In this blog post published by the Food Research Collaboration, Prof Erik Millstone argues that upcoming legislation (the Retained EU Law (Reform and Revocation) Bill) could threaten food safety standards in the UK. The Bill, although not aimed specifically at the food sector, will enable the revocation of European Union laws in the UK. Millstone notes that Prime Minister Liz Truss has expressed support for deregulation of the food sector, for example by removing the sugary beverages tax. Food Standards Scotland has also warned that food standards relating to food labelling, chemical contaminants and hygiene levels could be lost unless new laws are introduced rapidly.

This paper sets out the case for a sugar tax, arguing that it can achieve both health and climate goals. It analyses the greenhouse gas savings of three different approaches that could follow a 75.5% reduction in sugar consumption in the European Union (to align with World Health Organisation guidelines): afforesting excess EU sugar beet farmland; using excess sugar beet grown in the EU for biofuel; and the EU exporting sugar from its own sugar beet production, thus displacing Brazilian sugar consumption on the global market, and importing an equivalent amount of sugar cane ethanol from Brazil to use as biofuel.

This article studies the effects of a tax on sales of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and finds that it matters whether or not the tax is mentioned on the label. While a sugar tax alone had little effect on SSB sales on a university campus in San Francisco, adding the phrase “Includes SF Sugary Drink Tax” resulted in lower sales than when the tax was not mentioned. 

The National Food Strategy, an independent review led by Henry Dimbleby for the UK Government, sets out a vision for the future food system, focusing primarily on England. Describing itself as “an interventionist strategy”, it aims to change diets between 2019 and 2032 to include 30% more fruit and vegetables, 50% more fibre, 25% less HFSS food (high in fat, sugar or salt), and 30% less meat (of all kinds).

In this paper, TABLE member Philippa Simmonds analyses the debate around meat taxes in the UK, using media analysis and interviews with key stakeholders, and assesses how perspectives in the debate align with various political ideologies. 

This modelling paper, co-authored by TABLE member Elin Röös, examines the synergies and goal conflicts that could arise from different food taxation scenarios in Sweden. It finds that while taxing foods can reduce most environmental impacts, one scenario - reducing tax on plant-based products - might cause increases in environmental impacts by encouraging higher total food consumption. It also examines the trade-offs for land use and biodiversity protection associated with limiting beef consumption through taxation.

FCRN member Sander Biesbroek of Wageningen University & Research has co-authored this paper, which is the first modelling study to include and monetise social costs and benefits of a 15% or 30% meat tax or a 10% fruit and vegetables subsidy in the Netherlands. It finds that all three interventions could lead to a net benefit to society over a 30 year time frame.

FCRN member Lukas Paul Fesenfeld has co-authored this paper, which surveys people from China, Germany and the United States to assess levels of public support for various types of policy aimed at reducing meat and fish consumption. It explores how “packaging” several policies together can increase acceptance among voters.

This systematic review of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) finds that the taxes are associated with a decrease in the amount of sugar-sweetened beverages that are bought and consumed. A 10% tax lead to a 10% decrease in purchase and intake levels, on average, although there was considerable variation between results in different locations.