The number of people living with obesity nearly tripled between 1975 and 2016, with more than 600 million adults are obese, making it an imminent public health problem (Case et al., 2022; Grout et al., 2022). Health problem such as non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular diseases dan type 2 diabetes mellitus, are mainly caused by obesity and poor diet (Case et al., 2022; Grout et al., 2022; John et al., 2022). To tackle these causes, one of the government’s strategies is using their power to control the consumption by implying taxes on sugary foods and beverages.
Studies have happened around the world to understand more about taxing or other similar kind of government’s financial burden on sugary foods and beverages. Among those studies, Case et al. (2022) focused on the effects of The Bermuda Sugar Tax after 16 months of implementation, while Grout et al. (2022) studies about the pricing effects on consumption of sugary beverages in India, and John et al. (2022) examined the impact of sugar tax on 40 different jurisdictions in the world. The findings from these three studies offer critical insights for adopting similar policy measures in Indonesia, which ranks as the fourth largest nation by population.
Governments are aware how crucial it is to solve obesity
problem, not just because of the health consequences, but also the serious
impact on exceeding health expenditure and slowing economic growth (Case et
al., 2022; John et al., 2022). One strong example is
Bermuda-an Atlantic Ocean island with low population of around 64.000 people-introduced
one of the highest sugar tax rates in the world, up to 75% (Case et
al., 2022). Meanwhile India as the
world most populated country, implied tax on aerated or sugar-sweetened
beverages (ASBs) at a mere 28.6% rate according to John et al. (2022) study. The tax rate
differences between these two countries are partial examples of the variations
in sugar tax implementation worldwide, as studied by Grout et al. (2022)
across 40 global jurisdictions. These three studies represent the variation of
sugary tax, between a small island and a densely populated nation with addition
of curated data from multiple other jurisdictions. The studies are suitable for
a planned implementation in Indonesia, as an archipelago with nearly 290
million people living across 415 autonomous regencies (Parangan,
2026).
Although those three studies focussing on sugar tax, there are
different purposes among them. Case et al. (2022) aim is to get a better
understanding about the awareness and acceptability of The Bermuda Sugar Tax,
by interviewing 14 key informants and 400 persons over 18 years of age across
different characteristics, to represent Bermuda population. Meanwhile in India,
John et al. (2022) researching on the price
elasticity and consumption behaviour for ASBs by commencing massive interviews
to 100.000 household spanning over 12.000 villages and urban blocks. While the
two previous studies conducted interviews with residents, Grout et al. (2022)
conducted research on comparative data of sugar tax implementation throughout
40 different jurisdictions, in order to identify the best scheme to implement
in New Zealand.
Each study come with its own strength and limitation as stated
in each article, and according to author’s own observation. Case et al. (2022) study using a framework
method, an approach developed by researchers in the United Kingdom to analyse
qualitative data applied to policy research, and now frequently used in policy
and health research. The result is quantitative and easy to understand, albeit
comes with a limitation. The data gathered from surveys are self-reported and
subject to both recall and social desirability response biases. The same
limitation applies to John et al. (2022) research, despite of the
comprehensive interviews to more than 100.000 household covering a huge number
of villages and urban blocks, rightfully represent India population. Even
though Grout et al. (2022)
article successfully mapping multiple jurisdiction sugar tax implementation
data while avoiding the self-reporting biased, it is not including the
potential impact of food reformulation by manufacturers to avoid costs that may
arise as a result of tax implementation. Additionally, Grout et al. (2022)
study also does not consider cross-price elasticity of demand between foods and
other health-related goods.
Indonesia should be learning from The Bermuda Sugar Tax, on how
this small island government made a bold decision putting a huge tax on sugary
beverages. According to Case et al. (2022) study, 94% of respondents
had high awareness of sugar tax and 48% of them consumed fewer taxed beverages
primarily for health reasons and discouraged by the price increases. Putting a
significant 75% sugar tax pays-off for Bermuda, as nearly half of the
respondents change their behaviour toward better diet. If implementing 75% tax
sounds outrageous, the research by John et al. (2022) should help on how much tax
to be applied in correlation with sugar-sweetened beverages price elasticity.
John et al. (2022) with a robust econometric
method of price elasticity estimation, found that for every 10% increase in
price for ASBs, its consumption decreases by 9.4%. This result in line with what
Grout et al. (2022)
comparative analysis conclusions, where there are evidences that the
implementation of taxes on unhealthy foods and beverages will lead to health
gains and reductions in health inequalities.
This review aimed to gain critical insights for future
implementation of sugar tax in Indonesia, is clearly addressed by these three
studies. Although there was a weakness in self-reporting biased, significant respondents
from Bermuda and India tend to consume less taxed products. Adding tax on
sugar-sweetened foods and beverages creates consumers’ behavioural changes
toward a better diet, with a measurable percentage. Since a radical sugar tax
carries massive consequences, Indonesia must first decide on its consumption
reduction targets, then design the tax rate accordingly. A comprehensive
feasibility study needs to be done promptly, before obesity weighed our big
nation down.
References
Case, K. K., Pineda, E., Olney, J.,
Segal, A. B., & Sassi, F. (2022). The ‘sugar tax’ in Bermuda: a mixed
methods study of general population and key stakeholder perceptions. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13945-9
Grout, L.,
Mizdrak, A., Nghiem, N., Jones, A. C., Blakely, T., Ni Mhurchu, C., &
Cleghorn, C. (2022). Potential effect of real-world junk food and
sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on population health, health system costs and
greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand: a modelling study. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health, 5(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000376
John, R. M.,
Tullu, F. T., & Gupta, R. (2022). Price elasticity and affordability of
aerated or sugar-sweetened beverages in India: implications for taxation. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1372. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13736-2
Parangan, D. (2026). Jumlah
penduduk Indonesia tembus 290 juta jiwa, tren kelahiran terus menurun.
Radio Republik Indonesia. Retrieved 04/07/2026 from https://rri.co.id/biak/kesehatan/2527431/jumlah-penduduk-indonesia-tembus-290-juta-jiwa-tren-kelahiran-terus-menurun
Comments
Post a Comment