Skip to main content
Riediger and Bombak argue that Canada should not implement a sugary drink tax because it won’t help reduce inequalities in obesity and highlight a number of other challenges with the tax. However their arguments fail to recognize that the impact of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax will depend on how it is constructed and implemented.
Sugary drink taxes typically have two aims: to encourage the beverage industry to change or reformulate their products and to reduce individual-level consumption of the products. Depending on how the tax is structured, the balance between these two aims can shift. In the UK, the Sugary Drink Industry Levy primarily focuses on changing industry behavior. It came into force in April 2018, and is structured as a two-tier system, with a higher level of tax for a higher level of sugar (18p/L for drinks containing at least 5g of sugar per 100ml, and 24p/L for those with more than 8g per 100ml), and is levied on manufacturers rather than individual consumers. It was announced in March 2016, and in the intervening two years, sugary drink manufacturers have already reformulated their products to avoid the higher level of tax resulting in significant reductions in sugar consumption even before the tax was officially introduced. This is evidenced by the expected revenues from the tax, which have been revised down from £500m per year to £240m per year due to reformulations in the time between the announcement in March 2016 to the finance budget in autumn 2017. This is not to say that the UK tax model is directly applicable to the Canadian situation, or that reformulation is the preferred or best outcome from a tax, but to demonstrate that how the tax is structured will greatly influence the change it affects.
Riedger and Bombak conclude that a sugar-sweetened beverage tax could result in “exacerbation of inequity and stigma, including racial stigma, in already-marginalized populations.” However with careful construction of the tax itself, how the revenues from it will be used, and the overall package of policies that the tax is part of, these issues can be mitigated against and even improved. The type of products that the tax applies to, if the tax is levied on consumers or the industry, the level of the tax added, and how the tax revenues are used are all modifiable factors that can be tailored to the situation in Canada. To take only a few of the arguments raised by Riedger and Bombak, if sweetened coffee drinks are an issue in Canada, the tax can be constructed so that it applies to any beverage with added sugar. Access to clean water in First Nations communities can be prioritized in how the tax revenues will be used. And proponents of a sugary drink tax have never claimed that it will be a ‘silver bullet’ but that as part of an overall package of policies – as was the case with tobacco control – it can contribute to the control of obesity and NCDs. Many of the arguments raised by Riedger and Bombak warrant careful and thoughtful consideration, but it would be too blunt to conclude from this article that a sugar-sweetened beverage tax is not suitable for the Canadian context.