NEW ZEALAND | A recent briefing from the Public Health Communication Centre (PHCC) has renewed calls for a sugary drinks tax in New Zealand.
Drawing on research from Tonga and the United Kingdom, the authors argue that stronger government intervention is needed to address obesity and its associated health costs.
Tonga introduced taxes on sugary drinks and selected unhealthy foods between 2013 and 2018. Prices increased, and imports of taxed products declined. However, removing tariffs on healthier foods did not deliver the expected reductions in consumer prices.
So, increasing the price of unhealthy products can influence purchasing, but making healthier choices more affordable is not necessarily as straightforward.
Meanwhile, the beverage industry has been making changes of its own. Coca-Cola Europacific Partners reported a 20.7 percent reduction in average sugar per litre across its New Zealand soft drinks portfolio since 2015. Low- and no-calorie beverages accounted for 42 percent of its sales volume in 2025.
The New Zealand Beverage Council remains opposed to a sugar tax, questioning whether it would actually reduce obesity.
But perhaps we should be asking whether taxation alone can make much difference to an issue with so many contributing factors.
According to the 2024/25 New Zealand Health Survey, almost 47 percent of adults living in poorer neighbourhoods are classified as obese, compared with just under 28 percent in better-off areas. That is quite a gap, and it raises questions about affordability, access to healthier food, and the wider circumstances affecting people's health.
What about the growing availability of weight-loss medicines? Treatments such as Wegovy and Mounjaro have demonstrated significant weight-loss benefits, but access in New Zealand remains largely dependent on the ability to pay. Pharmac's clinical advisers have recommended funding Wegovy for certain patients with obesity and related health conditions, although it is not currently funded for weight management.
Could funding or part-funding these medicines for eligible younger adults make a difference before they develop more serious health complications? Or would the ongoing cost place too much pressure on an already stretched health budget?
There are questions about long-term treatment, affordability, and who should qualify. Equally, there are questions about the long-term cost of doing nothing.
We can tax sugary drinks, encourage manufacturers to reformulate, improve access to healthy food, and consider medical treatments. None offers a complete answer on its own.
But if obesity is affecting some communities far more than others, perhaps the discussion needs to go further than what we put in our shopping baskets.
Would we achieve more by taxing what contributes to poor health, investing in treatment, or finding a better balance between the two?
Read more here.
