In a recent and a unique move, the country of Colombia has become the first nation in the world to come out with an Anti-Junk Food Law to discourage their citizens from eating and consuming ultra-processed foods such as sausages, cereals, jellies and jams, purees, sauces, condiments and seasoning in order to protect them from lifestyle diseases. The law is basically functional through a taxation medium wherein high taxes are imposed on ultra-processed foods that are mostly ready-to-eat foods and carry high added sugars, salt, and saturated fats. The objective behind is to make such food costly for the people so that they do not tend to consume those products, and instead, look for alternatives that are healthy as well as cheaper. The idea of this law is to implement tax that will be increased gradually in each year. Therefore, at present, an additional tax on affected foods will begin at 10% immediately, rising to 15% next year and reaching 20% in 2025. ¹

This move has come after seeing the fact that the average daily salt intake of per person in Colombia is 12 grams, the highest in Latin America and among the highest globally ². This excessive sodium consumption poses significant health risks, including elevated blood pressure, obesity, and other associated health problems. Resultantly, more than half of the Colombian population falls under the category of obese/overweight, approximately one-third population suffers from high blood pressure, and 76% of deaths in Colombia are linked to non-communicable disease whereas 31% population suffers from cardio-vascular diseases ³.  Not only tax rates are imposed as a measure to curb consumption of junk food, the government is also implementing the measure of front-of-packaging labels, which in sense is a warning labeling is a simple, practical and effective tool to inform the public about products that can harm health and help guide purchasing decisions. ⁴

Other than Colombia, WHO has time and again highlighted the concerns of consuming ultra-processed foods and has warranted for implementing Health Tax to negative the public health impact. WHO considers such tax policies as win-win strategies, benefiting public health by saving lives, preventing diseases, and promoting health equity. Additionally, they generate revenue for the general budget and can be directed towards specific priorities like funding universal health coverage (UHC) or supporting highly cost-effective but underused population health initiatives. WHO bets for a unique way of imposing taxes. According to WHO, the most effective way to decrease consumption is through specific taxes, which are levied based on the quantity of an unhealthy product (like cigarette packs) or its detrimental ingredient (such as pure alcohol or sugar). This approach proves more successful than levying taxes on the product’s overall value ⁵. Hence, WHO proposes for a Health tax policy named as “SMART” which is as follows- 

• S – Saves Lives by effective way of imposition of taxes to reduce consumption of harmful food.
• M – Mobilises revenue by health tax being a revenue booster to the economy.
• A – Addresses Health Inequities as in lower socioeconomic status is associated with higher risk of noncommunicable diseases and higher rates of tobacco use and alcohol consumption, and the net impact of health taxes is progressive.
• R – Reduces burden on health system as the lesser people will get ill or need any kind of diagnosis, the more healthcare expenditure is reduced.
• T – Targets noncommunicable disease risk factors for the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals.

Further, WHO states that almost 133 countries since 2017 has implemented health tax in a certain way in order to deprecate the practice of consuming harmful items such as tobacco tax or taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. ⁶ Such taxes have also shown positive results and are not limited because of lack of evidence. ⁷ For example, in 2014, Mexico imposed a tax of 1 peso per litre i.e. 10% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Due to such tax, it is argued that Mexico had saved $4 in healthcare costs per dollar spent on tax implementation. Similarly, due to increase in taxation prices in Philippines, the tobacco use prevalence has been decreased from 30% to 20% within two years i.e. from 2019 to 2021. Even more, similar results were found in Colombia when cigarette consumption fell by 34% in 2018 after excise taxes were tripled. GCC countries have also introduced an SSB tax. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, this led to soda prices rising by 67%, resulting in a drop in annual purchases, in volume per capita, of soda drinks by 41% in 2018 compared to 2016. Hence, it could be gauged that globally the world is implementing some or the other tax in this direction wherein tax does not merely act as a tool of finance but also a mechanism to deter its usage.

Similar to health taxes, many countries have adopted the Front of Pack labelling technique to deter the consumption of processed foods or harm-generating foods. ⁸ The research at present have shown a positive result where it is found and studied that when nutrition value is provided on food assumed to be harmful for body, there consumption has significantly decreased ⁹. Thus, the current measure of Colombia of clubbing both these methods and applying them to restrict processed foods is a unique move of which the result has to be seen and analysed for other countries to implement such a measure.

Conclusion

However, there are certain issues that are required to be considered while imposing such laws in the country as they may do more harm than good in certain cases. Implementing a junk food tax, while ostensibly aiming to improve public health, raises concerns about individual freedoms and governmental overreach. The imposition of extra taxes on unhealthy foods infringes upon the fundamental right to choose what to eat. This right is a significant aspect of personal autonomy and individual freedom, allowing citizens to make decisions about their own bodies without undue interference from the state.

While promoting informed choices about nutrition is a commendable goal, utilizing taxes as a deterrent may disproportionately affect those with lower socio-economic status. The financial burden imposed by such taxes may force economically disadvantaged individuals to opt for cheaper, but potentially less nutritious, alternatives. This not only compromises their right to choose based on personal preferences but also accentuates existing socio-economic disparities.

Moreover, the tax’s impact is likely to be less pronounced on wealthier individuals who can afford the increased costs of unhealthy foods. Consequently, the policy may inadvertently create a two-tiered system, where the affluent can continue their dietary choices unabated, while the less privileged are constrained by economic constraints. In total, while the objective of improving public health is laudable, it is essential for governments to strike a delicate balance between addressing health concerns and respecting individual freedoms. Policymakers should carefully consider the potential inequities and unintended consequences that may arise from such measures, ensuring that the state does not overstep its boundaries in the pursuit of public well-being.