Nutrition

Alcohol consumption is associated with costs to society due to its impact on crime and health. Tax can lead consumers to internalise these externalities.

In Budget 2016 the Chancellor announced a ‘soft drinks industry levy’ that aims to reduce consumption of sugar sweetened soft drinks. The levy is due to take effect from April 2018 with two rates, one applying to mid-sugar drinks (with 5-8 grams of sugar per 100 millilitres) and a higher rate applying to high-sugar drinks (with more than 8 grams of sugar per 100 millilitres). A recent article in The Lancet: Public Health considers the possible consequences of the levy for a series of health outcomes, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and dental care. In this Observation we propose a simple change to the soft drinks levy which would increase the likelihood of it having a beneficial effect on these outcomes.

New IFS research finds that providing school breakfasts free to all children in disadvantaged English primary schools helps pupils to make two months’ additional progress over the course of a year. These gains seem to be driven by better behaviour and concentration in the classroom, meaning that even students who don’t eat breakfast at school can benefit from the improved learning environment. These benefits come at a low cost relative to other programmes with a similar impact on attainment.

Increasing incomes, increasing waistlines?

This presentation was held at the Annual Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance

The rise in obesity has largely been attributed to an increase in calorie consumption. This column investigates this claim by examining the evolving consumption and lifestyles of English households between 1980 and 2013. While there has been an increase in calories from restaurants, fast food, soft drinks, and confectionery, there has been an overall decrease in total calories purchased. This decline in calories can be partially rationalised with weight gain by the decline in the strenuousness of work and daily life, and increasingly sedentary lifestyles.

Presentation given at CREST, Paris.

In their Correspondence (March 19, p 1162),1 Peter Scarborough and colleagues correctly quote us as saying that “the efficacy of [a sugary drinks tax] will depend on what products [consumers] switch to and how firms change their prices”, stating that we “based [our] conclusions on economic theory without reference to the evidence”. We agree that the magnitude of consumer response is an empirical question. Our Green Budget chapter2 neither supported nor opposed the proposed sugary drinks tax, but rather aimed to highlight some of the complexities surrounding such a tax and where the evidence base should be improved. We also do not dispute the unsurprising finding that consumption of sugary drinks fell in countries in which a sugary soft drinks tax had been introduced. We disagree, however, that concerns about substitution responses can be lightly dismissed.

Presentation given at the Scottish Government Strategy Unit Seminar Series.

In Budget 2016 the Chancellor announced a “soft drinks industry levy” due to take effect from April 2018. The charge will be levied on soft drinks that contain added sugar and is aimed at “help[ing] tackle childhood obesity.” It has followed calls from various bodies for intervention to reduce people’s sugar consumption. In a new IFS briefing note we examine the main sources of dietary sugar purchased by households and lay out some of the economic issues related to the introduction of a tax on sugar. We also consider the rationale behind government intervention of this sort.

This presentation was given at the IFS post-Budget presentation on 17 March 2016.

This paper was presented at the EEA-ESEM conference in Toulouse (25th August 2014).