In this opinion editorial, HEALA’s Dr. Petronella Kruger challenges why we’re still trying to pretend that soda is not bad for our health. She says for too long the sugar industry has been allowed to frustrate health promotion interventions across the globe by making deceptive economic threats and supporting junk science that minimizes the health impacts of their products. They also use other strategies to block and undermine sweetened beverage taxes. She believes the public deserves an alternative view.
Sugar taxes, drinking soda, jobs, and our health
I’ve recently been entranced by the United States presidential debates and how the truth seems to be an inconvenient, but not insurmountable obstacle to sensational, and frankly, often stupid statements. Foolishly, I thought, “We have a lot of problems in South Africa, but at least we start from a position of sense.” Spoiler alert: I was wrong.
On 30 September, the SA Canegrowers Association publicly questioned whether a tax on sodas was intended to be a health tax. Higgins Mdluli, the Chair of the SA Canegrowers’ Association, asks: “At what point do we look at the data with common sense and admit the tax is not working?”
Studies show that a sugar tax can address health issues
He asks this after referring to two local studies, (both of which are used to support the success of the tax, by the way) because: one study found that the single intervention of the sugar tax did not fix the whole problem of bad diets in South Africa, so people are still gaining weight.
The second found that people buy fewer sodas, and then buy other products with that money instead. A finding one would think speaks to the fact that consumers substitute purchasing: so a job in one industry where fewer products are being bought, will be replaced by a job in another industry, where more products are being purchased.
There’s a lot to be said for the evidence on sugar-sweetened beverage taxation. Given that the Health Promotion Levy has only been in effect for six years, and that changes in population diet and health outcomes are usually measured in decades, there’s comprehensive evidence to show it is already working.
We know that the Levy has led to a reduction in purchases of sodas (especially in lower socio-economic income groups) and a reduction in sugar added to sodas by companies.
The reality is that sales of soda and sugary drink sales are influenced by cost
So, fewer people are buying sugary drinks, and when they do, those drinks are less sugary. We have this evidence, despite successful lobbying from the industry that has led to a levy almost half the recommended rate by WHO, and without it being increased for inflation.
We know that after decades, sugar-sweetened beverage taxation rates are more supported than ever, and that an increasing body of evidence shows it works.
The sugar industry relies on studies – funded by them – to show that there will be job losses in their sector “due to the HPL”. It would be refreshing to see these studies being reported accurately to reflect the whole set of circumstances that lead to forecasted or modelled job losses.
Significant sugar dumping in South Africa, droughts, the impact of the Durban riots and the corporate fraud of Tongaat Hulett (leading to 5000 retrenchments) are all cited as underlying reasons by their own studies. The actual job portion of the job losses attributed to the HPL is disputed.
Everyone knows drinking soda is bad for you
But I want to take up Mr. Mdluli’s invitation to use common sense.
Here it is: everybody knows that drinking soda is bad for you.
As a reader, you do not need a study to tell you that any dietician will tell you to cut sodas. You know that adding sugar to things is not healthy. So in a country where 5.6 million South Africans live with diabetes (1 in 9 adults), the second largest cause of death in South Africa, are we really still wondering why we are taking measures to reduce sugar? To borrow a phrase, make it make sense.
About the author
Dr. Petronell Kruger is the Programmes Manager at the Healthy Living Alliance (HEALA). Dr. Kruger is an admitted legal practitioner in the High Court of South Africa. She has previously held positions as a legal researcher at the Constitutional Court of South Africa and at the Institute for International and Comparative Law in Africa at the University of Pretoria.
Her PhD research was based on the interplay between human rights and public health. She has worked extensively on food law and policy during her four years working at the Wits School of Public Health.
