This week, we bring you good news on the policy-can-make-a-difference front. It’s been nearly two years since the soft drinks levy was introduced, a tax on drinks with high sugar levels and two years since the panic stockpiling of original recipe Irn-Bru.
Opponents argued that the tax would simply mean higher prices for poorer consumers and not much change in behaviour. But a recent evaluation came to much more positive conclusions about the big changes it has brought to the soft drinks market.
Drinks with more than 5g of sugar per 100ml fell from an expected level of 49% to just 15% and prices only rose by one-third of the tax itself. This suggests makers didn’t think they could get away with price rises so they changed their drinks instead. So, good news and proof that well-designed taxes can shift behaviour.
This is something policymakers are desperate to do, from nudging firms to offer employees “good work” to driving behavioural shifts to combat the climate emergency. But before we get carried away and celebrate, one thing the paper didn’t cover was whether the tax led to lower sugar consumption generally, which was, after all, the objective.
So we should take heart that policy can drive change but let’s limit ourselves to awarding half a smug point to the designers of the sugar tax until we have won the wider battle on sugar consumption.
• Torsten Bell is chief executive of the Resolution Foundation. Read more at resolutionfoundation.org
