If taxing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), such as soda, is considered an ‘effective’ public health measure, governments might consider taxing the ubiquitous sugar substitute, aspartame, as well.
The WHO published new guidance on sugar substitutes such as aspartame, stevia, and saccharine, advising that they should not be used for weight loss, as they have not been proven to help drop excess kilos and, furthermore, may lead to increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, and early death in adults. The guideline was based on a systematic literature review.
Perhaps this will make governments rethink their nanny taxes.
In 2022, the WHO published a manual for implementing SSB taxes, calling on all countries worldwide to levy them, for governments to attempt to curb sugar intake in populations due to its accompanying health risks such as obesity and diabetes. According to Dr. Ruediger Krech, Director of Health Promotion, the taxes were meant as a “tool to promote health because they [taxes] save lives and prevent disease, while advancing health equity and mobilising revenue for countries that could be used to realise universal health coverage”—all noble goals, but in light of the new report, has the “tool” missed its mark?
According to researchers, as of February 2023, 52% of the world’s population was subject to sugar-sweetened beverage taxes. Most jurisdictions charging these taxes are in the Global South. Europe is one of the regions with the fewest SSB taxes. Only about a quarter of the population lives in jurisdictions with the tax in place, which include France, Spain, and Portugal.
In some places, SSB taxes seemed to have been effective in reducing the number of sweetened beverages people drink. Mexico, which has famously high rates of both obesity and fizzy drink consumption, with some swaths of the population consuming as much as 10% of their daily calories in fizzy drinks, implemented an SSB tax in 2014. Two years later, consumption of the taxed drinks had dropped 37%. There was no indication that rates of obesity had fallen as a result, however.
Other studies have shown that the taxes have been responsible for reduced sugar content in drinks. Expectedly, beverage makers responded by reformulating their products, presumably to avoid the tax. The UK, for instance, put an SSB tax in place in 2018. Under the two-tiered levy, drinks containing more than 8g of sugar per 100ml are taxed at £0.24 per litre; those containing 5-8g of sugar per 100ml are taxed at £0.18 per litre. Within four years, drink manufacturers had tweaked their recipes: the widespread reformulation resulted in a 43.7% reduction in the sugar content in the drinks subject to the tax.
The study did not detail how the products were reformulated or if sugar substitutes such as aspartame were used, but shoppers can easily find a wide range of “sugar free” products on store shelves, many of which contain sugar substitutes, such as diet soda. Neither did the study state that the SSB tax had led to a decrease in diseases associated with excess sugar intake.
The WHO, meanwhile, recently announced the results of another review of the safety of aspartame, the most widely used sugar substitute globally. Following the review, the WHO maintained the long-standing safety guidelines: based on available research, aspartame “possibly” causes cancer, but at the recommended doses, is safe.
Aspartame, on the market since 1974, is the most widely used sugar substitute in the world, found in hundreds of foods from cough drops to diet soda, and is regularly poured into coffee cups from little pink and blue packets branded ‘Equal,’ ‘Sugar Twin,’ and ‘NutraSweet.’ While the literature reviews conducted by the WHO confirmed the standing safety guidelines, the regulators also acknowledged that a better understanding of possible links between the white powder and cancer risks required deeper investigation. No studies have been conducted to investigate more deeply its carcinogenic potential.
“We need better studies with longer follow-up and repeated dietary questionnaires in existing cohorts. We need randomised controlled trials, including studies of mechanistic pathways relevant to insulin regulation, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes, particularly as related to carcinogenicity,” said Dr. Moez Sanaa, WHO’s Head of the Standards and Scientific Advice on Food and Nutrition Unit.
The WHO said it would continue to monitor research on aspartame.
In the meantime, sold as the panacea to ‘health conscious’ members of society, aspartame is a money-maker, and the industry expects to boom over the next decade, as Fortune Business Insights predicts. Aspartame-product sales are lining the pockets of companies invested in the sugar-free fanfare. But, with the new report confirming the absence of any evidence of health benefits from the artificial sweetener, what will the fallout be?
Will the WHO now consider recommending yet another dubious drinks tax?
