Reducing the consumption of ultra-processed foods to improve health outcomes

Madura Katta, Y20 2026, Menzies Leadership Foundation Fellow

Executive Summary

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are increasingly replacing healthy and whole-foods in diets with more than 40% of the average Australian’s diet consisting of UPFs. The resulting unhealthy diets are driving the increase of chronic health conditions around the world, including in Australia. This shift is reflective of a major transformation of food systems and driven by the UPF industry. There is major public support for systemic policies limiting the allure of unhealthy foods in Australia. These policy options include restricting the promotion and placement of unhealthy foods and establishing a produce prescription program. Introducing a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is recommended as the most effective systemic policy to reduce consumption of unhealthy food, incentivise manufacturers to reformulate their products, and raise revenue to support healthy diets. Barriers to implementing this policy in Australia include industry influence, fragmented public health advocacy efforts, and a risk that the tax is financially regressive. Nonetheless, an SSB tax is a strong opportunity to reduce the consumption of sugar and improve health outcomes for all Australians. 

Problem Identification

In 2025, more than 40% of the average Australian’s diet consisted of UPFs. Increasingly, UPFs like carbonated drinks, packaged snacks, ice cream, and spreads are replacing healthy and whole foods in diets (Monteiro et al., 2025). This shift is reflective of changes in food production and systems, rapid urbanisation and differing lifestyles (World Health Organization [WHO], 2026). This pattern is also driven by the UPF industry, which has designed and aggressively marketed hyperpalatable, addictive foods to consumers (The Lancet, 2025). As a result, nonnutritious foods account for 37% of the average weekly spend by Australian households (2025 Living Healthy Report, 2025).

UPFs are often calorie dense, high in sugar, salt, and fat, and of poor nutritional value. Unhealthy diets that are high in UPFs contribute to poor health outcomes, including obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (Lane et al., 2024). This is of significant concern as chronic diseases are the leading cause of death in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2025b). Furthermore, 66% of all Australian adults are overweight or living with obesity, which is a leading risk factor for chronic conditions (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2024). Unhealthy diets are also positively associated with greater social disadvantage and are a significant driver of health inequity in Australia (Backholer et al., 2015). The consumption of UPFs is increasing this gap. 

There is strong public support in Australia for system-level policies limiting the allure of unhealthy foods, including UPFs, to address the prevalence of obesity and chronic diseases (Miller et al., 2019; Barrett et al., 2025). Improving health outcomes also leads to a reduction in healthcare service usage and costs, as obesity is the highest contributor to healthcare system costs in Australia (AIHW, 2025). Without action, the burden of ill health stemming from dietary factors will continue to increase. 

Context

Background

A healthy diet is crucial for the health and wellbeing of individuals and populations, and protective against chronic diseases (WHO, 2026). Dietary factors were the third leading risk factor for ill health in Australia (AIHW, 2021). A leading contributor to unhealthy dietary patterns is food insecurity (Morales et al., 2016). Over 1 million households in Australia experienced food insecurity in 2023 due to a lack of financial resources (ABS, 2025a). Although Australia produces enough food to feed three times its population (Parliament of Australia, 2023), people are increasingly experiencing barriers to nutritious and affordable food (ABS, 2025a). Food insecurity is associated with poorer diets including an increase in sugar and UPF consumption and a lower intake of fruit and vegetables (Aljahdali, 2025). This is due to economic constraints including higher costs of nutritious food and time required to acquire and prepare it (Laraia et al., 2017). Food insecurity disproportionately affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (ABS, 2024), low-income earners, people living in remote areas, culturally and linguistically diverse groups, older people and people experiencing homelessness (ABS, 2025a).

Key drivers in the shift towards ultra processed diets include major changes in food environments and commercial influences on food purchasing decisions driven by the UPF industry (Lane et al., 2024; Baker et al., 2025). The high profitability of UPFs compared to other food types has led to an increase in the variety and availability of UPFs globally (Baker et al., 2025). The industrialisation of food systems and globalisation has facilitated the strong growth of the UPF industry and enabled the corporate political activities of these transnational food corporations. There are inadequate national policies to protect nutrition in these new global dynamics (Baker et al., 2020). For instance in Australia, the $3.9 billion SSB industry has played a key role in influencing regulations that would reduce the consumption of SSBs (Obesity Evidence Hub, 2026; Dry & Baker et al., 2021). It is critical that the market failures that have contributed to the excess consumption of unhealthy food are addressed. 

Current Policy Landscape

In 2020, the Australian Government started the voluntary Partnership Reformulation Program to work with food companies to reduce sugar, sodium, and saturated fat. This program has incentivised participating companies to reduce these components. For instance, 32% of participating products recorded a decrease in sugar content, with companies removing 261 tonnes of sugar from the food supply in 2022-2023 (Department of Health and Aged Care, 2025). The Australian Beverages Council also announced a Sugar Reduction Pledge to commit to a 20% reduction in sugar by 2025 (Australian Beverages, 2022). Despite initially being a signatory on this pledge, Coca Cola increased the sugar content in Fanta and Sprite by 41% between 2021 and 2025 (Davey, 2024). 

The Health Star Rating system, a voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme, was introduced in 2014 in Australia. However, only 37% of products currently display a Health Star Rating. As the intended uptake target of 70% was not met, the Australian Government sought to mandate Health Star Ratings on all food products during the Food Ministers Meeting in February 2026 (Department of Health, Disability and Ageing [DHDA], 2026). As an outcome of this meeting, Food Standards Australia New Zealand is currently consulting publicly on the proposal to make the Health Star Rating system mandatory and increase its efficacy (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2026).

This focus on disease prevention is a step in the right direction as historically there has been insufficient investment on prevention in Australia (Harris & Mortimer, 2009). Only 3% of all health expenditure in Australia was allocated to prevention in 2023, compared to Canada (7%) and the UK (6%) (OECD, 2025). 

Case Studies

Many compelling health promotion and disease prevention strategies have been implemented worldwide. 

Supermarkets use well-established retail strategies to influence consumer purchasing, offering an opportunity for interventions that promote healthier food purchasing (Kininmonth et al., 2026). In 2022, the UK was the first government to introduce restrictions on the promotion and placement of products high in fat, sugar or salt in retail stores (Department of Health & Social Care, 2023). Issues including complexities in interpretation and implementation, and access to nutrition data for products have been noted. Recommendations for strengthening the policy include engaging key stakeholders to develop implementation guidance, resourcing for enforcement, and measures that make healthier foods more accessible and affordable (Kininmonth et al., 2026). 

An SSB tax has been introduced in over 100 countries and has been shown to reduce SSB consumption, particularly in vulnerable groups (The World Bank, 2023). The Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) introduced in the UK indicated that all cohorts experienced a reduction of more than 45% of average sugar content in drinks covered by the levy between 2015 and 2024 (GOV.UK, 2025). This is largely attributed to the reformulation of sugary beverages by manufacturers in response to the tiered tax (Dickson et al., 2023). 

Diet-related chronic health conditions account for half of all annual deaths in the United States. Almost 100 produce prescription projects, funded by the Department of Agriculture, were introduced between 2010 and 2020 to address food and nutrition insecurity, thus ameliorating the prevalence of diet-related chronic conditions (Stotz et al., 2022). Outcomes include increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, reduced food insecurity, and improved health outcomes for participants (Stotz et al., 2022). A pilot study trialing this program in Australia also indicated high participant satisfaction, substantially improved diet quality, significant weight loss, and a reduced likelihood of experiencing food insecurity (Wu et al., 2022). 

