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
Options
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
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124
1
Replies
-
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.7
-
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."3 -
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-02 -
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!0 -
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.
7 -
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.
I kind of agree with that last bit.0 -
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.2 -
I don't drink much coke anyway but when I do, I like the full fat stuff! Guess I'll just have to pay more0
-
Cherimoose wrote: »
So yes, it's effective. Is is necessary for government to be your parent? Nope.comptonelizabeth wrote: »Will it be effective, is it even necessary?
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.18 -
The trouble is, they'll just replace sugar with artificial crap, which is equally, if not more damaging ... We'll see won't we
23 -
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.2 -
Cherimoose wrote: »
So yes, it's effective. Is is necessary for government to be your parent? Nope.comptonelizabeth wrote: »Will it be effective, is it even necessary?
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.
Fair point. No one is saying :it's forbidden to drink sugary drinks. Only that if you want to, you'll have to pay more.
However, I'm not convinced that sugary drinks are in themselves a cause of obesity. Coke etc was certainly freely available when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s yet there was less obesity. In fact back then you couldn't even get sugar free alternatives.5 -
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.9 -
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).3 -
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.3 -
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?3 -
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)2 -
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.4 -
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.
businessinsider.com/americans-are-drinking-less-soda-2016-3
https://cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db219.htm
7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions