RHUN AP IORWERTH COLUMNIST
THE recent introduction of the sugary drinks tax marked the moment the UK joined Hungary, Mexico and at least eight cities and municipalities in the United States in introducing this tax.
It, of course, has been long-standing Plaid Cymru policy to introduce such a tax, as we believe that obesity can only be tackled with the same intensity and efforts that have gone into tackling smoking.
The version of this tax isn’t, of course, entirely what we wanted. We would have preferred a 20p per litre tax, not a 10p one, and would have liked the revenue raised to be available for use in Wales.
As it stands, the way the Welsh Government is funded means there is no guarantee any penny will come to Wales. It’s worth dwelling on this point here because of the ignorance that remains about this issue – funding for public services in Wales is almost entirely a function of spending decisions made in London, not decisions over taxation.
In fact, until very recently 100% of funding was dependent upon these decisions, but new Welsh taxes mean this is now less so.
But the point remains that extra funding only comes to Wales if spending on public services in England rises, not whether or not new taxes are introduced by the UK Government.
So the sugar tax, because it is introduced by the UK Government, doesn’t create revenue for Wales by itself – it’s only if England spends the proceeds that we will see anything.
If Wales does see extra funds, then our preferred option would be to invest the proceeds in tackling obesity and promoting physical activity for young people – an area the health committee is currently holding an inquiry into.
But the money in itself is not the real benefit we will see. The real benefits will come over the long term through the reduction in consumption.
Our own commissioned research, albeit for the higher level of tax that we wished to see, estimated that number of obese people in Wales would be reduced by around 8,300.
International studies suggest there would be a reduction in diabetes of between 2.9% to 5.6%, a reduction in ischaemic heart disease of between 1% and 3%, as well as reducing tooth decay. The savings to our NHS would be substantial.
The version of the tax imposed by the UK Government has already had some other consequences.
Manufacturers have changed their behaviour – Irn Bru, Lucozade and Ribena have reduced the sugar content in the recipes, and the sugar content of Fanta has dropped by 30%.
If this hadn’t been reported, it’s doubtful the consumer would have noticed. Some restaurants, too, have adapted by removing high sugary drinks as an option from the “unlimited refills” machines, which may lead to consumers switching.
The success of the tax internationally has led to further “junk food” taxes being considered or introduced, as governments are finally wising up to the scale of the obesity problem.
In 2011, Hungary put a tax on packaged foods and drinks that contain high levels of sugar and salt in certain product categories, and in 2013, Mexico passed an 8% tax on “non-essential” foods that surpassed a certain calorie threshold.
An evaluation of the Mexican tax found consumption of these foods was reduced by 7%.
In Hungary around 40% of food manufacturers changed recipes to healthier alternatives.
It will, of course, take time for these changes to filter into reduced rates of obesity-related diseases, but the successes they’ve had suggest that the appetite for tackling obesity has finally moved into the level of seriousness we need.
It’s time that we in Wales started to consider these more meaty approaches to tackling obesity as well.
■ Rhun ap Iorwerth is Plaid Cymru health spokesman.