latest opinion summarizing all research related to taxation out-of glucose located you to tax didn’t apply at obesity prices [reference: Bes-Rastrollo et al]. 8 kilogram difference between body weight shortly after two decades.
Which seems to reflect a method Ulucanlar et al58 identity misquoting out-of facts, because modern provider closes that ‘finest readily available scientific evidence shows that added glucose, particularly SSB use, was an important chance foundation to have gaining weight and you will obesity’ and you can your ‘tax product alone to the added sugar appears diminished in order to curb the newest obesity epidemic, but it must be used in a great multicomponent and you can comprehensive structural method to handle obesity’.102 Once the second element of ICBA’s statement, emphasizing observation studies, try accurate, it omits very important contextual pointers, earliest that tax costs on observational shot was basically lower compared to demanded 20% endurance, given that remarked by Bes-Rastrollo et al by themselves, and you can next, one to overall, ‘performance receive a critical inverse relationship between SSB excise fees and putting on weight or carrying excess fat, while the magnitude of quotes away from feeling try small’.102
Put another way, users transformed away from soft drinks to help you milkshakes, smoothies and other similarly fat-dense products – resulting in alot more calorie consumption consumed
Within submitting toward Who Independent High-Peak Payment toward NCDs and a similar comment on the latest Montevideo Roadmap 2018–2030, ICBA selectively cited a publication from the Gold mais aussi al104 to help with an argument that SSB tax wouldn’t simply don’t lose SSB consumption but would also enhance the usage of almost every other below average products: