Sugar tax misunderstood

Food industry task force head raps detractors

THERE SEEMS to be a complete misunderstanding, in some quarters, of the call for fiscal policies on unhealthy foods, including a tax on sugary drinks, says Professor Fitzroy Henry, chairman of the National Food Industry Task Force.

“Detractors frame the issue as if a sugar tax is a magic bullet that by itself will reduce obesity and chronic diseases, but that is not the case,” Henry told The Gleaner.

“Similarly, nutrition labelling or employment of nutritionists is not a magic bullet either. How many nutritionists will we need to counsel over a million Jamaicans who are overweight or obese?”

Henry insisted that a sugar tax and proper labelling were necessary but not sufficient in themselves.

He said that many countries have already implemented sugary drink taxes and there is strong and consistent evidence that such taxes have helped lower the consumption of targeted beverages.

“The National Food Industry Task Force supports the recommendation of the World Health Organization for a sugar tax because it can steer consumers to healthier choices, which is one of the key measures that can halt the rapid increase in obesity in Jamaica.

“The choice of targeting sugary drinks is based on a consistent and large body of evidence showing that excessive sugar intake in liquid form is particularly harmful. Consuming just one sugary drink a day increases the likelihood of being overweight by 27 per cent for Jamaican adults and 52 per cent for children,” said Henry.

He said that action must be based on science and evidence.

“The task force insists that to be successful and sustainable, a tax policy should be accompanied by others such as nutrition labelling, reformulation of food items, limits to portion size, banning of trans fats, education and mass media campaigns, even subsidies to increase fruit and vegetable intake, among others. Given the obesity tsunami in Jamaica, doing nothing is not an option,” said Henry.