Implementing tax on sugar-sweetened beverages was correlated with substantial increase in soda rates and decrease significant consumption of aerated drinks, sweet teas, flavored water, and sport drinks. In Australia people are getting fat since childhood caused by eating too much unhealthy processed food which address complex disease called obesity. World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that obesity is a risk factor for most of non-communicable disease such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (heart attack, stroke, hypertension), cancer etc. To improve public health in Australia, Australian Medical Association (AMA) announced sugar tax as priority in their health policies due to high rate to obese population as major concern. The impact of a tax on SSB in 2017-18.67% of adolescents were obese (12.5 million people), scale raise from 63.4% in 2014-15 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). In this essay, attempt to argue that foreign countries have already pre-taxed sugary products which leads intake reduction and demonstrated some cardiometabolic life risk factors. On the other hand, government followed subsides according to their guideline meanwhile, taxation shows some negative consequences on Australian government and raise financial burden.
A reduction in SSB consumption could save health care treatments cost for Californians associated with diabetes or obesity outcomes by adopting tax on sugar products such as drinks whereas few research have investigated health consequences which has been corelated due to the effect of tax a way of lowering intake. In addition, sugar intake dropped down in US especially people from Californian such as African Americans, Mexicans Americans and whites their daily calorie intake are 9%, 8% and 5% respectively. According to Mekonnen et al. (2013), US implicit price elasticity an excise tax in 12-ounce drink at pre-tax level of $1.00 will be projected to increase the quality of product by 12% and result in reduction of 9.5% to 12% in sale of such drinks. For instance, 32 ounces of soda at pre-tax level of $1.00 will raise the quality by 32%, and since demand elasticity accepted in 20-30% decrease intake. To conclude that effect of penny per ounce tax may result in 10%-20% reduction in SSB consumption (Mekonnen et al., 2013). However, observational and intervention studies demonstrated that high SSB intake linked to greater risk to cardiometabolic outcomes associated with diabetes, body mass index (BMI) and blood pressure.
Various behavioral and biological pathways may be responsible for correlation between SSB ingestion and negative health effects which is impacting all age groups. Childhood obesity is considered to raise the likelihood of obesity in adulthood which can have significant implications later in life. In addition, epidemiological research has demonstrated that overweight and obesity continuity factors for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer and premature death (Hu, 2008). As per evidence by Malik et at. (2010, pg.5) illustrated that higher amount of sweetened drinks leads to the development of hypertension, adverse lipid parameters, inflammations, and clinical CHD. For example, individual consume less than 1 soft drink per day has 22% high incidence of hypertension rather than non-consumers (Malik et al., 2010, pg.5).
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) claims that medical cost is based on Disease Cost and Effect Report (DCIS), recommend that health care cost should paid by individual until 30-year-old up to some amount include pharmaceuticals, medical services, practitioners and health professionals. To begin with, Lal et al. (2017) suggested that increase in SSB tax in Australia by 20% may lead significant saving across health care cost. Statistical analysis by Colagiuri et al. (2010, p.261) demonstrated that annual cost per person will estimate by direct health care, direct non health care and government subsidies depend on persons weight differences from 1999-2000 to 2004-2005 provide prevalence about >30 age covered by government subsides. For instance, annually government pay was $3600 which increases from $2948 for overweight and obese (Colagiuri et al., 2010, p.261). Above all, government faces major problematic concern about expenditure related to medication or hospitalization.
Taxing SSB in Australia address the market failure because government excess responsibility mainly on producers and consumers to pay negative consequences of the production and intake. Individual is not likely to bear full amount of their consumption of non-nutritional food or drinks because most health treatment costs provided by government as well as provide safety to obese people who are under-employed, unemployed or disabled. Additionally, government should increase the distribution of nutritious food under regulation and guidelines into market rather than increasing tax on sugary food which increment into retail price to the social cost put more simply obesity crisis creates huge pressure on government due to the fact that Australian government owe one-third cost of their products which is imposing tax on goods or services may lead burden on government (Duckett, Swerissen, & Wiltshire, 2016, p.22).