The Sugar Tax promises to reduce obesity and diabetes, but international experiences show contrary effects. In Italy at risk of jobs and collapse of the sector, without guaranteeing real benefits for health
The Sugar Tax is like certain trains: it always comes late. He had to enter into force with the 2020 budget law but fortunately he is still stopped at the station. The government has decided to move the starting whistle at the end of the year. But be careful, the most ironic thing is that, in addition to the postponement, it is now more likely that that tax will be completely canceled.
But before pulling the conclusions, let’s take a tour around the world to understand what is happening in the countries that, more than us, had already thought of “taxing sweetness” to break down diabetes, obesity, and – why not – also public health expenditure.
And here the first twist is revealed: the Great Britain. It is precisely the country that we need as an example. In 2017, the British government had launched into the great adventure of the sugar tax, with the aim of reducing the consumption of sugary drinks. But do you know what happened? Although companies have cut sugar levels in their drinks – up to 28.8% in drinksal 10.3% in yogurtand so on – consumers not only have continued to drink, but they also have the consumption of sweets increased. The overall intake of sugar has increased 2.6%. And to make matters worse, new products such as biscuits, candies and ice creams have become “sweeter” (if possible).
We are therefore faced with a real “trap”: you make a tax, you hope that people eat better, but in reality you only end up increasing the dessert market, completely losing control over the results.
Now, in Italy, we are preparing to repeat the same mistake, with the illusion that a withdrawal on sugary drinks can solve the problem of obesity. But be careful, the data is not on our side. There Norway and the Mexicowho introduced similar taxes, they saw that sugar consumption has not only dropped, but even found new ways to get around the system.
And while the whole world wonders about the effectiveness of the Sugar Tax, we are preparing to put it into force, at the risk of bringing the sector collapse. A search for Nomism estimates a contraction in the market for sugary drinks of the 16%with a negative impact of 275 million euros On VAT revenue, but the most tragic part does not end here: about 5,000 jobs are at risk.
And guess a little? The expense will be mainly the small and medium -sized enterprises of the sector, those local realities that already struggle to keep up.
But it’s not just an economic question, it’s a matter of employment. While multinationals like Coca-Cola have the means to survive a tax, the small Italian companies-which are the beating heart of the national economy-risk closing, putting thousands of families on the pavement.
Not to mention the repercussions on local induced: the two Coca-Cola factories at risk of closure in Abruzzo and Campania could leave without work beyond 2,300 people.
That’s why every time we talk about “ethical” or “for the good of health”, it should be remembered that the Economic health of the country count.
And now the most surreal part of this story: the Italian government is against the sugar tax, yet … every now and then it seems to want to embrace it more for a matter of “International prestige” that of true effectiveness.
Everything is justified in the name of public health and health prevention, but in reality the risk is that our country is with a tax that is not only not good for health, but also damages the economy.
Perhaps it would be better to get in mind than the real solutions, those that lead to an improvement in health, are not found in the package of a tax, but in a cultural change.
And that change passes through thefood educationnot a balzello imposed by the state.
