A recently published independent evaluation of the ‘Sugar Sweetened Drinks Tax’ (SSDT) has found that there was a significant decline in sugar consumption in carbonated drinks and that manufacturers have taken steps to reformulate products so that it falls beneath the tax threshold.

The SSDT was introduced in May 2018 under Ireland’s Obesity Policy and Action Plan with the ambition of addressing Ireland’s high rates of overweight and obesity. The tax specifically aimed to reduce sugar consumption via fizzy drinks and also hoped encourage product reformulation. 

The authors of the report observed that while market research data indicated “a marked reduction in sugar consumption via carbonated soft drinks” in the immediate aftermath of the introduction of the SSDT, it was unclear how much of this reduction was caused by industry reformulation of soft drinks and how much by consumers choosing lower sugar or sugar-free beverages. 

The report said it was known that manufacturers had engaged in extensive reformulation of soft drinks in Ireland, with four of the five leading fizzy drinks in Ireland, now falling below the SSDT rate.

The evaluation report also found that a very slow decline in SSDT revenue collection since the implementation of the tax in 2018 was “highly suggestive that the SSDT has been successful in reducing sugar intake via soft drinks.”

The SSDT introduced in Ireland was seen to be “relatively modest” at 8c per standard 330ml can at the higher SSDT tier, and 5c on the lower tier, and the authors noted that Ireland, like many other countries, did not introduce a mechanism to automatically adjust these rates in line with inflation.

The report stated: “This absence is important as inflation has continued to erode the real value of this fixed SSDT... It is noteworthy that the CPI inflation rate for food and non-alcoholic beverages was almost 12% in 2022 alone. 

In their conclusion, the authors of the report said that The SSDT remains one tool, among many, to respond to the obesity threat and that as supported by the WHO and others agencies, the tax is a proven fiscal lever to reduce sugar consumption. However, the caveat remained that  the “unique impact of the SSDT” was “undoubtedly modest, as given the complexity of the issue, no one policy option represents a ‘silver bullet’.” 

Speaking on the report’s publication, Minister for Health, Stephen Donnelly said that taxing unhealthy products was an important measure to help support consumers to make healthier choices and that the SSDT was “one of many tools” to address obesity and reduce the associated risks of type 2 diabetes, cancer and other non-communicable diseases.

“The Evaluation clearly shows its impact. In 2010 almost six kilograms of sugar was consumed per person from carbonated drinks bought in retail settings. This had fallen to five kilograms per person when the SSD Tax was introduced and in 2022 had fallen to 3.8 kilograms per person. I’m confident that we’ll see the long-term health benefits of this significant reduction in the years to come, in particular amongst our children and young people,” said Mr Donnolly.

According to the Department of Health, Ireland was the 36th country to introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks and currently 108 countries have introduced a similar tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in some form. 

The evaluation, commissioned by the Department of Health and completed by Munster Research Consultancy.

In response to the evaluation, the Irish Heart Foundation (IHF) called for the government to extend a sugar tax to all high-sugar foods.

The charity’s director of advocacy, Chris Macey, said that the scale of the reduction in sugar and calorie intake on the national waistline and children’s weight in particular, was likely to be similar to the UK, which introduced its tax at the same time.

The IHF said that UK research has shown that there were 36,000 fewer cases of overweight and obesity in among children and teenagers the aftermath of the tax introduction – which would equate to around 2,500 cases in Ireland. 

“A broader sugar tax covering all the high sugar products contributing to our obesity crisis would have an even bigger positive impact, saving many young people from a future dominated by chronic disease in advance of premature death.

“Major policy responses such as this can no longer be avoided to tackle what is probably the biggest threat to our children’s future health. The State’s own research predicts that 85,000 of this generation of children on the island will die prematurely due overweight and obesity,” said Mr Macey.

He added that the significant growth in sales of energy drinks – containing up to 17 spoons of sugar in a 500ml bottle – highlighted in the evaluation should be dealt with through big increases in the rate at the higher band of the sugar sweetened drinks tax.

Meanwhile, new research from the University of Washington (UW) in the US has investigated responses to sweetened beverage taxes using the purchasing behaviour of approximately 400 households in Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland and Philadelphia, all of which recently introduced beverage taxes. 

Researchers found that following the introduction of the tax, lower-income households decreased their purchases of sweetened drinks by nearly 50%, while higher-income households reduced purchases by 18%. As previous studies have shown that lower-income individuals consume sweetened beverages at a higher-than-average rate, the researchers said that these results suggested that the tax could help reduce health disparities.

“If households reduce their sugar intake, they will experience health benefits,” said Melissa Knox, co-author and UW associate professor of economics.

“Sweetened beverages are one of the largest sources of sugar in the American diet. They have all kinds of health consequences and don’t really provide any nutrition. The idea with the tax is that lower-income people, because they reduce their intake more, receive greater health benefits than the higher-income households,” added Prof Knox.

The study was published online in Health Economics.