South Africa's media reports like this frequently runs tendentious articles like this one "Raising sin and sugar taxes seen as good for
SA's health" (February 1) or this, quotes reports favouring such taxes.
But regarding sugar taxes, these studies and media reports often fail to mention the meta-analysis that says all the evidence is not yet in and the the time span of study is too short, e.g., Mexico's case of only about four years. Medical and economic effects - good and bad - take long-term study, not a couple of years.
SA's established media has been biased in its reporting about this tax, giving proponents favourable coverage and not rigorously interrogating the counter argument. I wonder why because its the poor that will feel the tax most - the well-off can afford it.
Sugary foods and drinks are price inelastic, meaning higher prices do not deter consumers. Alcohol and cigarettes are the same. SA has stiff duties on them but consumption remains high, and both are significant contributors to health problems, and with alcohol, crime and social dysfunction.
It's ironic the article mentions World Health Organisation (WHO), but SA has one of the highest alcohol consumption rates in the world and highest in Africa to its measure. A SA Medical Journal article by Reddy et al states despite high taxes on cigarettes, smoking among SA's youth is worryingly increasing, disproving any argument these taxes work as intended.
The sugar tax is a well-meaning but ultimately ineffective measure. And support for it is a knee-jerk, politically correct reaction.
But regarding sugar taxes, these studies and media reports often fail to mention the meta-analysis that says all the evidence is not yet in and the the time span of study is too short, e.g., Mexico's case of only about four years. Medical and economic effects - good and bad - take long-term study, not a couple of years.
SA's established media has been biased in its reporting about this tax, giving proponents favourable coverage and not rigorously interrogating the counter argument. I wonder why because its the poor that will feel the tax most - the well-off can afford it.
Sugary foods and drinks are price inelastic, meaning higher prices do not deter consumers. Alcohol and cigarettes are the same. SA has stiff duties on them but consumption remains high, and both are significant contributors to health problems, and with alcohol, crime and social dysfunction.
It's ironic the article mentions World Health Organisation (WHO), but SA has one of the highest alcohol consumption rates in the world and highest in Africa to its measure. A SA Medical Journal article by Reddy et al states despite high taxes on cigarettes, smoking among SA's youth is worryingly increasing, disproving any argument these taxes work as intended.
The sugar tax is a well-meaning but ultimately ineffective measure. And support for it is a knee-jerk, politically correct reaction.
Comments
Post a Comment