Taxing Sugary Soft Drinks

The question

How to approach this opinion essay question

An opinion (agree or disagree) essay needs a clear position from the introduction to the conclusion.

1. Paraphrase the statement and state your opinion in the introduction.
2. Give two main reasons, one per body paragraph, each with an example.
3. Consider the opposite view briefly, then explain why you still hold yours.
4. Conclude by restating your position in different words.

How to plan this answer

Structure

1. Introduction: paraphrase the policy of taxing sugary drinks and the concern about low-income families, then state your position on the extent question.
2. Body 1: the health case, explaining how taxes raise prices, reduce purchases and address obesity and dental problems.
3. Body 2: the fairness objection, acknowledging the burden on low-income households and explaining why you reject the claim that the tax is unfair overall.
4. Body 3 (optional): how the revenue can be used, such as funding water in schools or sport programmes, to offset the burden.
5. Conclusion: restate your position and the reason it outweighs the objection.

Idea bank

• Price rises on sugary drinks have been shown in several cities to reduce sales, which suggests that the tax changes buying habits in a measurable way.
• Sugar consumption is linked to type 2 diabetes and dental decay, and a tax can reduce the health costs borne by public health systems.
• Low-income families spend a larger share of their budget on cheap food, so a tax may take a proportionally bigger bite from their income.
• Revenue from the tax can be spent on free drinking water in schools or on sport, which can compensate children from poorer households.
• Manufacturers may reformulate products with less sugar in response to a tax, which can improve diets without the household having to change its shopping.
• Some critics argue that consumers will simply cross a border or buy from other retailers, but evidence from early adopters suggests that most demand remains in the taxed market.

Useful vocabulary

• sugar-sweetened beverages: The tax applies to sugar-sweetened beverages sold in shops and cafés.
• disproportionately: Low-income households are disproportionately affected by a flat tax.
• a regressive tax: Critics argue that the tax is regressive because it takes a larger share of poorer households' income.
• public health: Taxes are a practical tool for protecting public health.
• offset the burden: Revenue could be used to offset the burden on families.
• reformulate: Producers may reformulate their drinks to contain less sugar.
• it is true that ... but: It is true that the tax is costly for some families, but the health benefits are greater.
• in the long run: In the long run, fewer people will develop diet-related illnesses.
• lower consumption: The tax is intended to produce lower consumption of sugary drinks.
• on balance: On balance, the policy is justified if the revenue is spent wisely.

Common mistakes

• Claiming that the tax has no effect on low-income families, which ignores the objection the question raises and weakens the answer.
• Describing the tax as a health solution without explaining the mechanism, such as higher prices leading to lower purchases.
• Using generic examples such as 'some countries' without naming a city or national scheme, or giving a figure without a source.
• Acknowledging the counter-argument but never explaining why you reject it, which the task explicitly requires.
• Confusing sugary drinks with all sugary food, so that the argument drifts to sweets, cakes and snacks that the policy does not cover.

Examiner tip: Acknowledge the low-income objection fairly, then explain clearly why the health benefits or the use of revenue make the tax worthwhile.