Devil's advocate

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges recently issued a report which called for a trial 20 per cent tax on sugary drinks. Whilst the potential (dental and general) health benefits of such a tax appear obvious I think there certainly are question marks over the proposal.

Necessary?

According to the British Soft Drinks Association the consumption of soft drinks containing added sugar has fallen by nine per cent already over the last 10 years, and already nearly two-thirds of soft drinks now contain no added sugar. That begs the question - is a tax necessary?

Effective?

As a non-smoker I have to say I am surprised at the number of people who still do have the habit (one in five in 2010). Whilst it is true the numbers have fallen considerably over a period of 40 years, this has been due to a number of factors, a quite substantial price increase, better and earlier education, and changing regulations (in terms of advertising and limiting where people can actually smoke). After all that, a good number of people still smoke – so how effective will a tax on soft drinks actually be in terms of changing habits? Eamonn Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute, said that international studies have shown for taxes of this kind to be effective they have to be very large. How effective would a tax of 20 per cent actually be?