Policy Options

Policy must address the commercial factors that influence consumer choice and drive obesity. Interventions that change the structural environment improve diet quality equitably, as opposed to relying on information delivery (which is less effective amongst lower socioeconomic cohorts) (Backholer et al., 2015). The critical measure of success for a policy response is a systemic approach that reduces the dietary intake of UPFs and shifts dietary patterns towards whole and minimally processed foods to improve population health. 

Option 1: Restricting promotion and placement of unhealthy foods in retail environments

Retail environments significantly shape diets through their influence on what is purchased. Almost 80% of food consumed in Australia is purchased through supermarkets (ABS, 2021). A study conducted in food supermarkets in Victoria found that 90% of staff-assisted checkouts and 50% of end-of-aisle displays included unhealthy food (Schultz et al., 2020). Australian supermarkets also have twice as many and higher price promotions for unhealthy food compared to healthier core foods (Riesenberg et al., 2019). 

This option, similar to the UK, would restrict the promotion and placement of food high in fat, sugar, or salt in retail food stores. This would ensure that healthier food is more visible and accessible, nudging people to make healthier choices. Government policies aimed at making unhealthy foods less financially attractive have improved the food environment and health outcomes at a population level. Food industry stakeholders in Australia have noted they would likely oppose this policy due to issues including potential financial loss for suppliers and food retailers (Grigsby-Duffy et al., 2022). 

Restrictions will limit unhealthy food from volume price promotions and limit placement of discretionary food within two metres of a checkout facility, entrance or designated queuing area. Food and drinks will be identified as healthy and unhealthy based on the Australian Dietary Guidelines. Restrictions will only apply to medium and large businesses defined as those employing 20 or more people and their equivalent key locations online. The DHDA would be responsible for implementing this policy at a federal level. Australian modelling has estimated that the cost, including passing legislation, assisting retailer implementation, and compliance would be $17 million over the lifetime of the 2010 Australian population, with estimated healthcare costs savings of $376 million (Huse et al., 2019).

Option 2: Introducing a sugar-sweetened beverages tax to subsidise healthy foods

Public health experts have expressed increasing concern over excessive sugar intake, especially in the form of SSBs (Public Health Association Australia, 2025). SSB consumption, in particular, drives obesity and increases the risk of chronic diseases (Basu et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2015). SSBs have no nutritional value and are a major contributor of excessive sugar intake, particularly for young people. This policy option would introduce a federal tax on SSBs. This would increase their cost, reducing consumer demand and consumption of SSBs, leading to a reduction in the prevalence of noncommunicable diseases. A tax can also encourage manufacturers to reformulate their products to reduce the sugar content (Scarborough et al., 2020).

Lower socioeconomic households have higher rates of chronic disease, therefore the health benefits of reduced SSB consumption will largely be seen in these cohorts, however, the tax is financially regressive in the short term (Scrinis et al., 2025). Revenues from the tax will be hypothecated into a dedicated fund to support low-income households through subsidising fresh and healthy foods.  

As half of all Australians support taxing soft drinks and energy drinks, this policy has strong public support (Gupta et al., 2023). The Australian Taxation Office (ATO), working in conjunction with the DHDA, would be responsible for implementing this policy at a federal level. This policy is estimated to cost $2 million to set-up and $0.5 million every year thereafter to ensure ongoing compliance. The tax was estimated to raise $4.0 billion over four years (Australian Medical Association [AMA], 2024). 

Option 3: Implementing a produce prescription program

Introducing a produce prescription program, similar to the United States, would address food and nutrition insecurity and ameliorate the prevalence of diet-related chronic conditions. Through this project, primary care physicians can “prescribe” fruits and vegetables for patients who are experiencing food insecurity and often comorbid chronic conditions (Stotz et al., 2022). These “prescriptions” in the form of vouchers can then be redeemed at eligible farmers markets or grocery stores for no cost. The program will be supplemented by nutrition education to improve the effectiveness of the intervention.

This option removes barriers to healthy eating for vulnerable populations and also addresses the adverse health inequities associated with unhealthy diets. There may be challenges with implementation including integrating the program into clinic workflow, or a lack of staff with prescribing privileges (Stotz et al., 2022). 

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of Australia, working in conjunction with DHDA would be responsible for funding this grants program in Australia. The annual program funding would be $6 million a year, with the opportunity for healthcare partners (i.e. hospitals or clinics) to apply for annual funding up to $0.5 million to administer the program. The applications should outline the methods by which the program will be implemented including screening and verifying eligibility of participants, tracking health outcomes, and reporting healthcare costs (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2026).   

Policy Recommendation

Option 2, to introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, is recommended as the most effective systemic policy to reduce consumption of unhealthy food, incentivise manufacturers to reformulate their products, and raise revenue to support disadvantaged cohorts. This policy is supported by a strong evidence base, is the most cost-effective, can be implemented relatively easily, and will improve health outcomes at a population level. 

An SSB tax is simple and effectively targets unhealthy products, while reducing the possibility that products with beneficial nutrients are affected. There is significant evidence that this is an effective public health policy tool to reduce the purchase and consumption of sugary beverages leading to positive health outcomes (Teng et al., 2019). It is also strongly recommended by the WHO (WHO, 2022). Furthermore, SSB taxes have shown larger decreases in SSB consumption for low-income households (Lal et al., 2017). This is important to note as low socioeconomic cohorts are disproportionately affected by obesity and diet-related conditions (AIHW, 2016). 

The policy should be designed as a specific excise tax which is levied on a product at the point of manufacture. SSBs should be defined as non-alcoholic, water-based beverages with added sugar such as soft drinks, fruit drinks, and cordials. The tax should be applied based on the sugar content in drinks, similar to the tiered UK SDIL. Manufacturers should be given two years of advance notice as this incentivised UK manufacturers to reduce sugar content in soft drinks prior to the implementation of the SDIL (Rogers et al., 2023). This approach is more effective in reducing sugar content compared to a volumetric tax as it directly targets the amount of sugar in a drink: the higher the sugar content, the greater the tax, and the larger the financial disincentive for the consumer. Although taxes targeting sugar content in drinks are the most effective method, only 11% of countries with SSB taxes have adopted this approach (Loaeza et al., 2026).  

The Grattan Institute recommends the following taxation structure for Australia to incentivise manufacturers to shift into categories with lower tax (Peter & Geraghty, 2024). This tiered sugar-content-based tax will increase the cost of beverages, and encourage the reformulation of beverages to reduce the amount of sugar: 

• less than 5 grams of sugar per 100ml: no tax

• between 5 and 8 grams of sugar per 100ml: 40 cents per litre

• 8 or more grams of sugar per 100ml: 60 cents per litre

The SSB tax should be implemented by the ATO working in conjunction with the DHDA. The ATO would be responsible for imposing the excise tax and ensuring implementation and compliance. The DHDA would be responsible for data monitoring and evaluation to track the health outcomes arising from the tax. The Commonwealth has exclusive power to impose an excise tax, and currently implements excise taxes under the Excise Tariff Act 1921. An SSB tax can be implemented by adapting existing excise tax frameworks such as the above, reducing administrative, set-up, and implementation costs. 

Amending this legislation will take 3-4 FTE working 6 months. Assuming that existing ATO policies and processes will be used, the AMA estimated that it would cost $2 million to set-up and $0.5 million every year thereafter to ensure ongoing compliance. The tax was estimated to raise $4.0 billion over four years (AMA, 2024).

Implementing this tax will bring in revenue that should be hypothecated into the Low Cost Essentials Subsidy Scheme, which subsidises essential food products for remote communities in Australia. This scheme should be expanded as providing healthy food subsidies to low-income households will improve the equity of the tax. 

Barriers and Risks

Barriers to implementing this policy include industry influence and advocacy, conflicting political agendas, and fragmented public health advocacy efforts (Sainsbury et al., 2020). Industry actors have funded research that downplays the importance of dietary changes in addressing obesity, and shows SSBs to have a small impact on chronic diseases (Dry & Baker, 2021). Both major political parties in Australia are opposed to the tax, with one party suggesting that governments should play a minimal role in dictating Australians' diets and therefore interventions should focus on education (Dry & Baker, 2021). Food, beverage, and sugar industries have also exerted influence through lobbying policymakers directly, involvement in inquiries on obesity, and political party donations (Dry & Baker, 2021). While a majority of the public supports an SSB tax (57%), there is limited, uncoordinated public advocacy. Furthermore, public health advocates have a lack of general agreement on the tax structure (Sainsbury et al., 2020). 

A major risk of the tax is that it is financially regressive as those with lower income would pay a greater proportion of their income in tax as opposed to those with higher income. However, supporters of the tax argue that this risk is justified by the progressive health benefits which are greater for lower socioeconomic cohorts given they have higher prevalence of obesity and SSB consumption. An SSB tax has been shown to be consistently financially regressive, but only to a small degree. It has also been shown to deliver similar or greater benefits for low income earners in population weight outcomes (Backholer et al., 2015).  

References

2025 Living Healthy Report - Harnessing the digital world for better health. (2025). Healthylife and Woolworths Group. https://www.healthylife.com.au/health-report-2025?srsltid=AfmBOooW5H-OCWXi8nLyg3B15xFqea2q49bCBMu1Bw6T_gfKNssRejuI

Aljahdali, A. A. (2025). Food insecurity and ultra-processed food consumption in the Health and Retirement Study: Cross-sectional analysis. The Journal of Nutrition Health & Aging, 29(2), 100422–100422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnha.2024.100422

Australian Beverages. (2022, September 15). Sugar Reduction Pledge: Supporters. Australian Beverages. https://www.australianbeverages.org/initiatives-advocacy-information/sugar-reduction-pledge/supporters/

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021, June 16). Recent applications of supermarket scanner data in the National Accounts. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/research/recent-applications-supermarket-scanner-data-national-accounts

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024, November 26). National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health survey. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/national-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-health-survey/latest-release

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2025a, May 9). Food insecurity. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/food-and-nutrition/food-insecurity/latest-release

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2025b, November 14). Causes of death, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/causes-death-australia/latest-release

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2016, September 13). Australia’s health 2016, chapter 5 health of Population Groups. Australian Government. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/australias-health-2016/contents/population-groups

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021, November 24). Australian Burden of Disease Study 2018: Interactive data on risk factor burden, Summary. Australian

Government. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/abds-2018-interactive-data-risk-factors/contents/summary

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2024). Overweight and Obesity. Australian Government. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/overweight-obesity/overweight-and-obesity/contents/summary

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2025, October 29). Health system spending per case of disease and for certain risk factors, About. Australian Government. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-expenditure/health-system-spending-per-case-of-disease/contents/about

Australian Medical Association. (2024). A sweet deal: the case for taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. https://www.ama.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/A%20sweet%20deal%20-%20the%20case%20for%20taxing%20sugar-sweetened%20beverages.pdf

Backholer, K., Spencer, E., Gearon, E., Magliano, D. J., McNaughton, S. A., Shaw, J. E., & Peeters, A. (2015). The association between socio-economic position and diet quality in Australian adults. Public Health Nutrition, 19(3), 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980015001470

Baker, P., Machado, P., Santos, T., Sievert, K., Backholer, K., Hadjikakou, M., Russell, C., Huse, O., Bell, C., Scrinis, G., Worsley, A., Friel, S., & Lawrence, M. (2020). Ultra‐processed foods and the nutrition transition: Global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers. Obesity Reviews, 21(12). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13126

