Taxing junk food to combat obesity is not as simple as you might think

Is it really that simple? In 2018, a levy was imposed on sugary beverages in the UK, which led drink makers to reformulate their products in order to contain less sugar. One year later, British consumers were eating less sugar. Sugar consumption in Britain was falling even before the introduction of the levy. After this was taken into account, the sugar consumption did not decrease significantly.

Denmark also experimented with a fat tax, with similarly disappointing results. When it was first introduced in October 2011, the policy was heralded as one of the world’s leading public health policies. However, 15 months later, it was abandoned.

According to a survey, only 7% of Danes decreased the amount of cream, butter, and cheese that they purchased. Another survey revealed that 80% of respondents did not alter their shopping habits.

It is hard to tell if taxes on unhealthy foods work. These programmes are often praised for their positive results based on statistical data rather than the actual weight loss and improvements in health of people. On the other hand detractors quickly criticize such policies, claiming that they are the implementation of a “nanny-state”.

What and where is taxed?

The UK’s sugar-tax led to the re-fining of drinks to contain less sugar. However, there were also some unintended effects. To maintain the slushiness of sugary drinks, glycerol was added (E422) to make them slushier. Artificial sweeteners did not produce this.

The Food Standards Agency has identified that this product may cause glycerol toxicity among younger children. They have suggested that sales be limited to children aged five and older.

A third unintended effect is that the poor are made poorer through the increased price of food. The cost of the reformulation will likely be passed onto the consumer if taxes and levies extend beyond sugar and drinks to include food high in salt, sugar and fat.

Politicians and many members of the public find this unacceptable in the current economic crisis. These levies should be smarter versions of the soft drink industry levy. This should encourage food producers to produce healthier foods by increasing the cost of less healthy ingredients.

What is junk food?

Next, you need to decide which foods to tax.

Blair defined “junk food” as foods high in salt, sugar, and fat – commonly called HFSS food. It is these foods that can no longer be advertised on Transport for London websites.

It has been described as a great success. The restrictions on advertising have been estimated to have decreased by a significant amount the average weekly purchase of HFSS food.

The data were then used to claim this change had reduced the number of people with obesity by 100,000. has been heavily criticised for this claim. This is an estimation, and it is not known if the advertising ban has had any impact on the number of overweight or obese people.

Although there is merit to tackling advertising, it needs to be smarter to respond to the modern and emerging trends of advertising strategies. Transport for London’s approach, which focuses on out-of-home advertising, ignores the impact of online and social media advertising that is linked to trackers and cookies. It is more effective to challenge the way advertisers connect campaigns across media.

As an alternative, you can focus on the areas where advertising is allowed. It may be more effective to regulate billboards around schools, so they only display healthy messages.

It is important to consider the potentially stigmatizing language of calling food “junk food”, especially when the message is aimed at helping the poor. This may be why the term “ultra-processed foods” has become popular.

Both are subjective. The HFSS definition may include Greek yogurt or cheese, and this could suggest that advertising for these foods is prohibited. A fast-food meal that provides for water and carrots sticks, even though they may not be the most popular option for a meal, can still be promoted.

Junk food? Tetiana Vitsenko / Alamy Stock Photo

We need to make vegetables appealing when promoting healthier diets. It can be hard for those with low incomes to try new foods that may be rejected or wasted. Choose family favorites that are less healthy but still fill everyone up within your budget.

What are the solutions? Blair’s top-down approach may not be the best. Birmingham Food System Strategy provides an example of what can be done to change our food system. The Birmingham Food System Strategy outlines how local small food businesses can make healthier food available throughout the city and create jobs. This document outlines a community-led initiative that promotes healthy food for both people and the environment in cities.

In order to solve a complicated problem, you will need to make subtle changes that are connected in several areas. These changes should be designed to appeal to those who have the most to gain but are also struggling with low incomes.