However, the study also highlighted the potential environmental impact of these policies. When tax revenues were used to subsidize fruit and vegetables,increased by 2%. In contrast, emissions decreased by 3% when only HFSS food groups were taxed.
In addition to this, the study also found that taxing HFSS without a subsidy policy in place could have a more regressive impact on consumers compared to when fruits and vegetables were subsidized. Dr. Wisdom Dogbe, from the University of Aberdeen Rowett Institute, led the study. He said,"This study shows us that there are very real trade-offs between achieving dietary, welfare and environmental goals.
"Going forward, this research can be considered in ongoing discussions about the banning of promotions on HFSS. If there weren't promotions on these products, and prices were to naturally increase as a result, we believe this could be beneficial as it may encourage consumers to reduce their purchases.
"Ultimately, our research highlights the complex interplay between dietary, welfare, and environmental goals when implementing a HFSS tax policy. The choice of policy scenario adopted by the government would have to depend on the national objectives and priorities."Amarachi Nneli et al, Could taxes on foods high in fat, sugar and salt improve climate health and nutrition in Scotland?,