Sugar And Spice

As the Senate forms an inquiry into obesity, cracks are appearing in the formerly international consensus regarding a remedy. By Fred Pawle.

Addicts suffer from a debilitating and destructive paradox, according to Psychology Today. On the one hand, their addictive behaviour has “rewarding effects” that compel repetition; on the other, it eventually has “detrimental consequences”. Worse, addicts often suffer from depression and anxiety, and “may not be aware that their behaviour is causing problems for themselves and others.”

While not wishing to trivialise this phenomenon, which is a scourge on many families, it is pertinent to note that the Greens’ obsession with other people’s poor health choices, particularly their consumption of sugar, might also fit the definition.

The Greens relentlessly pursue the sweet virtues associated with solutions to other people’s problems but must, one assumes, feel significant anxiety whenever those solutions prove to be either ineffective or unwanted. Despite this, the Greens are blissfully unaware that their behaviour is causing problems for others.

Last month Di Natale tweeted: “No obesity strategy in Australia despite 11,000,000 people overweight or obese.” If this makes Di Natale, anxious, it shouldn’t. Australia doesn’t need an “obesity strategy” to solve the health problems of 11 million people because, as he knows, not all of those people are obese. (The actual figure is 4.9 million.)

Nevertheless, the tweet goes on: “Not good enough. If the govt won’t tackle obesity, the Greens will do it for them. We’re pushing for our obesity inquiry to begin next month.”

Di Natale’s wish for an inquiry was duly granted this month. It is not difficult to predict where he would like to take it. “The highly processed, energy-dense food we consume is a major factor in driving obesity,” the Greens announced last year. “Sugar sweetened drinks are a significant culprit, particularly for children,” the Greens announced last year. Their solution is to impose a 20 per cent tax on sugary drinks. Both Labor and Liberals have ruled out a tax.

As the MRC and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research have reported, not one such tax in 28 countries around the world has had a discernible effect on public health. In some places, the tax has been removed because it was regressive and ineffective.

A sugar tax can change consumer behaviour in many ways, not all of them intended. Consumers can buy cheaper products, sometimes from neighbouring jurisdictions where the tax does not apply, or switch to untaxed alternative sugary products such as flavoured milk or chocolate. And while the tax does indeed raise revenue for the government, research shows that public health remains the same.

Cracks are emerging in what was until recently an international consensus in this department. An independent commission for the World Health Organisation handed down a report on the matter this month that, much to the dismay of the WHO itself, failed to endorse a blanket tax on sugary drinks. Instead it recommended that governments work with beverage producers in regulating labels and marketing.

Advocates of the tax responded by redoubling their determination. “This is a report by an independent commission, not WHO,” a WHO spokesman told The Guardian. “WHO stands by its evidence-based guidance, including on the benefits of using fiscal policies to reduce exposure to harmful products, including sugar-sweetened beverages.”

The Lancet, the world’s oldest medical journal, identified the culprit in the commission: US representative Eric Hargan, who “torpedoed” efforts to add a recommendation on taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. “Now we have a target: the US administration, which has adopted an anti-science position on fiscal interventions and whose raison d'être is to defend health-harming industries,” The Lancet said.

It added that “the pervasive and escalating dangers of neoliberalism” were also in its sights. “We should thank the commission for so expertly clarifying the terms on which the struggle ... must now be fought.” Such fighting words - unusual for a medical journal - will reassure Di Natale but are unlikely to resonate with anybody who believes in the liberal principle of personal choice and responsibility.

By publicly opposing a sugar tax, both our major parties recognise either that it is ineffective or that most Australians are averse to yet another fiscal stick with which to try to modify their behaviour.