Sugar tax activists had hoped the Medium-term Budget would announce an increase in the tax levy on sugary drinks. They claim the tax leads to and was a "huge success" in promoting healthier lifestyles, (Nzama Mbalati, Daily Maverick op-ed).
They claim the tax on sugary drinks per se leads to lower consumption that leads to healthier lifestyles, particularly lower prevalence of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But escalation of these diseases after the sugar tax was introduced in 2018 prove otherwise.
Obesity
Data on the World Obesity Observatory's website for South Africa show over time, including after the tax was introduced in April 2018, obesity is increasing. The website lists the drivers to obesity: insufficient activity; fruit, processed meat and wholegrain intake, and mental disorders. They don't mention sugary drinks.
Diabetes
The International Diabetes Federation doesn't have a useful website like WOO's but gives basic country information: in 2021 diabetes prevalence in SA was 11.3% of the adult population. Medical journal articles say prevalence in that population is rising - 4.5% 2010 to 12.7% 2019.
An article on University of Pretoria's news website (2024) states diabetes is an "escalating health crisis".
Cardiovascular disease
In my short search I couldn't find information about trends in CV disease but articles say prevalence, and deaths (Statistics SA), are increasing.
A Heart Foundation information document lists inactivity, tobacco, unhealthy eating (sugary drinks and fast foods listed among others) and salt intake are listed as contributors. Sugary drinks are not uniquely identified.
The point is, the causality from the sugar tax to "healthier lifestyles" is neither proven nor clear, in SA nor internationally. Causality is complex because various interlinked factors contribute to prevalence. While sugary drinks and sugar are two, activists ignore others (not counting the substitution effect - other sugary foods for drinks).
A range of foods, including fruit, contain sugar. Activists don't demand taxes be imposed on them proving their hypocritical and faulty reasoning.
Joan van Dyk wrote a biased, critical view of the sugar industry in Daily Maverick last week. The by-line says she's an independent health journalist. However, she wrote as a sugar tax activist/advocate rather than independent journalist. She, Mbalati and others like them can be activists but they don't stick to the facts about the tax's purported positive effect on healthy lifestyles - that it's not as clear-cut as they want us to believe. By insisting, though, they venture into falsehood and misinformation.
In conclusion, the activists never thought through the macroeconomics effects. To them it is zero-sum in favour of health. But like all extremists they chose to ignore evidence that weakened their theory - confirmation bias. The health benefits - obesity, etc - is not proven or conclusive; the tax doesn't go to health in SA (indeed, the health budget has been cut); many factors contribute to unhealthy lifestyles and increased prevalence; the impact of individual choice and so on.
And importantly, all this uncertainty - known unknowns - was at the expense of the affected industries.
But they don't have to take responsibility for their mistakes. Society does.
Comments
Post a Comment