Despite clear health and economic modelling showing a sugar-sweetened beverages tax (sugar levy) could raise revenue and help prevent dementia, Australian governments remain too nervous to act. Money comes before health.

We’ve just had Dementia Week and medical researchers have issued another urgent warning: sugar isn’t just fueling obesity and diabetes: it’s putting your brain at risk.

In a year’s time they’ll be issuing the same warning, and again we’ll have the same response from our politicians.

Silence.

There’s now no doubt higher consumption of sugar correlates with increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease and all-cause dementia. Women are particularly vulnerable. While causation isn’t proven, experts say sugar control offers a public health strategy for dementia prevention.

So why won’t Australia’s politicians embraced one of the clearest, budget-positive interventions at their fingertips: a sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) tax or levy?

Proposals exist. The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) costed a 20% tax which it said would generate about A$1.4 billion. The AMA, Cancer Council, Diabetes Australia, Grattan Institute, and others back a sugar tax.

So why not act?

Well, there’s inertia (which is a significant obstacle in itself). But the real key is the beverage industry hate it (business, a coalition constituency) and so do low-income households (a Labor constituency).

Is it desirable and urgent to act? Yes.

Except not for this government, or the next.

_________________________________

[continued from newsletter]

A sugar tax could be one of Australia’s most effective, medically grounded public health measures. The scientific case is increasingly strong.

Research shows that higher intake of total sugars, free sugars, sucrose and fructose is correlated with higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia; particularly among women. Although these observational studies don’t prove direct causality, the need to reduce sugar intake is the obvious, credible strategy.

On the fiscal and policy side, modelling demonstrates a sugar tax would both reduce disease and raise revenue. The Parliamentary Budget Office has costed a proposal for a 20% levy on sugar-sweetened beverages (including soft drinks, energy drinks, and flavoured water), which would generate around A$1.4 billion over the initial forward estimates. The Australian Medical Association has argued this could reduce rates of type 2 diabetes, obesity and downstream chronic disease; all contributors to dementia.

So why the political pause? Several obstacles shape the impasse:

Industry pushback: The beverage and sugar sectors strongly oppose levies or taxes, arguing voluntary reformulation, education, and personal choice are better paths. They claim unclear evidence of benefit or risk of economic harm.

Regressivity concerns: Critics warn that a sugar tax is regressive and disproportionately affects lower-income households that spend a higher share of income on sugary drinks. These concerns resonate strongly with the public, and politicians are wary of appearing punitive.

So when you add those two factors together, what do you get?

Political risk: With inflation, energy, and housing costs consuming public attention (and as voters feel the financial squeeze) price rises are politically risky. More risky than people getting dementia sometime in the future.

But the bottom line is stark: dementia carries huge human, social and economic cost.

Last year, in the National Dementia Action Plan (2024-34) the government committed to empowering “individuals and communities to minimise risk where they can, and delay onset and progression” of dementia. If sugar contributes meaningfully to that risk, then you would think they’d be using every policy tools to act.

And politically, the case is stronger than ever.

A sugar levy would be budget-positive, good for voters’ health and in line with other countries (over 100 jurisdictions have some form of sugary drink tax). Evidence exists. Polling show majority support.

The cost of inaction is too high. Australia has tools in its policy toolbox, backed by science, public health modelling, and fiscal benefits.

The question is: does the political will exist to use them?