US Heart Association Chief Calls for Sugary Drinks Taxation Based on Sugar Content

15 Dec 2016 --- The head of the American Heart Association is getting behind calls to tax sugary drinks by sugar content, claiming this is the most effective method to curb obesity and other health problems associated with consuming too much sugar. 

CEO Nancy Brown says that evidence is clear that added sugars are a detriment to heart and brain health, that sugary drinks are the top single source of added sugars in the American diet and that children are consuming ten times the amount of sugary drinks recommended. 

The AHA has commissioned the Urban Institute to help the organization better understand the best ways to reduce sugary drinks consumption through taxation policy. The report, ‘The Pros and Cons of Taxing Sweetened Beverages Based on Sugar Content’ defines options for US politicians to improve the health of their states and communities. It describes how to achieve these goals without placing undo economic burden on the low-income consumers. 

Brown says that this year, local governments across the US have proved that taxes on sugary drinks have public support and are a smart way to increase revenue for health-promoting programs and claims the report provides new insights for elected officials to consider in their efforts to decrease the health harms of sugary drinks.

“A key finding demonstrates that taxing sugary drinks based on sugar content may be an effective approach to achieve better health and expand healthier options. Taxes linked to the amount of sugar incentivizes the beverage industry to reformulate and shift product lines towards lower-sugar products,” she says. 

“We know that sugar content varies greatly by types of beverages. Regular soda can differ by as much as 40 grams of sugar in an 8-ounce serving and fruit drinks range from one gram to 57 grams of sugar. As cities and states focus on improving health, they can encourage healthier choices by placing greater taxes on high-sugar beverages and lower taxes on lower-sugar beverages. While both approaches have their benefits, this report shows that implementing a single-tier tax on sugar content could reduce overall sugar consumption more than a tax based solely on volume (25 percent vs. 22 percent).”

The report also suggests that if cities and states seeking to impose a sugary drink tax are exploring options to place less of a financial burden on low-income communities, they should consider a single-tier tax on sugar content.

“The AHA supports sugary beverage taxes as an important policy intervention within a multi-pronged policy, programmatic, systems, and environment change approach to decrease consumption. Ideally, these taxes would be structured in tiers based on grams of sugar per fluid ounce and then levied by volume, to accelerate declines in consumption of less healthy beverages and spur industry reformulation,” Brown adds. 

“While we are optimistic of prospects of tiered tax policies, we will continue to support local governments that take a more uniform volume approach of at least a penny per ounce that have been shown to be effective through modeling studies and evaluation of the experience in Mexico and Berkeley,” she explains.