Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Jul-04-18, 05:00
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 12,555
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default The impact of the sugar tax in Chile

Quote:
A new sugar tax introduced on soft drinks in Chile has been effective in reducing consumption of sugary drinks, new research carried out in the country has revealed.

However, the international research team, led by academics from the University of York, say although consumption may have dropped, it may not be enough to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet-related health.

A growing number of cities and countries have adopted taxes on sugary drinks to help combat sugar consumption, which is blamed for rising obesity levels. The tax was introduced in Chile in 2014.

The team analysed household grocery purchasing data from Chile for three years before the tax was introduced and for one year afterwards.

The policy targeted any non-alcoholic beverages to which colourants, flavourings or sweeteners have been added. For beverages with an added sugar concentration of 6.25 grams per 100ml or more, the existing tax was increased from 13% to 18%; while for those below this threshold, the tax was decreased from 13% to 10%, producing an 8% tax difference.

For example, the tax change, if fully transmitted to the consumer, would increase the prices of a 500ml sugary beverage from 500 pesos (0.60) to 525 pesos (0.62), and it would drop the price of an equally priced non-sugary beverage to 485 pesos (0.57).

The authors of the report conclude that despite the tax incentive being comparatively small, there are signs that purchasing of beverages with higher sugar content declined, particularly among high socioeconomic groups.

The study revealed an overall 21.6% decrease in the monthly purchased volume of the higher taxed, sugary soft drinks. Among middle and high socioeconomic groups, the monthly purchased volume fell by 16% and 31%, respectively. There was a 12% reduction in purchase volume for the low socioeconomic group.

However, this was statistically insignificant. By contrast, the volume of non-sugary soft drinks, for which the tax rate had been decreased, showed no increase in purchased volume for any socioeconomic groups.

Marc Suhrcke, Professor of Global Health Economics at the University of York said: "The results suggest that the Chilean tax policy may have been effective in reducing consumption of sugary drinks, though not necessarily to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet-related health." "Further evaluations are needed to analyse the policy effect on purchasing of soft drinks in the long run as well as to evaluate the impact on health outcomes."

Professor Cuadrado from the University of Chile said: "Our results suggest an overall reduction of sugar consumption after the implementation of the tax in Chile. From a public health perspective, even a small reduction in sugar intake at the population level could lead to significant health gains."

He added: "Other countries may take heart from our findings, in that it indicates that the tax incentive may not need to be huge to have impact. It also shows that there may be more than one way in which an SSB tax can be implemented with some success."

The authors of the report say the latest findings from Chile could have implications for the UK, which introduced a sugar tax on soft drinks in April 2018.



https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80703141442.htm

Correlation is not causation. When do governments tax sugar? When public opinion and fashion is going in the direction that sugar is particularly bad for you. Notice that the decrease in sugar consumption is in the middle and upper income groups, not people who couldn't afford a few extra pennies for a bottle of coke. Maybe sugar being considered bad enough for the government to tax it for health purposes has some propaganda value, but the price disincentive fails as a causative theory when it's this small.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Jul-05-18, 07:29
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 2,204
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Exactly, which is why taxes alone have little effect on consumption. Yet, some method to discourage consumption must begin with middle and upper classes. When tragic health consequences are accurately and actively reported, consumption will decrease similar to how the tobacco consumption curve decreased. However, decreased consumption by the lower classes will continue to lag also similar to tobacco. Taxes are ineffective without a rational reason to avoid the substance.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:50.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.