Canada has been fighting a war on obesity for decades. Yet obesity now affects four in 10 of us, often leading to serious complications such as heart disease, stroke and diabetes.
Perhaps that’s because we’ve been targeting the wrong enemy.
Until recently, efforts were focused on fat intake, but research is now pointing to excessive sugar as one of the main culprits. Recent revelations show this misinformation was intentional, with the sugar industry putting forth significant, long-term efforts to hide this connection that are reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s efforts to deny the health impacts of smoking.
Refined sugars are in most of the food we eat—soda, cereals, canned soup, and fast food just to name a few. Sugar-sweetened beverages such as pop, fruit drinks, sports drinks and the like are particularly damaging, as they have minimal nutritional value and, despite the calories, don’t quench an appetite. Drinking just one sugar-sweetened beverage a day has been linked to increased weight gain, a 20 percent increase in the risk of heart disease and a 26 percent increase in the risk of diabetes.
An eye-opening report published this year in JAMA Internal Medicine revealed that as early as 1954, the Sugar Research Foundation—a lobby group for the sugar industry—targeted researchers studying the links between sugar, fat, and health. It paid researchers to produce reviews in prestigious medical journals. Those reviews downplayed sugar’s contributions to obesity, while not disclosing the Sugar Research Foundation as a funder or participant. The goal, ostensibly, was to overstate the role of fat and exonerate sugar as a cause of obesity and related diseases.
Their success had an immense impact, even shifting Canada’s nutrition guidelines. Low fat became synonymous with healthy for decades. The industry continues to steer research even today: a study found that while 83 percent of industry-funded research found no link between soda consumption and weight gain, 83 percent of independently-funded research did find a link.
Today, sugar has saturated our food system. Addressing it will require a comprehensive approach, including a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Such taxes have been introduced in France, the UK, Philadelphia, Berkeley, and Mexico. The cities of Boulder, Oakland, San Francisco and Albany have also recently enacted a tax.
Mexico’s story echoes our own—it has an obesity burden similar to Canada’s, and even higher rates of diabetes. A 10 percent tax on sugar-sweetened beverages was passed in 2014, and consumption per capita dropped by six percent in 2014 and 12 percent in 2015. While Mexicans haven’t seen an impact on obesity yet, these changes in consumption could result in up to 1,700 fewer deaths per year from diabetes and heart disease.
Sugar taxes have been championed by the World Health Organization and World Medical Association. They have endorsed a sugar-sweetened beverage tax because it’s easy and low-cost to implement, and steers consumers toward healthier choices. Recent leaked documents highlighting in-depth strategies by the beverage industry to prevent or repeal these taxes also demonstrate that a tax works. These taxes are cutting into their bottom line.
While the tax is a smart move, it’s not a silver bullet. As we saw with tobacco, taxes have a moderate effect on consumption but are only effective as part of a suite of sustained policies and initiatives that create cultural change.
Indeed, smoking rates have gone down because of a shift in social views around smoking, not just because cigarettes are more expensive. This success was compounded by using the profits from cigarettes to fund anti-tobacco initiatives. Sugar should be no different. Indeed, part of Mexico’s success was due to a concurrent Bloomberg public awareness campaign around sugar.
A sugar tax allows consumers to make more informed choices around the true costs of food by building long-term health costs into the purchase price, and encouraging healthier beverage choices. Funding and momentum from the tax can be used for pro-health policies, including improving school nutrition, effective marketing restrictions and exercise programs. It will also augment existing initiatives including the recent redevelopment of nutrition and food labelling guidelines.
A recent Senate report recommended a sugar tax as one of 21 measures to address obesity. We must take this recommendation seriously. Advocates, policymakers, researchers and the public need to collaborate and make such a tax a reality.
The authors have written this article on behalf of the Public Health Physicians of Canada & Public Health Physician’s Resident’s Council.
The comments section is closed.
If pharmacy’s are supposed to promote health and wellness. How come there are sugary drinks being sold in pharmacies. Even if individual owned pharmacies can remove them it would be a start. How can major chain such as Rexall and Shoppers Drug Mart sell Sugary Drinks next to a dispensary of drugs.
Why we continue to have products in the marketplace that harm humankind is clearly beyond comprehension. Politics, capitalism, greed…all at the expense of who we are. The only solution, the only solution, is to remove them from our midst. Let the people have their cigarettes and alcohol, and unashamedly remove the processed poisons they call food. Maybe then, maybe then, even the cigarettes and alcohol…and maybe even the illicit or prescription drugs…will become less of an issue. Imagine that!
Taxing the consumer seems less logical to me than putting restrictions on manufacturers. If we but limits on the amount of added sugars that are acceptable in food sold in Canada then we should limit the amount consumed. Education around healthy eating wouldn’t be as big a problem if we had less unhealthy options. I don’t believe it should be solely the responsibility of the consumer to make the best choices. I think that responsibility needs to be shared with those who regulate what food can be sold in Canada because that will show a true commitment to improving the lives of Canadians. This isn’t to say we should ban chocolate but rather to show that actual improvements are being made that don’t disadvantage Canadians, especially the low-income Canadians whose access to healthy food is often quite limited.
