Letter of the Day | Taxing bottled water undermines public health goals

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing to question the continued application of general consumption tax (GCT) on bottled water.

Water is a basic human necessity required for survival. Yet, every day, people are paying tax on bottled water as though access to safe hydration is a discretionary consumer choice.

I understand that businesses incur operational costs. These contribute to the final selling price of bottled water. No reasonable person expects companies to operate at a loss. Businesses should absolutely recover their costs and earn a fair profit through their pricing structure.

However, the question is not whether bottled water should have a price. The question is why it should attract GCT.

The water supplied by the National Water Commission is treated as an essential utility. If the water itself is recognised as a necessity at the source level, then taxing its packaged form creates a troubling contradiction. The government is effectively generating revenue from one of the most fundamental human needs.

Some might argue that bottled water is a commercial product and therefore belongs within the taxable retail ecosystem. That argument ignores the reality faced by many. Bottled water is often purchased because people are outside for long hours, lack reliable access to clean drinking water, or simply do not trust the consistency of the water available to them.

In practice, bottled water has become an essential public health product.

A consumption tax on bottled water disproportionately affects the working class and the poor. That cannot be considered equitable public policy.

There is also a major contradiction in the government’s broader health policy approach. Jamaica imposes special consumption tax on sugary beverages partly to discourage unhealthy consumption and encourage healthier lifestyle choices. If that is the objective, then removing GCT from bottled water should be a natural and logical step.

We cannot simultaneously discourage sugary drink consumption while also taxing one of the healthiest alternatives.

If the nation wishes to reduce obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic illnesses linked to excessive sugar consumption, then water should be incentivised, not additionally taxed. 

The discussion should not be limited to immediate tax revenue. It should also include long-term public health outcomes and the financial burden associated with chronic disease management.

I believe it is time for a serious national discussion on whether bottled water should be exempt from general consumption tax. Essential human needs should not be treated as ordinary taxable luxuries.

DAMION MEEKS