Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Sugar tax in the UK

comptonelizabeth
comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
in Debate Club
This came into force today - I'd be interested to know people's thoughts. Will it be effective, is it even necessary?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124
«1345

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    neugebauer52 wrote: »
    A brilliant way to make extra money for the coffers, but will government use it for those disadvantaged / aged / sick / education / healthcare? And if you are hooked on sugar, you will find the money for your daily dose - like any other drug or alcohol.

    Your question is answered in the article itself: "In England that income is being invested in schools sports and breakfast clubs."
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I think we don't know how it will work over time. Will be interesting.

    Possible results:

    (1) Companies reduce sugar to avoid the tax (seems to be happening). Will that also mean that people consume fewer calories? That's one question.

    (2) Consumers reduce purchases of higher sugar products to avoid the tax, or because competitors of the products with less sugar are cheaper. Again, will this actually happen (it seems that taxes do have some effect on behavior, I know studies suggest that cigarette and alcohol taxes do)? Can't the effect be outweighed with cheaper prices and lower profit margin (in that I think soda is dirt cheap to make as compared to the cost, and much of the costs go to things like marketing and advertising)? And, of course, will this also mean that people consume fewer calories? I'm skeptical about that last one.

    (3) No major effect on calories consumed/purchasing decisions.

    In evaluating it, it will be important to separate out causes for possible trends. For example, purchases of sugary soda has been trending down (people claimed that the taxes in Berkeley had an effect, but you'd need to compare it to the trend places without the law).

    It was a disaster in Cook County. I didn't think it would work that well, but it was so badly implemented that it wasn't a real test. See here (for some reason it amuses me to use a UK source): https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/10/fizzled-0
  • comptonelizabeth
    comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
    I can't open the link at the moment, will look later.
    At this stage (I think) it's only fizzy drinks etc. I suspect those that like them will continue to buy them (raising cost didn't really work with cigarettes and as a smoker it didn't deter me, though to be fair nicotine is an addictive substance)
    Manufacturers may get round it by using sweeteners instead so people's tastes won't be altered.
    Guess it's wait and see!
  • comptonelizabeth
    comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    comptonelizabeth wrote: »
    Will it be effective, is it even necessary?

    People will switch to generic brands that are cheaper, or just pay the fee like they pay the plastic bottle fee here in the US.
    Seems like another grab at money, while making bureaucrats appear useful. So yes, it's effective. Is is necessary for government to be your parent? Nope. :+1:

    I kind of agree with that last bit.
  • IrRevd
    IrRevd Posts: 38 Member
    This has already been hugely effective already as almost all major drinks brand have changed their recipes to reduce sugar content.

    Irn Bru is bigger than Coke in Scotland and has halved the amount of sugar. Given how much Scots drink of this there will be a big health benefit. As for the brand's that haven't changed, Coke Classic and Pepsi for example, they are reducing the sizes of their bottles.

    If you go to a store a 1.25l bottle of Coke will cost the same as a 1.75l bottle of Coke Zero. I love Coke and only just tolerate Coke Zero but guess what I bought from the store last night.
  • comptonelizabeth
    comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
    I don't drink much coke anyway but when I do, I like the full fat stuff! Guess I'll just have to pay more
  • comptonelizabeth
    comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
    Fitness_and_FODMAP wrote: »
    The trouble is, they'll just replace sugar with artificial crap, which is equally, if not more damaging ... We'll see won't we :/

    This is a problem for me too as artificial sweeteners kill my gut.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    IrRevd wrote: »
    This has already been hugely effective already as almost all major drinks brand have changed their recipes to reduce sugar content.

    That doesn't mean it's been effective. It's been effective if that change results in lowered obesity rates or rates of things like diabetes (which basically track obesity rates in first world countries).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Fitness_and_FODMAP wrote: »
    The trouble is, they'll just replace sugar with artificial crap, which is equally, if not more damaging ... We'll see won't we :/

    How are artificial sweeteners more damaging? If the end game is to reduce obesity, switching to artificial sweeteners, Diet Coke instead of regular for example - is often a very productive solution.

    Yep -- one of the stupid things about the Cook County law (which was really a money-making effort, no question) was that it taxed diet sodas equally with sugary ones.

    Clearly one can drink sugary soda in moderation and not be obese, but if you think that excess consumption of sugary sodas is too common and has an effect on societal obesity (which is the argument for these taxes, and one specifically made in Cook County), then it's silly to treat diet as if it were the same.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    As long as there are Oreos and chocolate and cake and cookies, I’m good with it.

    Why just soda? Seems like they missed a lot of other obesity causing products.

    By obesity causing products you mean “any food- naturally occurring or man made - which an individual eats which puts them in a calorie surplus”, right?
  • SpecialKitty7
    SpecialKitty7 Posts: 678 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Fitness_and_FODMAP wrote: »
    The trouble is, they'll just replace sugar with artificial crap, which is equally, if not more damaging ... We'll see won't we :/

    How are artificial sweeteners more damaging? If the end game is to reduce obesity, switching to artificial sweeteners, Diet Coke instead of regular for example - is often a very productive solution.

    Yep -- one of the stupid things about the Cook County law (which was really a money-making effort, no question) was that it taxed diet sodas equally with sugary ones.

    Clearly one can drink sugary soda in moderation and not be obese, but if you think that excess consumption of sugary sodas is too common and has an effect on societal obesity (which is the argument for these taxes, and one specifically made in Cook County), then it's silly to treat diet as if it were the same.

    Not only did they tax the diet soda the same as regular soda, they specifically did not tax items like added sugars in juice, or sweet tea which has nothing but sugar in it. It was odd, and most people just went into the next county to get their fix. It turned out to be more damaging to the local businesses than to people's pocketbooks. I don't believe it actually changed anyone's habits, mostly people just complained. (spoken as a Cook County adjacent resident)
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited April 2018
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    As long as there are Oreos and chocolate and cake and cookies, I’m good with it.

    Why just soda? Seems like they missed a lot of other obesity causing products.

    Stay tuned, it will be coming. Especially where governments pay healthcare costs (and the government pays about 50% of US healthcare).

    Without judging if right or wrong, it will heppen.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    IrRevd wrote: »
    The government is not being your parent. Obesity related health problems have a huge cost implication on our FREE health sercvices. Taxing something which has a detrement to the welfare of society is responsible and not a nanny state. A nanny state or government playing nanny would be banning high sugar drinks which they are not doing. We also dont ban alchol, tobacco or plastic bags but we do tax them to alter consumer behaviour and raise revenue to offset their negative impacts.

    A nanny state micromanages every aspect of your life, under the false premise that you're not capable of making good choices without them. There are other ways to reduce soda consumption that should be tried first before stealing money from people, such as asking soda makers to reformulate their products, and ask them to shrink bottle sizes (which they'll gladly do, since it increases profits). McDonalds recently decided to quit using plastic straws in the UK, and all it took was asking them - no laws or taxation was needed. Imagine that.

    Soda consumption in the US is actually down to about the level it was before the obesity epidemic started around the 1980s, and despite the drop in consumption, obesity rates are still rising. That's because soda is only a small fraction of the calorie surplus that leads to obesity. A bigger contributor is reduced activity due to technology. Might as well tax computers, phones, video games, and cars, if we're going to do this scientifically and fairly.

    9SqHcKC.png
    businessinsider.com/americans-are-drinking-less-soda-2016-3

    GIxGdre.png
    https://cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db219.htm

    Not sure what they are calling "soda" in the chart posted. I'm guessing sports and energy drinks have taken up some of the slack. These items are the fourth highest source of calories in the US diet and provide zero/low nutrition.

    The phones and cars are already taxed.

    What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
    Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
    Yeast breads
    Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
    Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
    Pizza
    Alcoholic beverages
    Pasta and pasta dishes
    Mexican mixed dishes
    Beef and beef-mixed dishes
    Dairy desserts
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited April 2018
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    As long as there are Oreos and chocolate and cake and cookies, I’m good with it.

    Why just soda? Seems like they missed a lot of other obesity causing products.

    Stay tuned, it will be coming. Especially where governments pay healthcare costs (and the government pays about 50% of US healthcare).

    Without judging if right or wrong, it will heppen.

    It seems politically unlikely in the US. Both parties depend on significant segments of people who would be outraged (and food manufacturers have political clout to some extent). Some Dems support the soda tax (which is much more limited), and get hurt by it, and others within the party are strongly in opposition. The Republicans uniformly are against. The places that have passed the soda tax (usually against significant opposition) are places that are basically Dem controlled, so atypical.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    IrRevd wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    comptonelizabeth wrote: »
    Will it be effective, is it even necessary?
    So yes, it's effective. Is is necessary for government to be your parent? Nope. :+1:

    The government is not being your parent. Obesity related health problems have a huge cost implication on our FREE health sercvices.

    If this were evidence led policy then I wouldn't have any fundamental disagreement. However, as it's an example of policy led evidence I'm somewhat less convinced.

    We have seen quite a lot of instance under this current regime, and it's immediate predecessor, of a tendency towards behavioural influence, rather than control, with the supply market being encouraged, under threat of regulation. This is one area where the supply market quite reasonably challenged the encouragement and have been subjected to weakly supported regulation as a result.



  • Fuzzipeg
    Fuzzipeg Posts: 2,301 Member
    For anyone who may be interested the BBC "Food programme" is broadcasting a programme into the sugar tax and the built up to its implementation on the 6th of April. They are taking a historic view. this should be available on the BBC's listen again facility.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited April 2018
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    As long as there are Oreos and chocolate and cake and cookies, I’m good with it.

    Why just soda? Seems like they missed a lot of other obesity causing products.

    Stay tuned, it will be coming. Especially where governments pay healthcare costs (and the government pays about 50% of US healthcare).

    Without judging if right or wrong, it will heppen.

    It seems politically unlikely in the US. Both parties depend on significant segments of people who would be outraged (and food manufacturers have political clout to some extent). Some Dems support the soda tax (which is much more limited), and get hurt by it, and others within the party are strongly in opposition. The Republicans uniformly are against. The places that have passed the soda tax (usually against significant opposition) are places that are basically Dem controlled, so atypical.

    It wouldn't be quick or any time soon. I would believe it would be national in scope and tie in with a form of single payer health care. Politically the same liberals that passed soda taxes would also be supporters of single payer. Interesting article in Forbes

    One country that has already seen a positive impact on public health from a junk food excise tax is Hungary. Manufacturers of junk foods in that country pay a “value added tax” of 27% on top of the 25% tax that’s imposed on most foods. Hungary’s law levies the junk food tax based largely on sugar and salt content.

    Four years after Hungary’s tax was introduced, more than 59% of consumers had lowered their consumption of the offending junk food products, according to a study conducted by the country’s National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition and the World Health Organization (WHO). Overweight or obese adults were twice as likely to change their eating habits than were people of normal weight, the researchers found. When consumers were polled, they reported that they were opting for less expensive products—but that the taxes also made them more mindful of the health risks of junk food.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/arleneweintraub/2018/01/10/should-we-tax-junk-foods-to-curb-obesity/#3085d5097df6
  • comptonelizabeth
    comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    comptonelizabeth wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Fitness_and_FODMAP wrote: »
    The trouble is, they'll just replace sugar with artificial crap, which is equally, if not more damaging ... We'll see won't we :/

    How are artificial sweeteners more damaging? If the end game is to reduce obesity, switching to artificial sweeteners, Diet Coke instead of regular for example - is often a very productive solution.

    They may not actually be damaging but many people can't tolerate them. Furthermore, replacing sugar with artificial sweeteners won't change people's palate and desire for sweet things.

    Nor would replacing soda with candy or replacing soda with fruit juice.

    People's general liking for sweet things is pretty hardwired, first taste preference babies have. Reducing consumption of soda is unlikely to change that.

    If the argument is that drinking soda distorts your palate, I don't think that's been demonstrated and is contrary to my experience. I drink little soda now, drank a lot of (diet) soda at one point in my 20s, and probably had less interest/tendency to consume sweet things than now, and ALWAYS experienced fruit as very sweet, enjoyed the taste of vegetables and savory foods, etc. I think a flattening of the palate to only liking hyperpalatable, often sweet foods is more likely a result of not having eaten enough other food, not drinking soda.

    The argument behind the law, as I understand it, is that soda is a player in obesity, often especially obesity in teens and younger, because it has lots of calories, the people who drink a lot (NOT most people, actually), tend to drink a LOT, and people often are less likely to consume lots of calories without being aware of it (feeling full), since drinking is for many experienced differently than eating.

    I don't think it's well-supported at all. I think it's hard to do anything that could be agreed upon that would be broader (i.e., tax on specific categories of food), and it's basically a money-making venture (it has been in the US, and I'm thinking it's partly that in the UK given how the money is being used, although I know the UK has a comprehensive set of efforts to combat obesity, which the US doesn't so much due probably to differences in how our gov't works). It's also easy to analogize a soda tax to a liquor tax, which is widely established and accepted.

    Basically I see places that try these things to be testing them out and obtaining evidence.

    The point I was making is that this won't necessarily change people's eating habits, which in the longer term is surely a better way of tackling obesity.
    Listening to the radio the other day and hearing how much sugar (some) people actually consume, I was staggered. I add sugar to tea and some cereals and often eat biscuits, cake, ice cream etc. Yet my sugar intake rarely goes above the recommended amount (I'm referring to added sugar here) Yet some people are apparently consuming upwards of 45 spoonfuls a day. How?

Categories