Sugar tax to be imposed in UK

DrEnalg wrote: »

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.

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/8340402

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

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.

maria0104 wrote: »

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.

yarwell wrote: »

brower47 wrote: »

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.

With so many in this thread STRONGLY supporting this tax for various apples to oranges reasons, I really don't think it would. Some people want other people to tell them how to live.

stealthq wrote: »

maria0104 wrote: »

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.

Right -- technically all sales tax/VAT are regressive in this way. This is why in the US states tend to exempt food (other than prepared foods/restaurant) from them or have a much lower rate on those items.

Here there's also the fact that soda usage tends to be higher in lower income brackets, I believe, but I'll have to try to remember where I saw that.

I read that this would apply to sodas and other sugary drinks. I am not in the UK, but the states I have lived in have charged full sales tax on soda even though I could go and buy juice with much more sugar in it tax free. It has a lot more sugar in it because I only buy diet soda, but still am taxed anyway for reasons. I have no idea why fruit juice is exempted in the US or as going to be the case in the UK. They are chocked full of unnecessary sugar with none of the fiber. You should be eating actual fruit as opposed to drinking the juice.

As for THE CHILDREN argument, my daughter doesn't drink anything but water and skim milk. She has far better teeth than either my husband and I did growing up on supposedly healthy juice. And before you start with the well it is easy to control them at 2, my daughter is 10. She is welcome to drink juice (at other peoples houses, I don't buy it period) and soda, but can't stand either one. She says juice is meh and she doesn't like the carbonation of soda. That's fine by me.

I read in the OPs article that soda consumption has dropped in the US regardless of if and when it was taxed. I think that is because people are just now getting their sugar laden drinks at places like Starbucks instead from the can. I think those kind of drinks need to be taxed as well if anyone is going to go there.

I pay outrageous taxes on liquor. I think it is the highest in the nation, bar none. However, I still buy it anyway. I can't believe how much it costs to smoke here as a non-smoker, but yet, there are still a lot of people at my work who smoke. Weed is heavily taxed, but it is a booming business anyway. People going to vice, taxes be dam-ned.

Every time I see a kid at a gas station with a big gulp or some other sugar laden beverage, my heart sinks. I think this sugar tax is a step in the right direction. Smoking rates have decreased with imposition of cigarette taxes so I see no reason why the same won't happen with this.

If only we could do something across the pond.

CrabNebula wrote: »

I read that this would apply to sodas and other sugary drinks. I am not in the UK, but the states I have lived in have charged full sales tax on soda even though I could go and buy juice with much more sugar in it tax free. It has a lot more sugar in it because I only buy diet soda, but still am taxed anyway for reasons. I have no idea why fruit juice is exempted in the US or as going to be the case in the UK. They are chocked full of unnecessary sugar with none of the fiber. You should be eating actual fruit as opposed to drinking the juice.

As for THE CHILDREN argument, my daughter doesn't drink anything but water and skim milk. She has far better teeth than either my husband and I did growing up on supposedly healthy juice. And before you start with the well it is easy to control them at 2, my daughter is 10. She is welcome to drink juice (at other peoples houses, I don't buy it period) and soda, but can't stand either one. She says juice is meh and she doesn't like the carbonation of soda. That's fine by me.

I read in the OPs article that soda consumption has dropped in the US regardless of if and when it was taxed. I think that is because people are just now getting their sugar laden drinks at places like Starbucks instead from the can. I think those kind of drinks need to be taxed as well if anyone is going to go there.

I pay outrageous taxes on liquor. I think it is the highest in the nation, bar none. However, I still buy it anyway. I can't believe how much it costs to smoke here as a non-smoker, but yet, there are still a lot of people at my work who smoke. Weed is heavily taxed, but it is a booming business anyway. People going to vice, taxes be dam-ned.

In that case your children are clearly the exception to the rule. I see plenty of children in small groups on their way to school in the morning, spending whatever dinner (or breakfast???) money they were given buying crisps, pop or even stuff like Red Bull on their way to school. Of course at that stage there is zero parental supervision... I wonder how many parents are aware that their kids have necked a couple of cans of Red Bull before their first lesson in the morning. And they wonder why there are problems with kids conduct and ability to focus in schools.

YOUR kids teeth might be perfect, but my best friend, who is a senior registrar dentist at a large dental hospital in Cardiff, is regularly forced to extract numerous teeth from very young children due to extreme caries. She is very clear that what leads to these awful situations, where some children end up with ALL their first teeth removed, so they don't start to pre-rot the permanent teeth, is because of unrestricted access to sweets and pop without appropriate dental hygiene.

Packerjohn wrote: »

brower47 wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

brower47 wrote: »

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.

With so many in this thread STRONGLY supporting this tax for various apples to oranges reasons, I really don't think it would. Some people want other people to tell them how to live.

In the US, government pays more than 50% of healthcare costs (that are rising). I didn't look, but with the national healthcare in England, I would guess that would be a higher %.

The government has a need to take a stand to reduce these expenditures.

Do they?

There are other options.

That's as far as I'm willing to go on that topic to avoid getting into murky waters in regards to the TOS.

If you're 'penny pinching' as we call it here in the UK- tightening the purse strings a bit- then you'd choose the non sugary option over the sugary option with less tax ergo costing you less money. It moves you to make a better choice. I don't see that penalising a demographic. I think its a smart move. One that may make little difference, but a move to a better choice.

maria0104 wrote: »

If you're 'penny pinching' as we call it here in the UK- tightening the purse strings a bit- then you'd choose the non sugary option over the sugary option with less tax ergo costing you less money. It moves you to make a better choice. I don't see that penalising a demographic. I think its a smart move. One that may make little difference, but a move to a better choice.

Or alternatively the rational consumer may simply opt for a cheaper non-branded sugary drink. The alternative may actually have more sugar than the original version you switched from but, due to lower advertising / branding / ingredient quality costs or so on, may still be cheaper even factoring in the additional tax for greater sugar content.

Result: more sugar consumption.

This is an ill thought out, regressive tax proposal to obtain cheap public approval from a failing Chancellor which probably won't see the light of day.

DrEnalg wrote: »

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.

I could not agree more about farm subsidies, amen for bringing that up! Although since I avoid HFCS like the plague it at least eliminates quite a bit of junk food from my diet right off the bat Unfortunately we can't go back in time and undo those stupid subsidies and misguided policies. We can only try to undo the damage a little at a time.