{"id":546427,"date":"2026-03-26T12:57:20","date_gmt":"2026-03-26T12:57:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/546427\/"},"modified":"2026-03-26T12:57:20","modified_gmt":"2026-03-26T12:57:20","slug":"we-showed-a-20-tax-on-junk-food-would-save-more-lives-than-a-sugar-tax","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/546427\/","title":{"rendered":"We showed a 20% tax on junk food would save more lives than a sugar tax"},"content":{"rendered":"

Every Australian shopper knows the pull of cheap junk foods<\/a> lining supermarket shelves. Meanwhile, the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables continues to climb<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So it\u2019s little wonder conditions such as obesity<\/a> and type 2 diabetes<\/a> are so common, and Australia\u2019s health-care system
\nstruggles to cope<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But what if policies could help level the playing field? And what would that mean for our health, and health-care expenditure?<\/p>\n

Our new research, published today in The Lancet Public Health<\/a>, estimates a 20% tax on unhealthy foods could prevent 212,000 premature deaths and save A$14.9 billion in health-care costs over the lifetimes of Australian adults alive today.<\/p>\n

We estimated the health impact could be even greater if the tax revenue is used to subsidise fruit and vegetables.<\/p>\n

What we did<\/p>\n

By \u201cunhealthy foods\u201d, we mean sugary drinks, lollies, salty snacks, biscuits, pastries, processed meat and ice cream. These are the kinds of foods the Australian Dietary Guidelines<\/a> says we should limit for optimal health. Yet most<\/a> Australians find them hard to resist.<\/p>\n

We modelled how taxing these foods by 20% could shift the type of food Australians buy<\/a>. This could be a 20% tax on the retail price or a 20% tax applied at the point of manufacture (an excise tax). But our modelling didn\u2019t specify the type, just that the price would increase by 20%.<\/p>\n

We also modelled the knock-on effects on weight, blood pressure and chronic disease over the lifetimes of adults aged 20 or greater in Australia.<\/p>\n

We then estimated what would happen if we used that revenue to subsidise fruit and vegetables, and any extra health benefits this would have.<\/p>\n

We also looked at how these impacts could differ for households across the socio-economic spectrum \u2013 from the poorest 20% to the richest 20% \u2013 to see how taxes and subsidies might affect people in different financial situations.<\/p>\n

What we found<\/p>\n

We estimated the 20% tax could cut purchases of unhealthy foods by about 8\u201326% depending on the category.<\/p>\n

This could lead to 660,000 fewer cases of type 2 diabetes and 787,000 fewer cases of heart disease over the remaining lifetimes of Australian adults alive today. In turn, this could prevent about 212,000 premature deaths. <\/p>\n

The economic returns could be substantial. We estimated a total reduction of $14.9 billion in health-care costs. That\u2019s a health-care cost saving of $781 per adult over their lifetime.<\/p>\n

While the average Australian could pay about $139 more in tax each year, the policy could help make Australia fairer: low-income Australians could experience roughly 76% greater health benefits than high-income Australians. This is because low-income Australians bear the greatest burden<\/a> of diet-related illness and could see the largest reductions in purchases of unhealthy foods.<\/p>\n

So this measure would ease the unequal burden of obesity, diabetes and heart disease on those affected the most. <\/p>\n

The revenue raised could also be enough to reduce the average cost of fruits and vegetables by 19\u201326% across the population. This could ease cost of living pressures, avert 194,000 more cases of heart disease and prevent an additional 45,000 premature deaths.<\/p>\n

Implementing the tax and subsidy together would also come at no net cost to the government. <\/p>\n

How does this compare to a sugar tax?<\/p>\n

You might have heard about proposals for a \u201csugar tax<\/a>\u201d that taxes sugary drinks. It\u2019s an approach the World Health Organization endorses<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But we estimated extending these taxes to unhealthy foods more broadly could deliver around seven times the health benefits.<\/p>\n

Similarly, the tax-and-subsidy package we modelled could have a greater impact than<\/a> mandating the Health Star Rating<\/a>, restricting junk food advertising<\/a>, reducing harmful ingredients in products<\/a> (such as salt), or running a national healthy eating campaign<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This doesn\u2019t mean the tax-and-subsidy package alone will fix the enormous personal and health-care costs of unhealthy diets in Australia. But our findings reinforce its potential to be a powerful policy lever the government should consider.<\/p>\n

After all, we know price is a strong driver<\/a> of the foods we buy.<\/p>\n

What now?<\/p>\n

Australian politicians are debating a tax on sugary drinks<\/a>. This is a great start, but our findings suggest Australia should consider a broader system of taxes and subsidies for much greater impact. <\/p>\n

Public support for such measures is strong. Around 53%<\/a> of Australians support a tax on unhealthy foods, rising to around 72\u201374%<\/a> if the revenue is used to subsidise fruit and vegetables.<\/p>\n

The subsidies could be delivered through existing avenues. These include using vouchers<\/a>, via school programs<\/a>, retail subsidies in First Nations communities<\/a>, and healthy food prescription programs<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Advocacy from health and community groups<\/a> could help drive policy uptake. In Colombia, such sustained advocacy led to the introduction of a 20% tax on unhealthy foods<\/a>. Evidence suggests this is improving population diets<\/a> without affecting jobs in the food industry<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Australia has navigated similar debates before. Tobacco taxes, once controversial, have contributed to large reductions in smoking<\/a> while funding initiatives such as the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Given unhealthy diets and being overweight now drive more chronic disease than smoking<\/a>, we should be considering equally sensible measures \u2013 including food taxes and subsidies \u2013 to help Australians act on their best intentions at the supermarket.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Every Australian shopper knows the pull of cheap junk foods lining supermarket shelves. Meanwhile, the cost of fresh…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":546428,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[61],"tags":[97,269],"class_list":{"0":"post-546427","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-nutrition","8":"tag-health","9":"tag-nutrition"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/546427","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=546427"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/546427\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/546428"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=546427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=546427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=546427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}