TABLE 3.
The rating for the implementation considerations for the 20% tax by the Project Steering Group (PSG).
| Considerations | Details | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Strength of evidence | Moderate certainty effects between dose‐response relationship sugar consumption and dental caries (Bernabé et al., 2014). | Medium |
| Systematic review and meta‐analysis of non‐randomized control trial studies reported dose‐response relationship between higher consumption of SSB with dental caries (Valenzuela et al., 2021). | ||
| Systematic review and meta‐analysis reported SSB tax intervention showed reduction in SSB intake (Andreyeva et al., 2022; Teng et al., 2019). | ||
| Narrative review identified the SSB tax intervention showed consistent results for modeled effects for reducing dental caries (Alhareky, 2021). | ||
| Safety | The intervention has no safety concerns. | High |
| Acceptability | ||
| Government | Major political parties and the federal government has previously stated that they do not support a tax on SSBs at this time (Allen & Allen, 2020; Backholer & Martin, 2017). | Low |
| Industry | The beverage and sugar industries have stated their opposition to taxes on SSBs (Allen & Allen, 2020). | Low |
| Other stakeholders | All major stakeholders such as peak health professional associations, consumer advocacy groups, etc. Support a SSB tax (Cancer Council Victoria, 2017). | High |
| General public | Scoping review report general public support never reached more than 50% unless revenue from the tax was used to subsidize health programs or subsidize healthy food (Cullerton et al., 2021). | Medium |
| Equity | The ACE obesity policy study showed the potential household expenditure would impact would cost AUD$3.80 per capita more for the most disadvantaged compared with the least disadvantaged (Ananthapavan et al., 2020). | Positive |
| The subgroup population in IRSD quintile 1 has at least three times the cost‐savings and DALYs averted due to preventing dental caries compared with the subgroup population in IRSD quintile 5. | ||
| Feasibility | Over 50 countries have implemented policy intervention for a SSB tax (Dry & Baker, 2021). | High |
| Sustainability | Regulatory interventions are likely to be maintained and potentially attractive if revenue is generated from a SSB tax. that is, no SSB tax has been repealed to date. | High |
| Environmental impacts | Reduction in SSB consumption reduces consumer demand and may result in reduction in manufacturing of products, including packaging (plastics) and raw material (sugar production). | Positive |
| Reduction in dental caries leads to reduced consumption of dental treatment services such as restorations and extractions, resulting in less use of disposal products for infection control. | ||
| Replacement of SSB consumption with alternative products may generate similar environmental impacts, although real‐world evidence for countries with an SSB tax found there was no substitution for untaxed beverages (Andreyeva et al., 2022). | ||
| Other considerations | There are potential concerns regarding product substitution and the increased consumption of non‐nutritive sweeteners of unknown consequences (Popkin & Ng, 2021). | Neutral |
| There are ‘spill‐over’ positive effects on obesity‐related chronic diseases that have been previously modeled (Ananthapavan et al., 2020; Lal et al., 2017). | Positive | |
Abbreviations: DALY, disability‐adjusted life years; IRSD, Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage; SEIFA, Socio‐Economic Indexes for Areas; SSBs, sugar‐sweetened beverages.