An official review has found a sugar tax could be effective at curbing childhood obesity, a senior health boss has said.
Dr Alison Tedstone, director of diet and obesity for Public Health England (PHE), told MPs evidence suggested a tax on sugary drinks and sweets could reduce demand.
Speaking at a health committee hearing on childhood obesity, she added: "Broadly the evidence shows the higher the tax increase, the greater the effect."
It comes after Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt was embroiled in a row over whether the PHE review, which was due to be published in July, had been suppressed, which the Department of Health (DoH) has denied.
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver previously gave evidence to the committee calling for the Government to take "one strong hard action" and introduce a tax.
Dr Tedstone said PHE had reviewed data on the impact of taxation in five other countries and found "universally all of these assessments show that a tax does decrease purchases".
But, while she said a tax could have a "halo effect", Dr Tedstone said the full impact of a sugar tax was unclear.
She said: "We have just taken a general sense of modelling studies. What we don't know, and Jamie talked about it yesterday, is how transitory the effect is.
"Everybody acknowledges there's the moment of introducing that kind of tax has a big health halo effect and we don't know how long that is sustained for."
MPs also heard regulation of advertising and supermarket promotions were more urgent strategies than a tax on sugary products, and would have a wider effect.
A PHE spokesman said a date for publication date had yet to be set.
He said: "Dr Tedstone was clear at the health select committee that there is no silver bullet solution to nation's excessive sugar consumption.
"While Dr Tedstone said there is a role for fiscal measures in reducing how much sugar is consumed, she also said there are other actions - restricting advertising and promotion of sugary food and drink, and reformulating food and drink to have less sugar - we think would be more effective."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article