers argue in terms of the economic contribution of the products to the gross domestic product of the country. They have also argued that it is cheaper to provide health nutritional programs than to impose the tax to the commodity, which is an evidence-based model of responding to the health problems brought about by the consumption of the sugar-sweetened products. However, the objective of the health levy on the sugar-sweetened beverages includes increasing the price of the commodity and reducing the purchase and consumption of the products. The taxation rule is based on the premise that increasing the price of a commodity reduces the demand (Bond et al., 2010). However, the major political parties are reluctant to impose taxes on the commodity considering the overall profitability of the product and its contribution to the economy.
On the other hand, the sugar-sweetened beverage tax should be tied direct to the amount of free or added sugar that is contained in the specific beverage, which will provide an incentive for the producers to redesign their formula of production and reduce the sugar content in the product with the consequent improvement in the supply of food for all (Escobar et al., 2013). Moreover, the revenue obtained from the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages will be reinvested back into the nutrition and health of the population (Moretto et al., 2014). For instance, the revenue will be used on health nutrition programs to increase the levels of awareness of the public to understand that the consumption of the SSB is not part of the healthy dietary patterns (Dharmasena & Capps, 2012). This modeling shows that 20% health tax on the sugary beverages will increase the AUD by more than $350 million annually, while it will reduce the annual health expenditure by $30 million.
Conclusion
It is imperative that taxes apply the signals in price to change the consumption behavior. The Public Health Association of Australia has come up with a sound idea, where it urges the government to impose the tax on products such as sweetened drinks, where the tax will be passed on to the consumers, which would, in turn, reduce the demand. The government should take into consideration the recommendations to help in addressing the health of the citizens and the rising expenditure on healthcare resulting from the sugar-induced illness. On the contrary, the sugar industry-related lobbyist groups have alarmed at the possible impact of such a tax imposition on the levels of profit in the industry. Major political parties have revealed a gloomy prospect of legislation for taxation of sugary products with the Turnbull government declaring that such a move has a zero chance in the country. However, the government should take into consideration the recommendations of the Public Health Association of Australia and put the interests of the health of the nation instead of addressing the interests of the political class.
References
Backholer, K., Shrink, D., Beauchamp, A., Keating, C., Loh, V., Ball, K., ... & Peeters, A. (2016). The impact of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages according to socio-economic position: a systematic review of the evidence. Public health nutrition , 19 (17), 3070-3084.
Bond, M. E., Williams, M. J., Crammond, B., & Loff, B. (2010). Taxing junk food: applying the logic of the Henry tax review to food. Med J Aust , 193 (8), 472-473.
Chan, R. S., & Woo, J. (2010). Prevention of overweight and obesity: how effective is the current public health approach. International journal of environmental research and public health , 7 (3), 765-783.
Dharmasena, S., & Capps, O. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a proposed national tax on sugar‐sweetened beverages to combat the US obesity problem. Health economics , 21 (6), 669-694.
Dunstan, D. W., Barr, E. L. M., Healy, G. N., Salmon, J., Shaw, J. E., Balkau, B., & Owen, N. (2010). Television viewing time and mortality: Australian diabetes, obesity and lifestyle study (AusDiab). Circulation , 121 (3), 384-391.
Escobar, M. A. C., Veerman, J. L., Tollman, S. M., Bertram, M. Y., & Hofman, K. J. (2013). Evidence that a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages reduces the obesity rate: a meta-analysis. BMC public health , 13 (1), 1072.
Jou, J., & Techakehakij, W. (2012). International application of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation in obesity reduction: factors that may influence policy effectiveness in country-specific contexts. Health Policy , 107 (1), 83-90.
Lal, A., Mantilla-Herrera, A. M., Veerman, L., Backholer, K., Sacks, G., Moodie, M., & Peeters, A. (2017). Modeled health benefits of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax across different socioeconomic groups in Australia: A cost-effectiveness and equity analysis. PLoS medicine , 14 (6), e1002326.
Moretto, N., Kendall, E., Whitty, J., Byrnes, J., Hills, A. P., Gordon, L., & Comans, T. (2014). Yes, the government should tax soft drinks: findings from a citizens’ jury in Australia. International journal of environmental research and public health , 11 (3), 2456-2471.
Roache, S. A., & Gostin, L. O. (2018). Tapping the Power of Soda Taxes: A Call for Multidisciplinary Research and Broad-Based Advocacy Coalitions–A Response to the Recent Commentaries.
Veerman, J. L., Sacks, G., Antonopoulos, N., & Martin, J. (2016). The impact of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages on health and health care costs: a modeling study. PloS one , 11 (4), e0151460.
