Hated sugar tax worked for girls… but NOT boys, Cambridge University scientists say

The sugary drinks tax may have prevented more than 5,000 cases of obesity every year among girls in their final year of primary school, a study suggests.

But it didn’t appear to make any difference to boys of the same age.

In April 2018, to protect children from excessive sugar consumption and tackle childhood obesity, the UK governments introduced a two-tier sugar tax on soft drinks.

The tax was targeted at manufacturers to incentivise them to reduce the sugar content and encourage young people away from the ‘bathtub of sugary drinks’ they consume every year.

Now experts have found the move was followed by a drop in the number of cases of obesity among girls aged 10 and 11, but not their male counterparts.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge tracked changes in the levels of obesity in children in England in reception year and year six between 2014 and 2020.

Taking account of previous trends, they compared changes in levels of obesity 19 months after the sugar tax came into effect.

The team found that the introduction of the tax was associated with an eight per cent relative reduction in obesity levels in year six girls, equivalent to preventing 5,234 cases of obesity per year in this group alone.

Reductions were greatest in girls whose schools were in deprived areas, where children are known to consume the largest amount of sugary drinks.

Those living in the most deprived areas saw a nine per cent reduction.

However, the team found no link between the sugar tax coming into effect and changes in obesity levels in children from reception class.

And in year six boys, there was also no overall change in obesity prevalence.

Writing in the journal Plos Medicine, the team said it is unclear why the sugar tax may have affected obesity prevalence in girls and boys differently.

But one explanation is the possible impact of advertising, as numerous studies have found boys are often exposed to more food advertisements than girls.

Physical activity is often used to promote junk food and boys, compared to girls, have been shown to be more likely to believe that high calorie junk food can boost physical performance.

There are also several reasons why the sugar tax did not lead to changes in levels of obesity among the younger children, the researchers said.

Very young children consume fewer sugar-sweetened drinks than older children, so the soft drinks levy would have had a smaller effect.

Similarly, fruit juices are not included in the levy, but contribute similar amounts of sugar in young children’s diets as sugar-sweetened beverages.

Since the introduction of the tax, manufacturers must pay 18p a litre if a drink contains between 5g and 8g of sugar, whereas if a drink has more than 8g of sugar per 100ml, the tax is 24p.

As a result some drinks, including Fanta, Lucozade, Sprite, Dr Pepper and Vimto, had their recipes changed so they contained less than 5g of sugar and the price did not need to be put up.

However, others like Coca Cola and Pepsi refused to reduce the amount of sugar and, as a result, the price of them increased.

Dr Nina Rogers, the study’s first author, said: ‘We urgently need to find ways to tackle the increasing numbers of children living with obesity, otherwise we risk our children growing up to face significant health problems.

‘That was one reason why the UK’s soft drinks industry levy was introduced, and the evidence so far is promising.

‘We’ve shown for the first time that it is likely to have helped prevent thousands of children each year becoming obese.’

Dr Simon Steenson, nutrition scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation, said the study offered important insight.

‘However, the underlying causes of obesity are complex and so it is difficult to directly attribute a change in obesity levels to a single factor,’ he added.

‘For example, the announcement and implementation of the sugar tax occurred alongside a programme of voluntary sugar reduction in other products commonly consumed by children, including biscuits, breakfast cereals, yogurts, and confectionery.

‘The authors have importantly highlighted that there are limitations to the interpretation of their study, which only shows an association rather than a causal link.’