Reforming products means that taxes on sugar work even if people don't buy less as a consequence


Taxes work to reduce the market, and the higher the tax, the greater their impact. Period.

That's why I always find it weird when people question whether sugar-sweetener (SSB) taxes will affect SSB markets (and therefore consumption).

But let's leave this weird talk for a while. If the goal of SSB taxes is to reduce the consumption of added sugar (which clearly is, although not explicitly referred to as weight loss, as social obesity is not caused separately by SSB consumption and the reduction in SSB consumption is healthy at all weights ) it seems that SSB taxes will reduce sugar consumption even if they do not reduce the market.

How?

Because when SSB taxes are introduced, the beverage industry is remodeling its products.

And at least according to the World Health Organization's bulletin, they don't make it so trivial!

Of the 83 products surveyed in both 2014 and 2018 (after the UK SSB tax), the average sugar content decreased by 42% (from 9.1 g / 100 ml to 5.3 g / 100 ml). energy content decreased by 40% (from 38 kcal / 100mL to 23 kcal / 100mL). Doing this in a standard 355ml container – representing 2.45 fewer teaspoons of sugar and 53 fewer calories per carton.

And that was in response to a fairly nominal tax. It seems that higher taxes would lead to larger (or more extensive) redrafts, which of course would be combined with reduced purchases, as it turned out to be no surprise when they were introduced.

All this to say, that's another reason why if you live somewhere without SSB tax, my bet is that when, if not, you'll be.

.