In a study that should fuel the debate on whether junk food taxes would make a dent in the obesity crisis, researchers have found that the higher the prices of junk foods rise, the less likely people are to consume them.
The study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, looked at more than 5,000 adults aged 18 to 30 at the start of the study in 1985-86. They followed their weight and dietary changes over 20 years, and also compiled food price data for the same timeframe.
The researchers, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that over the 20 years, a 10 per cent increase in price in soft drinks was associated with a 7 per cent decrease in the amount of calories consumed from soft drinks. The same price hike was linked to a 12 per cent decrease in the amount of calories consumed from pizza.
The researchers estimate that an 18-per cent tax on junk foods would result in a decline of roughly 56 calories per person per day.
If all else remained equal, those declines would amount to weight loss of about five pounds per person per year, they note.
The authors note that there is great debate about whether foods high in calories, saturated fat or sugar should be subject to added taxes, to help compensate for the higher costs of healthful foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables.
They conclude by suggesting that if governments were to "alter" the price of junk foods and beverages, it could steer adults toward a more healthy diet.
"While such policies will not solve the obesity epidemic in its entirety and may face considerable opposition from food manufacturers and sellers, they could prove an important strategy to address overconsumption, help reduce energy intake and potentially aid in weight loss and reduced rates of diabetes among U.S. adults," they write.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Mitchell H. Katz, of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and Dr. Rajiv Bhatia say current junk food taxes don't appear to be high enough.
"More substantial surcharges may decrease the consumption of sweetened beverages and, equally important, increase the consumption of more healthful alternatives," they write.
And they suggest that government subsidizing of corn growers has led to the very products that are said to be fuelling the obesity crisis.
"Sadly, we are currently subsidizing the wrong things including the product of corn, which makes the corn syrup in sweetened beverages so inexpensive," they write.
They add that the revenues from "junk food taxes" could be used to increase awareness about the harm of sugar-sweetened beverages, as well as fund such things as water stations in schools.
"Copying a successful tactic of anti-tobacco crusaders, the funds also could be used to counter the lavish advertising of soda and junk food or for 鈥榤arketing' ordinary tap water," they write.
"In the end, putting our money where our mouth is means aligning our economic incentives so that we always serve up the healthful choice," they conclude.
