A Griffith University study published in BMJ Public Health on Wednesday found a levy applied to non-alcoholic drinks with added sugar, such as soft drinks and most juices, could prevent 3.7 million cases of tooth decay, 191,000 cases of gum disease, and 115,000 cases of complete tooth loss across Australia over the next 25 years.



Not sure how they could implenent this without the companies just passing it on to consumers. They put sugar and corn syrup in everything, even things that don’t need it.
We already had this in the UK. All the drinks got reformulated, often without alternative, with cheap artificial sweeteners. If you like an occasional sugary drink hit you’re shit out of luck (except for classic coke at least).
The levy as outlined in the article, as @blind3rdeye@aussie.zone pointed out, is intended to be passed on to the consumer, with the price increase causing people to consume fewer sugary drinks. If they didn’t pass it on, it would have no effect on dental health.
From the article:
However, there are ways you can design a policy like this to reduce the cost to consumers while still having an effect on dental health. In the UK, their levy is only applied to a drink “if it contains at least 5 grams (g) of sugar per 100 millilitres (ml) in its ready to drink or diluted form.” As as result, the UK soft drink industry reformulated their drinks to fall below that amount (often by partially substituting non-sugar sweeteners) so that they wouldn’t have to pay the tax at all and they wouldn’t need to pass it on to consumers or absorb it.
From the article:
The study (https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/4/3/e002110) actually modelled the effect of reformulation, too:
Since the UK’s policy has resulted in a 46% reformulation, we have a clear real-world template for bringing about a 50% reformulation and the health benefits that would accompany it.
I think passing it on to consumers is an assumed part of the idea; discouraging people from consuming drinks with added sugar, and thus discouraging companies from making and marketing such drinks.
One would hope so, yes. I don’t disagree. But personally I think it’s gonna go the same way as cigarettes and alcohol. Sugar is in everything, so the price of everything wil go up.
You don’t have to apply the levy to everything. The proposal the article is about is specifically “a levy applied to non-alcoholic drinks with added sugar, such as soft drinks and most juices”.