gave Soft Drinks Industry Levy It got here into force within the UK in early 2018. The first study investigating the impact of this “sugar tax” on individual-level consumption has recently been published. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The headline finding is that adults reduced their day by day intake of added sugar by about two and a half teaspoons.
Using data from the annual National Diet and Nutrition Survey, the study summarized the quantity of “free sugar” in people's diets between 2008 and 2019. It included dietary information from nearly 8,000 adults, who reported all foods consumed over 4 days using food diaries.
The results show that a 12 months after the sugar tax was introduced, adults reduced their day by day free sugar intake by around 10.9g, with reductions in soft drinks accounting for greater than half of this reduction. This translates to a lack of around 40 calories per day, which if maintained, and unchanged, can result in a 1.5 kg weight reduction over a 12 months.
While this sounds impressive, it's necessary to do not forget that this study relied on self-reported measures of dietary intake and sugary drinks. It is well-known that folks often Under report Their food intake, especially foods which are considered unhealthy, equivalent to those high in sugar.
The study also tried to account for this by taking a look at changes in dietary protein intake over the identical period. This was because protein intake shouldn’t be affected by the levy but could also be affected by other aspects that affect changes in dietary habits, equivalent to food price increases.
The researchers found that although sugar intake was reduced, protein intake remained relatively stable over this era.
Pattern of change
To test whether the reduction in sugar intake was on account of the tax, the researchers considered different scenarios. First, changes in total sugar intake were examined over time. They showed a declining trend in sugar consumption before the tax was introduced, but a bigger than expected decline with the introduction of the levy.
So other aspects are already contributing to the decline in sugar consumption within the pre-tax period. But it’s unimaginable to attribute the sharp decline entirely to the brand new levy.
The researchers also examined changes within the sugar content of the entire weight-reduction plan (including all foods and beverages) in addition to only soft drinks.
The evaluation showed that only half of the reduction in free sugar intake amongst adults was attributable to the content of sentimental drinks. The rest got here from lack of sugar in other foods. So the reduction of two.5 teaspoons in sugar intake can’t be attributed entirely to the direct sugar tax.
One explanation is that other social influences, equivalent to increased awareness of health risks or changing social norms and tastes, are contributing to the reduction of sugar in people's diets over time.
These effects are also changing soft drink habits whatever the sugar tax. Alternatively, the introduction of a sugar tax could also be not directly answerable for changing social norms.
The wider context
To understand these findings, it is helpful to think about them in a broader context. around 50 countries Some type of tax on soft drinks has been introduced. There are consistent patterns of taxation in these countries. Less soft drinks Being bought and manufactured by soft drinks To correct Avoid their products – thus Levi’s – to cut back their sugar content.
Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg 3+/Almy Stock Photo
This latest research also shows that reducing the quantity of sugar in soft drinks doesn’t change people's intake of more sugar in other points of their weight-reduction plan.
A sugar tax has likely contributed directly – and possibly not directly – to a discount in dietary sugar intake. The accuracy of the expected effect is uncertain. How the policy interacts with other public health interventions and societal influences also must be considered.
We don't yet know whether the reduction in free sugar consumption persists beyond the primary 12 months, or whether it has any impact on chronic diseases, equivalent to type 2 diabetes and obesity. The study was also unable to evaluate the impact of the tax on different socioeconomic groups or genders – so its impact on health inequalities must be further explored.