4. Sugary Drinks Tax—Evidence and PolicyJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of HealthSugary Drinks Tax—Evidence and Policy4. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Health: What is the name of the major global study on a sugary drinks tax by the Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology that he referenced in QWA 13827 (2016) and where was it published?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I saw that this question referred specifically to issues pertaining to Mexico and so I talked with a newly launched Mexican research and consultancy group known as the Four Amigos. They advised me that the study referred to is available only online under the title Taxing Calories in Mexico. However the same group strongly advises that a wall should not be built around the issue of emerging evidence from Mexico.Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister aware that this study one of only two that he told me that he was keeping a watching brief on for evidence about a sugary drinks tax has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and has been described by a reputable science and medical journal as industry-funded?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well look whatever journal it actually appears in it is available online. It may have been industry-funded but I have also sought advice from the Ministry of Health which states that the study does not add any new evidence to the debate about whether to introduce a sugar tax. The ministry also says that it makes a range of assumptions and it also goes on to say that although there was an initial report of up to a 12 percent decline in sugar-sweetened beverage sales in Mexico following the introduction of a tax those reports failed to control for other factors likely to have contributed to declining sales including active public health and education campaigns and improved access to safe drinking-water.Julie Anne Genter: Does he stand by his statement about a sugary drinks tax in the House on 13 October that I have talked to the Chief Science Advisor extensively about this and he admitted that there was no clear evidence on the subject …"?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes.Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that the advice he received from the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor on 3 July this year actually said: "There is now a lot more compelling data from Mexico and Europe. From being sceptical of the value of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes and their impact on consumption recent evidence suggests a surprisingly—to me at least—large and sustained effect particularly in groups most at risk of obesity."?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No I obviously cannot confirm that because I have not got the document but there is no reason to disbelieve anything that the member says regarding that quote so yes she should table it. Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this letter to the Hon Jonathan Coleman from the office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor sent on 3 July 2016.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept the findings of the recently released peer-reviewed published study also from Mexico showing that the sugary drinks tax has modelled a reduction of nearly 200000 fewer cases of type 2 diabetes over 20000 fewer strokes and 19000 fewer deaths as well as saving its health system nearly a billion dollars over the next decade?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No I have not seen that study and you would have to look at the methodology and read the study fully but what I have said to the member many times before is that there is a meta-analysis of all the evidence on a sugary drinks tax that will be available next year. It is being done actually—there are two different centres: one is the University of Waikato and one is the University of North Carolina. I am always open to considering the emerging evidence but just plucking random quotes out of studies and presenting them in Parliament frankly that does not tell anyone anything. Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister see that there is a difference between "no clear evidence" and "recent evidence suggesting a large and sustained effect particularly in the groups most at risk of obesity."?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well what I see a difference between is a clear analysis of the evidence and just random quotes presented out of context in Parliament by the member. Julie Anne Genter: Will he now commit to investigating a sugary drinks tax here in New Zealand given the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed published scientific evidence that a sugary drinks tax will protect the health of our children or will he continue to believe the non-published non-peer-reviewed industry-funded research that calls into question the overwhelming weight of evidence?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look I would not advise anyone to do anything on the advice of a few quotes from Julie Anne Genter presented in Parliament quite frankly.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this peer-reviewed published journal article called "Projected Impact of Mexico's Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Policy on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease: A Modelling Study" which also states that the evidence that—Mr SPEAKER: And is it easily accessible on the internet?Julie Anne Genter: No it is not. It is through the Public Library of Science Medicine a peer-reviewed journal.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that the member is assuring us it is not easily obtained on the internet I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular study. Is there any objection? There is objection."