Debate on a sugary drinks tax stepped up this week after the Herald revealed Capital & Coast and Hutt Valley DHBs had written to Clark, asking him to urgently put a tax on sugary drinks.
"For the first time in history, NZ children could live shorter lives than their parents as a result of excess weight and obesity," Andrew Blair, chair of both Capital & Coast and Hutt Valley DHBs, told Clark in both letters.
In response, Clark said there were no "immediate plans" for a tax on sugary foods or drinks, citing the Government's pledge to not introduce new taxes in the first term.
Instead, the Government has told the food and drink industry it expects less sugar in processed products. An overhaul of food and drink labelling is also being looked at.
Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters has rejected the call by the DHBs, telling Breakfast this week that "people are capable of looking after their own lives".
A Ministry of Health-commissioned report delivered in October 2017 concluded evidence for a sugar tax was inconclusive. Think-tank the New Zealand Initiative and other opponents of a tax argue studies relied upon by tax advocates vastly overestimate how much taxes would reduce consumption.
Sir Peter Gluckman, until recently the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, told RNZ last month that the evidence for a sugar tax in countries like New Zealand had become much stronger in recent years. A report to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had outlined that change.
The NZ Beverage Council, which represents manufacturers, maintains evidence from overseas showed sugar taxes weren't effective.
"A sugar tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Mexico has been shown to have had no impact on the caloric intake of the Mexican population and a sugar tax in Berkley actually resulted in the number of calories consumed by the population to increase as people substituted taxed soft drinks for non-taxed products with higher calories such as milk shakes, fruit juice and smoothies," a spokesman said.
