Sugar tax: a health sweetener


University of Queensland School of Public Health researcher Dr Lennert Veerman say the tax would raise an estimated $400m and reduce annual health expenditure by up to $29m.

“Our modelling scoped the effects over the lifetime of adult Australians alive in 2010,” Dr Veerman says.

“We found there would be 800 fewer new type 2 diabetes cases each year once the tax was introduced.

“After 25 years, about 1600 fewer deaths would occur each year, with heart disease accounting for the largest share of this postponed mortality,” he said.

“There would be 4400 fewer people with heart disease at that time and 1100 fewer people living with the consequences of stroke.”

“In effect, Australians would enjoy about 170,000 healthy life years that they would not have otherwise.”

Fruit juices, fruit drinks, energy drinks, milk-based drinks and cordials were excluded in the study which focused on soft drinks with added sugar.

Dr Veerman says overall health care cost savings would rise over the first 20 years of the tax and then stabilise at about $29m a year.

Previous studies showed that a 20% tax (based on product price rather than on the amount of sugar in the product) could reduce total energy consumption by about 10,000kJ per person per year.

“Policymakers have cited limited available evidence as a barrier to policy progress in the area of taxes on unhealthy foods, so we expect the detail in our study will be useful to them,” Dr Veerman says.

UQ worked on the study with the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention at Deakin University, and Victoria’s Obesity Policy Coalition.

Obesity Policy Coalition executive nanager and study co-author Jane Martin says sugary drinks were the largest source of added sugar in Australian children’s diets. She says given that 1-in-4 children and almost 70% of adults are overweight or obese decisive action by government was needed.

She also cites Australian research which demonstrates that two thirds of respondents wanted a tax on soft drinks if the money was used to reduce the cost of healthy food.

The cost to government of implementing the tax is estimated at $27.6m but Dr Veerman says reduced healthcare expenditure would pay back the cost of legislation and monitoring the tax more than 14 times.

“The greatest effects are likely to be seen in young people, who are the highest sugary drinks consumers.

“A sugary drinks tax is not currently on the political agenda in Australia, but this study and international experience suggest it should be considered as part of any tax reform process.”

The research is published in PLOS ONE.

Previous Pharmacy Alliance supports life in full
Next Eltroxin - your questions answered (sort of)

NOTICE: It can sometimes take awhile for comment submissions to go through, please be patient.


  1. Peter Allen

    “Pure, white and deadly” We were told in 1972, since forgotten. Because it’s FATS that are the villain.
    Pass the litre bottle of fruit juice while I read this. Fructose? who’d blame that?

    The sugar conspiracy

    In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not
    fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were
    ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition
    scientists get it so wrong for so long?

  2. Tony Pal

    Why is the study so focused on soft drinks, and not total calories consumed? Why does it ignore the bigger picture of sugar in everything. It is like a beer tax that ignores wine or spirits.
    Children don’t need to be drinking soft drink from birth but they will seek out energy even if it is flavoured milk, fruit juice or lollies. Responsibility for caloric intake is more important than fixation on one source of calories. Why stop at sugar, let’s ban fats, salt, alcohol and every other source of guaranteed obesity as well.

Leave a reply