I don’t think a tax will solve the probelm. Healthy eating will. The Canada Food Guidelnes must be changed . I wrote this lettr to the CDA yesterday asI was shocked to find out that the Canadian Sugar Institute support the Dietitians of Canada
http://www.dietitians.ca/…/Past-sponsors-DC-conferences.aspx
and Canadian Sugar Institute Collaborate/Contribute with the CDA
http://www.fcpc.ca/…/Sandra%20Marsden%20-%20FCPC%20Spectrum…
Credible Third Party Support Canadian Diabetes Association – Nutrition Committe
I called the Canadian Diabetic Assn. about this, saying I did not quite understand the Sugar Institute’s statement and was wondering in which way they collaborate with the CDA. They said they would get back to me next week, the person who handles this is on holiday.
I don’t think a tax will solve the probelm. Healthy eating will. The Canada Food Guidelnes must be changed . I wrote this letter to the CDA yesterday as I was shocked to find out that the Canadian Sugar Institute supports the Dietitians of Canada
http://www.dietitians.ca/…/Past-sponsors-DC-conferences.aspx
and Canadian Sugar Institute Collaborate/Contribute with the CDA
http://www.fcpc.ca/…/Sandra%20Marsden%20-%20FCPC%20Spectrum…
Credible Third Party Support Canadian Diabetes Association – Nutrition Committe
I called the Canadian Diabetic Assn. about this, saying I did not quite understand the Sugar Institute’s statement and was wondering in which way they collaborate with the CDA. They said they would get back to me next week, the person who handles this is on holiday
Thank you for your clear overview on this issue which is consistent with Dietitians of Canada’s position on Taxation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages which follows and is available on our website at http://www.dietitians.ca/taxation.
It is the position of Dietitians of Canada that an excise tax of at least 10-20% be applied to sugar-sweetened beverages sold in Canada given the negative impact of these products on the health of the population and the viability of taxation as a means to reduce consumption. For the greatest impact, taxation measures should be combined with other policy interventions such as increasing access to healthy foods while decreasing access to unhealthy foods in schools, daycares and recreation facilities; restrictions on the marketing of foods and beverages to children; and effective, long term educational initiatives.
The tax has worked in every place it has been applied. worked in philadelphia, hungary, france, and mexico.
Please stop blaming People for obesity and blame sugar !
You mentioned 4-10 people are obese , so 60% of people are at normal bmi and are not obese ,it’s probable not realistic.
Most type 1 diabetics are not obese and a majority of type 2 have onset or pre-insulin deficiency . Realistically obesity comes wth far more consequences wth low income , genetics etc! Yes we need more quality food accessibility for fresh food fruits and veggies & activity
We need the ability to reach our goals !
Sugary drinks & sweets are already taxed to death and the consequence again falls on our lower income bracket which I for one wanted a cold drink! Pop or Milk or Juice all have a high content of sugar
Yes Pop the most sugar ! But the cheapest !
We need our Politicians & Policy Health Care Advisors to tell the manufactors pay up to our health care funds like cigarettes ! It’s a drug they want us to think it’s ok to consume wth flashy ads and commercials.
Don’t blame the people and put more tax on 99% of us and the 1% rich company’s keep collecting
Tax them or tell them stop wth the influx of sugar reduce the amount or be fined all funds directly to the health & wellness .
As a type1 30yrs and a islet transplant recipient 7 years insulin independence yea !
My thoughts
I agree, more accessibility to cheaper and quality fruits, veges, lean meats – healthier eating does cost more at times plus more prep when food is all fresh and you put it together. In this society, prepared and manufactured foods, especially those that are cheap which contain high carbs and fats are within budget for most. These days, some people do not even know meal prep; parents seem not to have the time to show the kids and unless the kids have courses at school, they don’t even know how to prep a healthy meal, or how to encourage healthy eating. Grab ‘n go meals, sweet treats, or just too much of a good thing and not enough movement contributes to obesity. You have people sitting in front of computers for very long lengths of time because it is their job or they game or socialize via computer (so they don’t move enough at times); to lower obesity really is each person’s ability to change their way of thinking. You may not be able to change the diabetes, my family has a really strong genetic component even in the really thin people. However, you can improve lifestyle and decrease obesity which has psychological and/or a socioeconomic variables dependent on the individual’s situation, not a matter of taxing more on sweets.
This is an interesting and compelling case for public health to develop a comprehensive sugar strategy. However, I don’t have a lot of confidence Health Canada or PHAC will make that a priority. It seems that governments rarely lead anything…just look at the time and human cost before asbestos could be banned, next year.
One minor error: First hyperlink indicates it is 40% of Canadians who were overweight or obese in 2013, not just obese.
So we, the tax payers currently SUBSIDIZE corn farmers to the tune of 1 billion dollars annually. Simply put our tax dollars provide the corn syrup used in 100% of the crap products contributing to obesity.
Because the tax payers are CLEARLY unaware, many may think THIS to be a good idea. But the real proposal is let’s tax the taxpayer on the already subsidized tax dollars…
Simply put…JUST HOW DUMB ARE THE TAXPAYERS?
Likely, not so bright as many will THINK this to be a good idea but in the end it’s just a thinly veiled ADDITIONAL tax grab.