St. Albert’s city council recently voted to urge the federal government to introduce a new tax on “sugar-sweetened beverages” (pop) to help curb obesity.

While we appreciate council’s concern for the health and well being of Canadians, taxpayers should know that research shows such taxes have proven to be ineffective.

On the surface, one might think that such a policy could work – tax a product the government wants to discourage consumers from purchasing, and, in theory, people will consume less of that product. However, the evidence doesn’t support the theory.

If you walk into a grocery store in Canada and buy an apple, a loaf of bread and some milk, you will not pay the GST on those items. Conversely, if you walk into a grocery store and buy a chocolate bar, a bag of chips and a bottle of soda, you will pay the GST on those items. Thus, Canada has already taxed “junk food” disproportionately for decades and yet we’re still talking about the problem.

It should also be noted that while data shows there was a decline in soda consumption in Canada between 2004 and 2015, obesity rates continued to rise. Thus, the Canadian experience shows the situation is a lot more complex than merely imposing a simple tax on one type of product.

In 2017, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation released “Sweet Nothing: Fat and Sugar Taxes Don’t Reduce Obesity” – an in-depth report that investigates the results from several jurisdictions that have tried “sugar” taxes and/or fat taxes. The results show these taxes have not achieved the desired results.

For example, in Mexico, a 2014 sugar tax caused a temporary decline in soda consumption. However, sales are now rising again, and there has been no reduction in national obesity rates.

In Philadelphia, a new soda tax in 2017 reduced grocery sales within the city, and led to a spike in sales outside city limits, hurting downtown grocers and benefiting their suburban peers.

Denmark experienced the same phenomena in 2011. Their new “fat tax” led to an increase in cross-border grocery shopping to Germany to avoid the tax, and caused substantial Danish job losses. More importantly, the tax showed no discernible improvement in obesity rates and was later cancelled.

With so many large Canadian municipalities located close to the United States border, one could reasonably assume that a new sugar tax would increase cross border purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages.

A recent study commissioned by the New Zealand government came to similar conclusions as our report. The study examined 47 peer-reviewed reports on sugar taxes from around the world and ultimately concluded, “The evidence that sugar taxes improve health is weak.”

Instead of trying to reduce obesity-related illnesses through the tax system, governments should look at policy ideas that have actually led to better health outcomes.

For example, Safeway had success with improving health outcomes of its employees by introducing incentives within the company’s health plan in the United States. Alternatively, perhaps our public education system could do a better job educating young people about the food they eat, the need for regular exercise and other factors that impact their health.

One thing should be clear; evidence from around the world suggests that introducing new taxes on the food we eat is not an effective way to combat obesity.

Colin Craig is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation