Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages are an effective policy lever to decrease the purchase and consumption of products. I think the evidence is quite strong from jurisdictions in the States in different municipalities that have introduced them, and from Mexico.
To actually see the change in the rate of overweight and obesity is something that's going to be downstream. It's going to take probably five to 10 years to see this, but short-term studies in adolescents show that reducing the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages is important.
In terms of a policy lever, it is something that the federal government I think should consider. It wasn't the focus of my conversation today because, again, I think we are shovel-ready for restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to kids.
Interestingly enough, Newfoundland has just introduced a particular tax on sugary drinks. I believe that came into place in September.
It's going to take a while to see how this unfolds, but one of the reasons or rationales to have a tax is to generate income to help fund programs such as school nutrition programs. When I appear before this committee, I realize and I think we all realize that government has lots of asks and only a limited budget, and there's only one taxpayer. When we think about putting in new programs with costs, we also have to think about how it could be funded. A tax on sugary drinks would be a great way to fund these types of nutrition programs.