And if it seems to be getting worse, you’d be right.  In Australia, more than one in four adults are obese, up from one in ten in the early 1980s. Worse still is the fact that about 7 percent of children are obese, up from less than 2 percent in the 1980s, which means we are potentially dealing with a whole future generation at stake. The report authors indicate ten percent of this problem is directly caused by sugary drinks and the flow on cost to the community is $5.3 billion nationwide last year.

While a tax was once unthinkable against “ big tobacco” in the days when “baccy’ was seen as as a staple and even included in military ration packs, the escalating  cost has since become a key element in its deterrent to young smokers and those wanting to quit. The Grattan authors don’t maintain a tax alone can solve the fizzy drink problem but it should be part of one, as it has been already in multiple leading economies.

I don’t think anybody should fear too much about the big drink company giants going broke overnight with a small tax. They didn’t move into bottled water decades ago for love but presciently read the changing consumption market and they continue to reap healthy profits. Nor is the squawking about the sugar industry of much merit when this is likely to affect less than one percent of its annual use.  There is of course the social argument which maintains the poor, most afflicted by these consumption taxes because it represents the highest proportion of their discretionary expenditure, will go on buying them anyway only to suffer more.  

This is all the more reason that investment should be made, and this is where the tax collected could come in, to fund educational programs on nutrition and on alternative refreshments. The point any nutritionist or dentist would argue is not to prohibit fizzy or sweetened drinks but to recognise them for the luxury they are. To be enjoyed in moderation. To go back to the days when the first place thirsty kids went to was the tap not the fridge.