Should the government tax unhealthy food to tackle obesity?

Obesity is a major driver of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, joint problems and some cancers, and it's more common in deprived areas — so it's both a health problem and an inequality problem.

The UK already has an example: the soft drinks industry levy, introduced in 2018. It was tiered by sugar content, and the interesting thing is that its main effect came through manufacturers reformulating¹ their drinks to avoid the tax, rather than people paying more. Sugar in soft drinks fell substantially, and some studies suggest a possible reduction in childhood obesity, though it's hard to prove cause and effect².

The arguments against taxing food more widely are real. Some people see it as the state interfering in personal choices. Food taxes can be regressive³, because poorer households spend a larger share of their income on food. And people might just switch to other unhealthy products.

I think the design matters more than the principle. A tax aimed at getting companies to change their products, like the drinks levy, avoids putting the burden on individuals. And it works best as part of a package — subsidising healthy food, restricting junk food advertising to children, and funding services — because environments shape choices more than willpower.

So I'd support well-designed taxes that drive reformulation, as long as the revenue helps the communities most affected.