Baker, P., Slater, S., White, M., Wood, B., Contreras, A., Corvalán, C., Gupta, A., Hofman, K., Kruger, P., Laar, A., Lawrence, M., Mikateko Mafuyeka, Mialon, M., Monteiro, C. A., Silver Nanema, Sirinya Phulkerd, Popkin, B. M., Paulo Serodio, Shats, K., … Barquera, S. (2025). Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilising a public health response. The Lancet, 406(10520). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01567-3

Barrett, E. M., Sträuli, B., Coyle, D. H., Kelly, B., Miller, C., Jones, A., & Pettigrew, S. (2025). Concerned but confused: Australian consumers’ awareness, understanding, and recognition of ultraprocessed foods. Appetite, 214, 108220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2025.108220

Basu, S., McKee, M., Galea, G., & Stuckler, D. (2013). Relationship of Soft Drink Consumption to Global Overweight, Obesity, and Diabetes: A Cross-National Analysis of 75 Countries. American Journal of Public Health, 103(11), 2071–2077. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2012.300974

Davey, M. (2024, April 10). Sugar Increase in Fanta and Sprite Prompts Calls for New Tax on Australia’s Food and Drinks Industry. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/10/sugar-increase-in-fanta-and-sprite-prompts-calls-for-new-tax-on-australia-food-and-drinks-industry

Department of Health & Social Care. (2023, September 29). Restricting Promotions of Products High in fat, Sugar or Salt by Location and by Volume price: Implementation Guidance. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance

Department of Health and Aged Care. (2025, April 27). Partnership Reformulation Program. Australian Government - Department of Health and Aged Care. https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/healthy-food-partnership/partnership-reformulation-program

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. (2026, February 12). Federal Government to Push for Mandatory Health Star Ratings on Food Products. Australian Government - Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-rebecca-white-mp/media/federal-government-to-push-for-mandatory-health-star-ratings-on-food-products

Dickson, A., Gehrsitz, M., & Kemp, J. (2023). Does a Spoonful of Sugar Levy Help the Calories Go Down? An Analysis of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 107(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01345

Dry, T., & Baker, P. (2021). Generating Political Commitment for Regulatory Interventions Targeting Dietary Harms and Poor Nutrition: A Case Study on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation in Australia. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 11(11). https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2021.174

Food Standards Australia New Zealand. (2026, April 21). P1067 - Health Star Rating System . Food Standards Australia New Zealand. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food-standards-code/proposals/p1067-health-star-rating-system

GOV.UK. (2025, July 3). Sugar reduction in drinks: 2015 To 2024. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/sugar-reduction-in-drinks-2015-to-2024

Grigsby-Duffy, L., Cameron, A. J., Backholer, K., & Sacks, G. (2022). Food industry perspectives on potential policies targeting unhealthy food and beverage price promotions in Australian supermarkets. BMC Public Health, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13812-7

Gupta, A., Raine, K. D, Moynihan, P., & Marco Aurélio Peres. (2023). Australians support for policy initiatives addressing unhealthy diet: a population-based study. Health Promotion International, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daad036

Harris, A., & Mortimer, D. (2009). Funding illness prevention and health promotion in Australia: a way forward. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-6-25

Huse, O., Ananthapavan, J., Sacks, G., Cameron, A. J., Zorbas, C., Peeters, A., Moodie, M., Martin, J., & Backholer, K. (2019). The potential cost-effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on price promotions for sugar-sweetened beverages in Australia. International Journal of Obesity, 44(5), 1011–1020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-019-0495-9

Kininmonth, A. R., Stone, R. A., Jenneson, V., Ennis, E., Naisbitt, R., Johnstone, A. M., Morris, M. A., & Fildes, A. (2026). “It was a force for good but…”: A mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of the high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) legislation in England. Food Policy, 139, 103048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2026.103048

