In their study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, the scientists do not even question the need for introducing preventive measures, apparently assuming that other tools available to the authorities have already been used or are ineffective. They only considered the question of which groups of goods would be best to subject to an additional 'harmfulness tax' in order to achieve maximum results. The group led by Dr. Mike Rayner from the Department of Public Health at the University of Oxford compiled a special rating of products based on their content of basic nutrients and tried to predict what consequences a forced increase in prices on them might lead to.
The results obtained from the first model, which assumed higher taxation of products with high fat content - such as butter, milk, bread, pasta, etc. - left the researchers categorically dissatisfied. According to their calculations, the cost of a weekly food basket for British families would increase by 3.2%, and from a health perspective the result would be questionable, because people would switch to other products in the same price category but with higher salt content. This, in turn, could even lead to an increase in the number of strokes.
The second model involved introducing a tax for a wider range of products classified by researchers as unhealthy food, including, for example, various sweets. At the same time, food expenses for Britons would increase by 4% per week, but, as calculations showed, approximately 2,300 people could avoid death from heart attack and other complications caused by chronic cardiovascular diseases.
But even that seemed too little to Dr. Rayner - the scientist proposed introducing VAT also on those products that could become an alternative in the British diet to the more expensive unhealthy food. According to this model, the result in terms of mortality reduction was good, but the price for it would be considerable - household food expenses would increase by 4.6% per week and overall would cost UK residents £2 billion per year. Apparently understanding that the Conservative government, which had already refused several years ago to discuss the introduction of a 'harmfulness tax,' would not immediately risk turning voters and taxpayers against itself with such measures, Mike Rayner for now calls the chances of fiscal authorities participating in healthcare 'rather theoretical.' But he believes that the authorities should think about it. 'The time for discussing the issue of "taxes on the fat" has already come,' the BBC quotes the scientist, who also proposes considering the possibility of simultaneously introducing subsidies for producers of healthy food.
Such a bow to the food industry, however, did not save Dr. Rayner from very harsh criticism. Product manufacturers did not miss the opportunity to note the fact that the Oxford professor proposes introducing a tax not so much on 'harmfulness' as on poverty, because the increase in the cost of the food basket by 4.6% will most significantly affect low-income segments of the population, who are forced to spend most of their income on food. Even opinions among non-profit organizations helping patients with various diseases caused by unhealthy diet were divided. While the movement uniting overweight people generally welcomes the initiative to introduce the tax, believing that it will force manufacturers to think about how to make their products healthier without raising prices, the British Heart Foundation is waiting for additional evidence of the effectiveness of the fiscal measure.