A potential sugar tax is once again sparking debate in Austria. The forum.ernährung heute (f.eh) is clearly opposed to such a levy and instead calls for more nutrition and consumer education as well as targeted prevention measures. According to the organization, focusing solely on sugar as an isolated nutrient is insufficient if the goal is to combat overweight and obesity.

“We urgently need comprehensive nutrition and consumer education in schools. A sugar tax is a token gesture that acknowledges this shortcoming,” says Marlies Gruber, Managing Director of f.eh. She points out that while international experience shows changes in purchasing behavior and product formulations, the long-term health effects are far less clear.

Great Britain is a frequently cited example.

A key point of reference in the debate is Great Britain. There, the tiered Soft Drinks Industry Levy was introduced in 2018. This levy led to manufacturers changing recipes and a reduction in the sugar content of numerous beverages.

According to evaluations cited by f.eh, daily sugar intake from soft drinks decreased by approximately three grams in children and by about five grams in adults. This corresponds to roughly twelve and 21 kilocalories respectively, and thus only about one percent of daily energy requirements.

For the f.eh, this is an indication that a lower sugar intake from beverages cannot automatically be equated with a relevant reduction in overweight and obesity.

Less sugar does not automatically mean fewer calories.

The f.eh warns against reducing the health policy debate to a single nutrient. Overweight and obesity develop in the long term through a complex interplay of various factors.

Besides total energy intake, other factors such as exercise, portion sizes, sleep, stress, social and economic conditions, as well as genetic and environmental factors play a role. Sugar, like other energy-providing nutrients, contributes to energy intake, but is only one part of this overall picture.

“ Obesity is not a disease that can be taxed at the supermarket checkout,” says Gruber. In her view, it creates a false impression to portray sugar as the central lever of a multifactorial problem.

Portion sizes as an additional approach

Besides modified recipes, f.eh sees smaller portion and packaging sizes as a particularly practical approach for everyday life. This approach doesn't focus on individual ingredients in isolation, but rather directly addresses the amount of energy consumed.

This aspect is particularly relevant for food manufacturers and the food trade. Recipes are constantly being changed, while portion sizes, product positioning, and consumption habits are gaining importance in the health policy debate.

The f.eh emphasizes that Austrian companies are already continuously adjusting the sugar content in food and beverages. Therefore, from the organization's perspective, an additional tax is no substitute for long-term education and prevention measures.

Consumer behavior and health are not the same thing

The f.eh does not fundamentally dispute that higher prices can change purchasing behavior. A so-called steering tax can lead to consumers buying less heavily taxed products or switching to other offers.

However, it remains to be seen whether this will lead to a more favorable diet in the long term, a relevant reduction in total energy intake and ultimately a lower prevalence of obesity.

Furthermore, according to the f.eh, the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is very unevenly distributed within the population. A general tax would therefore also affect people who consume such products only rarely or in small quantities.

Different effects in children

According to the f.eh, studies on children and adolescents also present a mixed picture. A study from England found a decrease in obesity prevalence among ten- to eleven-year-old girls 19 months after the introduction of the ration, contrary to the expected trend.

This effect was particularly pronounced in socially disadvantaged areas. However, a comparable correlation could not be demonstrated for other age groups or for boys.

Gruber argues that this does not provide general evidence that a sugar tax could solve the problem of childhood and adolescent obesity. Rather, he believes it is crucial to consider various influencing factors together.

f.eh calls for targeted prevention

Eating and exercise habits are formed in early childhood. Family, education, daily routines, opportunities for physical activity, and socioeconomic conditions all have a significant influence.

The f.eh therefore calls for health policy measures to be more strongly focused on those groups where the risk is particularly high. From the organization's perspective, the focus should be on nutrition and consumer education in schools, as well as targeted prevention programs.

The discussion is likely to continue for the food industry. The crucial question remains whether political measures should primarily target prices and taxes or focus more on education, consumer behavior, and the living conditions of particularly vulnerable groups.