Sir, – The arguments against the introduction of a sugar tax are predictable. Opponents claim State intervention will threaten jobs and won’t work.
While we should be open to evidence when it comes to the efficacy of a sugar tax in combating obesity, vested interests who put forward the “jobs” argument in the face of a major public health issue tend to make me suspicious.
The proposed tax has been criticised as regressive, but as Prof Donal O'Shea pointed out in this newspaper recently, a review of the impact of sugar taxation found it to be only mildly regressive ("Sugar tax vital in battle against obesity, says leading expert", September 6th). The State could subsidise healthier foods to make things a little easier for poorer families.
The cost of obesity to taxpayers is conveniently ignored.
The "nanny state" argument is another put forward by opponents, but the sugar industry's "sugar daddy" (ie the State) will foot the health service bill for the predicted national obesity epidemic. One in four children in Ireland is obese. According to a recent study published in the Lancet, 38 per cent or Irish men and 37 per cent of Irish women will be obese by 2025. The World Health Organisation has suggested that Ireland is on course to become the most obese nation in Europe by 2030.
Sugary drinks increase the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and gout. Of course, a sugar tax is not a panacea, but there is evidence it will help. Research published in the British Medical Journal reported a reduction in sales of sugary drinks after the introduction of a sugar tax in Mexico. The biggest reduction occurred in the poorest households, where monthly purchases of sugary drinks fell by an average of 9 per cent over the year, and by 17 per cent in later months. – Yours, etc,
ROB SADLIER,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.