Sugar tax to be imposed in UK
Options
Replies
-
rainbowbow wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I'm so happy they've done this have you seen the state of childrens teeth in this country ? The way children are obese these days is very bad for the country as a whole.
This is a good tax they also need to tax McDonald's kfc Burger King pizza places
Then use the taxes to lower the price of fresh food , milk is so expensive & the farmers get nothing.
We don't need sugar there's plenty in fruit.
Teach our children this is bad for our bodies.
See, this is the opposite side of the spectrum we are up against.
There is never a balance when it comes to things like this.
Nothing mentioned in this post is 'bad' when taken in the correct context and dosage. Pizza is not 'bad' when taken in the correct context and dosage. Sugar is not 'bad' when taken in the correct context and dosage.
We may not need added sugar, but sugary sweetness to many people is enjoyable and tasty, and completely fine when taken in the correct context and dosage.
People need to be educated on overall balance of nutrition and general healthy lifestyles. The majority of the population are never going to be outlying food and macro dictators who will never touch sugar or fast food again in their lives. I certainly won't be.
No one is talking about banning sugar, you can still enjoy it. Hopefully in moderation. And this tax IS a form of education.
I was referring to the anti-sugar post above. I'm not sure where banning sugar came from.
What educational purpose does a tax on sugar have to Mrs and Mrs over-consumption?
Well the money goes towards our next generations physical education, so there's that.
What does it show the average person who drinks a couple 2 liters of Pepsi a day? It shows them that if they want to damage their bodies and cost the healthcare system they have to literally put their money where their mouth is. Financial incentives are some of the most effective
Again though I stand by my initial assessment that it isn't sugar only that causes obesity. I don't mind paying a tax on it if it can be an effective tool to reduce overall consumption and the money is allocated properly.
Have to agree with @cityruss. Taxes don't teach anyone anything except that something is more expensive, unless property taxes are supposed to teach me that I shouldn't own property? Or luxury taxes teach me that I shouldn't own items that the government decides to view as a luxury?
Making desired items more expensive, by the way, should have the unintended consequence of making them a bit of a status symbol to some. Should be interesting to observe from a distance.0 -
A far, far better solution would be to eliminate farm supports and subsidy programs that effectively subsidize any number of calorie-dense, nutrition-poor food sources (this is why corn syrup is used in everything).
That would serve the same overall purpose as the sugar tax. Of course, this will never happen because the corporate interests have lawmakers in their pockets, and such an approach would reduce government revenues (which they don't want).
So, our tax money will continue to subsidize agribusinesses as always, and now we have to contend with them reaching into our pockets for yet more tax money "for our own good" (ironically to arguably solve the problems that their policies helped cause in the first place)!
Notwithstanding the fact I enjoy candy and sweets responsibly and there's no reason for me to be paying more for it. And, notwithstanding the fact that this won't accomplish anything due to "substitution effects" (Google it).
We need to stop worshipping government like it's some sort of religion.0 -
hamlet1222 wrote: »Arggh, just been announced today:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/mar/16/will-a-sugar-tax-actually-work-budget
So now poor me who consumes sugar responsibly is going to have to pay more in tax :-(
Seriously though I think it'll be punishing the poor unfairly. When I've been poor a can of sprite was one of the few 'luxuries' I could afford.
It's be much better to force the manufactures to taper-down the quantity in food products.
Bit of an overreaction.
A can of Sprite will be affected by about 5p, and you have alternatives anyway... The priority should be reduce the burden on the NHS rather than think about these type of concerns....0 -
MonaLisaLianne wrote: »It will mainly hurt retailers, restaurants and people in the beverage industry - and yes, the poor. Funny that no one ever asks, "Why should I be taxed on ANYTHING I consume?" instead of haggling over the amount & the target.
How will it hurt the poor? They dont have a gun to their head when they pay for these drinks which are more expensive than other alternatives....0 -
I don't like it. Is the gov trying to say sugar is bad for your health, just like tobacco?0
-
They said it is going to add an extra 46 cents AUD to a 1L bottle of coke, is this really much of a deterrent??0
-
-
Christine_72 wrote: »They said it is going to add an extra 46 cents AUD to a 1L bottle of coke, is this really much of a deterrent??
That's about 35 cents in US dollars. Wouldn't deter many here.0 -
viren19890 wrote: »Since my point is being dissected and broken out of context, let me say this. This isn't progress, it's regression as a society.
People should be educated instead of punished and that too unfairly. (people who aren't obese will be paying the price as well). If you are so hell bent on improving obese people health (under false pretend and justifying this tax) why not specifically target them? like Airlines do on people who are overweight and take two seats? Why not tax people who are medically considered obese straight up? tax their income so they can't even buy more food ergo making them starve and lower their Caloric intake.
If this is justified, keep in mind if a vegan comes in power he/she will tax meat eaters/buyers, if a keto follower comes in power they will tax Carbs and so forth. Sugar is like that good for some and bad for others depending on your life choices.
Don't compare sugar with alcohol and tobacco.
This is a gateway towards government intervention and it won't stop here until every month you are sent a list of items on "approved" eating items for a certain month and ration based on your family numbers.
You make valid points. It is a slippery slope
I did not gain weight with sugar its not my thing but it is not up to the government to make that decision for me. You can't legislate health.0 -
concordancia wrote: »SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »I think it's ridiculous. It's being imposed under a guise that the purpose is to deal with the obesity epidemic, when in fact it's just another grab. I would much rather see additional money made available to educate people on healthy eating rather than eliminating a particular food. It won't solve anything at all.
That is precisely what the money raised is earmarked for!
I thought the money was going towards extra curricula activities in schools?0 -
A far, far better solution would be to eliminate farm supports and subsidy programs that effectively subsidize any number of calorie-dense, nutrition-poor food sources (this is why corn syrup is used in everything).
I don't think we "worship government" but I am glad someone brought up this bit, and I agree.
If based on US corn, the tax on sugary beverages is probably not even offsetting the subsidy on HFCS (to nitpick, which isn't the same as plain corn syrup -- I believe that's glucose, not the combo). Of course, how it currently works is somewhat complicated.0 -
I don't have a problem with the sugar tax. But here's a thought; why couldn't the UK Government simply legislate to set threshholds for suger content in drinks? That way, the producers would have to produce lower sugar products, thus assisting with the health of people, rather than simply taxing the public?
The tax is levied on the producer, not the public. Remains to be seen how they react and what happens to pricing.
I suspect the UK Government isn't in a position to set a limit of sugar in anything, given the EU single market rules. They can't legislate traffic light labelling because nutrition labelling falls within the competence of the EU authorities, for example.
Besides, do you really want civil servants designing your food / drinks ?
0 -
Finland tried sweets tax, but it's going to be dropped in 2017.A ministerial committee on economic policy has decided that the tax on sweets and ice cream will be eliminated beginning in 2017. Soft drinks will still be taxed, but products to be taxed are being reviewed.
The government is cancelling the sweets tax following talks with the European Commission, which said that Finland's sweets tax is unequal: it favours domestic sweets because similar products from abroad are also subject to customs duty. Two state complaints were made over the tax.
[...]
Specialist Heli Reinivuo from the National Insitute for Health and Welfare (THL) says she and her organisaiton consider the sweets tax drop unfortunate and against EU statutes.
"Affecting consumption via taxation is just one method of keeping sweet-eating in check and preventing sugar from accumulating in the body," Reinivuo says.
The THL says the removal of the tax is not a return to the situation preceding its reinstitution five years ago. Reinivuo says that sugar consumption levels can be better influenced in future by educating the populace and with the placement of candy vending machines in schools and public spaces.
The health watchdog considers the sweets tax, now planned to be scrapped, a fairly effective method of steering consumption. Reinivuo says the tax has been especially important in low-income consumers and households.
In 2011 when the tax was applied the government did not investigate any other methods of affecting sugar consumption.
source: http://yle.fi/uutiset/tax_on_sweets_and_ice_cream_to_be_dropped/83404020 -
They should just make food scarce. That's how populations stayed thin in the past. Oh, they should tax people until they have very little money too. That has also always helped in the past.
Problem solved: make food scarce and difficult to afford
0 -
They should just make food scarce. That's how populations stayed thin in the past. Oh, they should tax people until they have very little money too. That has also always helped in the past.
Problem solved: make food scarce and difficult to afford
May be a career limiting step for an elected politician.0 -
I strongly support this sugar tax. There is obviously a debate about sugar. But currently people pay a "sugar tax" in the multi-million pound profits of the soft drinks industry. I am persuaded by what some of what Gary Taubes and Robert Lustig and others say if not all. It seems that fructose and therefore half of "sugar" (sucrose) is metabolised differently and doesn't engage the body's satiety hormones and the body's appetite suppressing hormones and therefore is easy to binge on. It is also metabolised in the liver which increases fat in the liver. In addition glucose and "white carbs" spike and then crash blood sugar. Even if you are not persuaded of that, the research on satiety index and what increases satiety shows that complex carbs and fibre etc. have greater satiety - up to 2x or 3x than white bread - cakes, sweets etc. 0.75x or less than white bread.
It has to be said that research is not completely conclusive but a systemic review at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210834/ states: "Although more research is needed, sufficient evidence exists for public health strategies to discourage consumption of sugary drinks as part of a healthy lifestyle."
I hesitate to use the word "addiction" for food. However we love sugar - it is an important indicator of food that is good to eat and when we found in prehistoric times it was important to take advantage of it and even to binge on it but the body is not good at dealing with larger amounts - e.g. teeth and blood sugar levels have to be kept tightly controlled if damage is not to be incurred. A bit like tobacco and alcohol it stimulates the brain's reward centres but is bad for us in anything other than smaller amounts.
Tobacco reduction has shown that there needs to be a multi-pronged approach - taxing it by making it more expensive, education especially of children and public health initiatives. There is a big public health initiative in the UK on urging people to cut down on sugar (and calories and exercise more). And the money raised from the sugar tax (and it has to be raised from somewhere and something we want less of is a good place to raise it from) is going into school sport.
The sugar tax is interestingly structured to encourage firms to reformulate their products. Interestingly Coca-Cola have reformulated Sprite in the UK with Stevia, so it contains a third less sugar and calories than in the US.
After tobacco and alcohol, obesity is the next biggest cause of preventable death and disease. I think everyone here knows that obesity is complex issue and it is not just sugar but sugar is a big part of the picture.
0 -
I'm British, and I think it's a great idea.
Our kids are fat. There is a town in my county where around half of the kids are obese! Half of them. They're all wandering into town on their lunch buying sugary drinks like cola, fanta and sprite and not even knowing whats going into their body. We have a sugar smart app as well, and the sugars in some things are appalling.
Even without that side of it, yay for the dental side of things. The fizzy drinks are horrific for your teeth, and if the money goes into providing sports, I see no negative. Tax is tax regardless yes it raises money for the government, it comes from the consumer, but if we funnel taxes into arguably a better cause, who cares. You're going to pay it somehow anyway.
[Oh and with regard to it being a tax on the 'poor'... Really? I know fat rich people- a lot of them! Where I am from lemon and water IS cheaper than a can or bottle of sprite. An entire bag of lemons costs me 39p, water comes from my water rates/a two large bottle pack of water is 2l for £1. A bottle of 500ml sprite is £1.29]0 -
I'm British, and I think it's a great idea.
Our kids are fat. There is a town in my county where around half of the kids are obese! Half of them. They're all wandering into town on their lunch buying sugary drinks like cola, fanta and sprite and not even knowing whats going into their body. We have a sugar smart app as well, and the sugars in some things are appalling.
Even without that side of it, yay for the dental side of things. The fizzy drinks are horrific for your teeth, and if the money goes into providing sports, I see no negative. Tax is tax regardless yes it raises money for the government, it comes from the consumer, but if we funnel taxes into arguably a better cause, who cares. You're going to pay it somehow anyway.
[Oh and with regard to it being a tax on the 'poor'... Really? I know fat rich people- a lot of them! Where I am from lemon and water IS cheaper than a can or bottle of sprite. An entire bag of lemons costs me 39p, water comes from my water rates/a two large bottle pack of water is 2l for £1. A bottle of 500ml sprite is £1.29]
That's not what 'a tax on the poor' means in the context it was used. The poster meant it's a regressive tax - one that affects the poor more than the rich (i.e. the rich can afford it, the poor can't - or not as well). They did not mean that the rich aren't subject to the tax or don't drink/eat foods that would be taxed.0 -
I'm British, and I think it's a great idea.
Our kids are fat. There is a town in my county where around half of the kids are obese! Half of them. They're all wandering into town on their lunch buying sugary drinks like cola, fanta and sprite and not even knowing whats going into their body. We have a sugar smart app as well, and the sugars in some things are appalling.
Even without that side of it, yay for the dental side of things. The fizzy drinks are horrific for your teeth, and if the money goes into providing sports, I see no negative. Tax is tax regardless yes it raises money for the government, it comes from the consumer, but if we funnel taxes into arguably a better cause, who cares. You're going to pay it somehow anyway.
[Oh and with regard to it being a tax on the 'poor'... Really? I know fat rich people- a lot of them! Where I am from lemon and water IS cheaper than a can or bottle of sprite. An entire bag of lemons costs me 39p, water comes from my water rates/a two large bottle pack of water is 2l for £1. A bottle of 500ml sprite is £1.29]
But the point is adding a few pence to the price of the fizzy drinks will not cure obesity.
Are we imagining a light switch suddenly being turned on, and every over-consumer suddenly starting to consume within their limits?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions