Australia's food and beverage industry has warned that taxing sugary drinks would be misguided and could open the door to a raft of taxes on other foods.

Key points: Australian Beverage Council says introducing soft drink tax would be a "slippery slope"

Australian Beverage Council says introducing soft drink tax would be a "slippery slope" Says move would cost jobs in beverage manufacturing industry

Says move would cost jobs in beverage manufacturing industry Health groups say sugar tax unlikely to broaden to other foods

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has called on Australia to follow Britain's decision to impose a tax on soft drink, in order to tackle obesity.

But the Australian Beverages Council disputed the link between soft drinks and obesity, and said any tax would be misguided.

"If the Government was to introduce a tax here, which we hope they'll err on the side of reason, it would be a slippery slope," the council's chief executive Geoff Parker said.

"The average Australian gets less than 2 per cent of their daily kilojoules from soft drinks, so simply to slap a tax on the 2 per cent whilst ignoring the 98 per cent — as well as the issue around the lack of physical activity — we think really is a bandaid solution for a far more complex problem."

Mr Parker said a tax on soft drink would encourage the Government to impose other taxes down the track on foods such as burgers or pizza.

He said a tax on soft drink would also inflate prices and unemployment in the industry.

"We think it won't make a difference from an obesity perspective, but it will cost jobs and we know that the UK beverage manufacturing industry, like here in Australia, is in a state of contraction, so all this tax will do is cost jobs," Mr Parker said.

Australian health groups and lobbyists voiced support for the idea, and said it was worth looking at any measures that would reduce the consumption of sugar.

"The reason why they have chosen soft drinks is that soft drinks are very discreet categories," Professor Tim Gill, from the University of Sydney's Institute of Obesity, Nutrition and Exercise, said.

"It is possible to define them fairly easily, to levy that tax on them without too much issue."

Sugar tax unlikely to broaden: academic

Professor Gill also rejected claims that a levy on soft drinks would open the door to similar taxes on other foods.

"I don't see that this sort of tax will broaden much beyond sugar, sweets and beverages. It may go beyond the beverages that they've chosen to include at the moment, but I don't think that it will go to the wider food categories," he said.

Oliver, who led the campaign against sugar in Britain, called on Australia to "pull its finger out" and follow the UK lead.

"This is a profound moment. This, I believe, will travel to Canada, Australia, all these weak [countries]. We want … prime ministers … to grow some balls and start doing stuff that actually affects child health," he said.

"I think ultimately, when we live in a democracy, a capitalist society, we want to be pro-business but when we can mark and track ill-health on our children, it's important that our kids in the next 50 years remain relevant, intelligent, full of energy, healthy, fit."

At least one Australian politician has supported the idea of a tax on soft drink.

"Why can't we have a tax, and we know what it does is discourage unhealthy choices from people, and that money could be reinvested back into the health system," Greens leader Senator Richard Di Natale said.

Professor Gill said the wider public would support a sugar tax provided the funds went back into health.

"The general public will support a tax like this if the Government uses the funds raised to do things that are beneficial to our health and it just doesn't go into general revenue."

The British Government said the 530 million pounds expected to be raised by the tax would be spent on primary school sports in England.