A ‘sin’ tax might discourage us from unhealthy foods

By Rebecca Knight

Should we treat foods high in sugar and saturated fat – such as French fries and soda – like cigarettes and liquor, and subject them to a “sin” tax?
 
Some health advocates think so, and this week a study that appears in the Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals, provides some pretty persuasive scientific evidence to support such a measure. The study, conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that if junk foods were subjected to a “fat tax” people would eat them less and lose weight as a result. 
 
Here is a link to an extract of the study: Food Price and Diet and Health Outcomes subscribers to the journal may access the article here too
 
In the study, designed to identify risk factors for cardiovascular disease, researchers tracked the diet and weight of 5,115 young adults over a 20-year period. Participants’ height and blood levels of glucose and insulin were also collected, as well as a measure of insulin sensitivity. Food price data were compiled for the same timeframe.
 
Over the period, a 10 per cent increase in price was associated with a 7 per cent decrease in the amount of calories consumed from soda and a 12 per cent decrease in the amount of calories consumed from pizza.

A one-dollar increase in the cost of soda or pizza was also associated with a lower overall daily calorie intake, lower body weight and an improved insulin resistance score, and a one-dollar increase in the cost of both soda and pizza was associated with even greater changes in these measures.

The researchers estimate that an 18 per cent tax on these foods would result in a decline of roughly 56 calories per person per day. These declines would amount to weight loss of approximately 5 pounds per person per year, with corresponding reductions in the risk of obesity-related diseases, they note.
 
“Our findings suggest that policies to alter the price of less healthful foods and beverages may be one possible mechanism for steering US adults toward a more healthful diet,” the authors write. “While such policies will not solve the obesity epidemic in its entirety and may face considerable opposition from food manufacturers and sellers, they could prove an important strategy to address overconsumption, help reduce energy intake and potentially aid in weight loss and reduced rates of diabetes among US adults.”

Health and science blog




This blog, part of the FT's health series, is a forum for readers interested in the science, policy, management, technology, business and delivery of healthcare.

This blog is no longer active but it remains open as an archive.
Follow on twitter

About our regular bloggers

Margaret McCartney is a Glasgow-based GP and FT Weekend columnist. She started writing for the Life and Arts section in 2005 and moved to the magazine in 2008. She also has her own blog: www.margaretmccartney.com/blog

Clive Cookson has been a science journalist for the whole of his working life. He joined the FT in 1987. Clive, the FT's science editor, picks out the research that everyone should know about. He also discusses key policy issues, from R&D funding to science education.

Andrew Jack is pharmaceuticals correspondent, covering the industry and public health issues. He has been a journalist with the FT for 19 years, based in London, Paris and Moscow

The Health blog: a guide

Comment: To comment, please register with FT.com, which you can do for free here. Please also read our comments policy here.
Contact: You can write to Ursula Milton, the blog's editor, using this email format: firstname.surname@ft.com
Time: UK time is shown on posts.
Follow: Links to the blog's Twitter and RSS feeds are at the top of the page. You can also read the Health blog on your mobile device, by going to www.ft.com/healthblog
FT blogs: See the full range of the FT's blogs here.