Taxes on sugar, salt, saturated fats and sugary drinks, alongside new subsidies for fruit and vegetables, could save Australia's health budget $3.4 billion, a study has found.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
University of Melbourne research found introducing a series of the controversial taxes would see an average change of about 10 per cent to the cost of some products high in unhealthy ingredients, but add an extra 2.1 years of healthy life for every 100 Australians.
New taxes on confectionery and ice cream would add 1.2 years to healthy life to every 100 people, based on 2010 populations, the Centre for Public Health Policy report said.
It estimated the costs of implementing the scheme at about $22 million, while recommending any changes be timed to coincide with future changes to the GST, to limit food and drink price changes.
The study proposed a $1.37 tax for every 100 grams of saturated fat, $0.30 per 1 gram of sodium and $0.47 per 1 litre for sugary drinks. Fruit and vegetable subsidies would $0.14 per 100 grams, with sugar taxes of $0.94 per 100 millilitres for ice cream and $0.85 per 100 grams of sugar other products, excluding fresh fruit, vegetables and unflavoured dairy products.
The findings aren't likely to spark action from the Turnbull government, with Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce last year labelling a sugar tax "bonkers mad" and ruling out "moralistic" measures because they could cause problems for the Queensland and NSW sugar industries.
Sugar taxes are already in place in Britain, Ireland, Belgium, France, Fiji, Mexico, South Africa and five US states.
"The food industry is unlikely to welcome policies that steer consumption away from profitable, processed foods," the report said.
"Large companies or corporations can use their financial power to promote information that distracts and confuses the public, as well as influence research and lobby politicians. Although such pressures did lead to a repeal of Denmark's saturated fat tax, the continued implementation of taxes in other countries does indicate a growing political and public motivation to implement health-based food and drink taxes despite industry pressures."
Report co-author Professor Tony Blakely said combinations of taxes and subsidies would ensure minimum financial pain to households.
"Our modelling shows Australia can achieve maximum health impact for less than one per cent extra impact on household budgets," he said.
"Critics often say taxes on unhealthy food make life tougher for low socio-economic households, but we've demonstrated that the right structuring of incentives means the financial impact on households is negligible, while their health improves."
In November, a Grattan Institute report said soft drinks should be taxed like cigarettes and leaded petrol.
The report proposed a 40 cents per 100 gram sugar tax, which would add 80 cents to the price of a two-litre soft drink and 15 cents to a 375-millilitre can.
Mr Joyce said in November the government believed in healthy eating, but, "if you want to deal with being overweight – well, here is a rough suggestion – stop eating so much and do a bit of exercise," he said.
Assistant Health Minister David Gillespie said the Coalition were not "food fascists" and would seek to improve nutrition education.
The study is published in the journal PLOS Medicine on Wednesday.
