Iceland review - 2019, Qupperneq 21

17
Iceland Review
ways to reduce its consumption. However,
the tax needs to be reasonably high to
have any effect. The WHO’s suggested fig-
ure was, in fact, 20% – the same number
proposed in Iceland, as a 20% percent tax
can reduce consumption by close to 20%.
Results from Berkeley, California as
well as Mexico point towards a sugar tax
having some effect. A 2016 report from
Mexico showed that a sugar tax imple-
mented in 2014 led to a 12% decrease in
soft drink consumption in the first year.
In Berkeley, an ISK 40 ($0.32/€0.28) per
litre fee was placed on drinks with added
sugar. Consumption of those drinks
decreased by 26% as water consumption
rose. However, in nearby control cities
San Francisco and Oakland, consumption
of drinks with added sugar rose 10% and
19% respectively in the same time frame.
The Icelandic state placed a hefty tax
on tobacco in 2013 which decreased con-
sumption levels heavily. However, tobacco
is significantly pricier than soft drinks
and sweets, so consumers may have a bet-
ter eye for price in that department. The
sugar tax’s detractors have pointed out
that the nation is already moving away
from soft drinks on its own: their market
share has decreased from 48% to 42%
in Iceland between 2016 to 2019, as folks
opted more for soda water.
What next?
According to the Directorate of Health,
informing consumers as well as encour-
aging folks to opt for healthier choices
is simply not enough to decrease the
public’s sugar consumption. There is
some evidence for taxation working, but
Iceland’s last attempt shows that careful
implementation is the key to success. One
thing is clear: the sugar consumption lev-
els in the country remain relatively high
compared to those of Iceland’s neigh-
bours, and they affect Icelanders’ health.
Yet the question remains: does the state
have a right to control the public’s con-
sumption habits? And can the public be
trusted to make their own decisions?
“It’s so incredibly
difficult when governments
are starting to decide
what is healthy and
what is unhealthy for
us, changing the price
of things in order to
control consumption. If
taxes are to be applied
to this end, then there
should be high taxes on
TVs and low taxes on
running shoes.”