Lal, A., Mantilla-Herrera, A. M., Veerman, L., Backholer, K., Sacks, G., Moodie, M., Siahpush, M., Carter, R., & Peeters, A. (2017). Modelled health benefits of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax across different socioeconomic groups in Australia: A cost-effectiveness and equity analysis. PLOS Medicine, 14(6), e1002326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002326

Lane, M. M., Gamage, E., Du, S., Ashtree, D. N., McGuinness, A. J., Gauci, S., Baker, P., Lawrence, M., Rebholz, C. M., Srour, B., Touvier, M., Jacka, F. N., O’Neil, A., Segasby, T., & Marx, W. (2024). Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ, 384(8419), e077310. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310

Laraia, B. A., Leak, T. M., Tester, J. M., & Leung, C. W. (2017). Biobehavioral factors that shape nutrition in low-income populations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(2), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.003

Loaeza, L. M., Lara-Castor, L., Sharib, J. R., Cudhea, F., Wang, M., Li, P., Mozaffarian, D., Bas, M., Haidar Ali, J., Abumweis, S., Krishnan, A., Misra, P., Hwalla, N. C., Janakiram, C., Liputo, N. I., Musaiger, A., Pourfarzi, F., Alam, I., DeRidder, K., … Lai, Y. (2026). Understanding sugar-sweetened beverage tax implementation globally: A 34-year, population-based observational study in 183 countries [Doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(26)00093-8]. The Lancet Global Health, 14(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(26)00093-8

Miller, C. L., Dono, J., Wakefield, M. A., Pettigrew, S., Coveney, J., Roder, D., Durkin, S. J., Wittert, G., Martin, J., & Ettridge, K. A. (2019). Are Australians ready for warning labels, marketing bans and sugary drink taxes? Two cross-sectional surveys measuring support for policy responses to sugar-sweetened beverages. BMJ Open, 9(6). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027962

Monteiro, C. A., Louzada, M. L., Steele-Martinez, E., Cannon, G., Andrade, G. C., Baker, P., Bes-Rastrollo, M., Bonaccio, M., Gearhardt, A. N., Khandpur, N., Kolby, M., Levy, R. B., Machado, P. P., Moubarac, J.-C., Rezende, L. F. M., Rivera, J. A., Scrinis, G., Srour, B., Swinburn, B., & Touvier, M. (2025). Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01565-x

Morales, M. E., & Berkowitz, S. A. (2016). The Relationship Between Food Insecurity, Dietary Patterns, and Obesity. Current Nutrition Reports, 5(1), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-016-0153-y

Obesity Evidence Hub. (2026, January 22). Corporate political activity of the beverage industry in Australia. Obesity Evidence Hub. https://www.obesityevidencehub.org.au/collections/environmental/corporate-political-activity-of-the-beverage-industry-in-australia

OECD. (2025, November 13). Health at a Glance 2025 - OECD Indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/11/health-at-a-glance-2025_a894f72e/full-report/health-expenditure-on-prevention-and-primary-healthcare_e65bf24a.html#indicator-d1e32844-4220e97733

Parliament of Australia. (2023, November). Chapter 3 - Food production, consumption and export. Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Former_Committees/Agriculture/FoodsecurityinAustrali/Report/Chapter_3_-_Food_production_consumption_and_export

Peter, B., & Geraghty, J. (2024). Sickly sweet: It’s time for a sugary drinks tax. Grattan Institute.

Public Health Association Australia. (2025, May 28). Research reveals strong public support for govt action on sugary drinks. Public Health Association Australia. https://www.phaa.net.au/Web/Web/News/Media-releases-2025/Research-sugary-drinks.aspx

Riesenberg, D., Backholer, K., Zorbas, C., Sacks, G., Paix, A., Marshall, J., Blake, M. R., Bennett, R., Peeters, A., & Cameron, A. J. (2019). Price Promotions by Food Category and Product Healthiness in an Australian Supermarket Chain, 2017–2018. American Journal of Public Health, 109(10), 1434–1439. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2019.305229

Rogers, N. T., Pell, D., Mytton, O. T., Penney, T. L., Briggs, A., Cummins, S., Jones, C., Rayner, M., Rutter, H., Scarborough, P., Sharp, S., Smith, R., White, M., & Adams, J. (2023). Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: A controlled interrupted time series analysis. BMJ Open, 13(12), e077059. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077059

Sainsbury, E., Magnusson, R., Thow, A.-M., & Colagiuri, S. (2020). Explaining resistance to regulatory interventions to prevent obesity and improve nutrition: A case-study of a sugar-sweetened beverages tax in Australia. Food Policy, 93(1), 101904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101904

Scarborough, P., Adhikari, V., Harrington, R. A., Elhussein, A., Briggs, A., Rayner, M.,

Adams, J., Cummins, S., Penney, T., & White, M. (2020). Impact of the Announcement and Implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy on Sugar content, price, Product Size and Number of Available Soft Drinks in the UK, 2015-19: A controlled Interrupted Time Series Analysis. PLOS Medicine, 17(2), e1003025. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025

Schultz, S., Cameron, A. J., Grigsby-Duffy, L., Robinson, E., Marshall, J., Orellana, L., & Sacks, G. (2020). Availability and placement of healthy and discretionary food in Australian supermarkets by chain and level of socio-economic disadvantage. Public Health Nutrition, 24(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980020002505

Scrinis, G., Popkin, B. M., Corvalan, C., Duran, A. C., Nestle, M., Lawrence, M., Baker, P., Monteiro, C. A., Millett, C., Moubarac, J.-C., Jaime, P., & Khandpur, N. (2025). Policies to halt and reverse the rise in ultra-processed food production, marketing, and consumption. The Lancet, 406(10520). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01566-1

Singh, G. M., Micha, R., Khatibzadeh, S., Lim, S., Ezzati, M., & Mozaffarian, D. (2015). Estimated Global, Regional, and National Disease Burdens Related to Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption in 2010. Circulation, 132(8), 639–666. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.114.010636

Stotz, S. A., Budd Nugent, N., Ridberg, R., Byker Shanks, C., Her, K., Yaroch, A. L., & Seligman, H. (2022). Produce prescription projects: Challenges, solutions, and emerging best practices – Perspectives from health care providers. Preventive Medicine Reports, 29(101951), 101951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101951

Teng, A. M., Jones, A. C., Mizdrak, A., Signal, L., Genç, M., & Wilson, N. (2019). Impact of sugar‐sweetened beverage taxes on purchases and dietary intake: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obesity Reviews, 20(9), 1187–1204.

The Lancet. (2025). Ultra-processed foods: time to put health before profit. The Lancet, 406(10520). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)02322-0

The World Bank. (2023, October). Global SSB Tax Database. The World Bank. https://ssbtax.worldbank.org/

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2026, June 16). The Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program - Produce Prescription Program. National Institute of Food and Agriculture. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/gus-schumacher-nutrition-incentive-program-produce-prescription

World Health Organization. (2022, December 13). WHO calls on countries to tax sugar-sweetened beverages to save lives. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2022-who-calls-on-countries-to-tax-sugar-sweetened-beverages-to-save-lives

World Health Organization. (2026, January 26). Healthy Diet. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet

Wu, J. H., Trieu, K., Coyle, D., Huang, L., Wijesuriya, N., Nallaiah, K., Lung, T., Di Tanna, G. L., Zheng, M., Mozaffarian, D., MacMillan, F., Simmons, D., Wu, T., Twigg, S., Gauld, A., Constantino, M., McGill, M., Wong, J., & Neal, B. (2022). Testing the Feasibility and Dietary Impact of a “Produce Prescription” Program for Adults with Undermanaged Type 2 Diabetes and Food Insecurity in Australia. The Journal of Nutrition, 152(11), 2409–2418.

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.