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
Replies
-
This is an interesting thread and one I’m grateful for being bought up. I also want to say thanks it’s refreshing that a discussion can be had and not turn into name calling like face-wit-gram-chat or whatever the cool kids are using.
I believe soft drinks were chosen because of Jamie Oliver jumping up and down about it, is it the sole cause of obesity, no. Will putting a tax on soft drinks change the habits of the consumer by and large no. Will it change the habit of the supplier yes, not because of the health and well being of the consumer but because of their wallet being hit. My local pub is already serving diet varieties of soda as default instead of the full fat version and branding it saving the consumer money.
I don’t go with the fact that the government are trying to cull the obesity levels in this country it’s yet another tax that is levied on the public, if they were that caring then education education education is what you need. Why apply a tax as a cure, surely getting people to change mindset is better prevention is better than cure. Diet sodas may help cure the obesity crisis in the UK but pushing the consumer to diet sodas will cause other strains on NHS. As diet anything is normally pumped with chemicals to enhance the flavour the sweetners which are believed to be carcinogenic so whilst we save the obesity we also up the risks of cancer.
Education is where it’s at to avoid these foods and drinks all together and make better choices. I’d prefer to pay taxes to enable this to happen than to apply it to soft drinks
7 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »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?
I'm always skeptical of how they get those numbers, as they normally add inherent sugar (in fruit, etc.) to added sugar to make them sound worse.
That said, do SOME people consume 45 teaspoons of added sugar a day? I'm sure, or more, as that's about the amount in 4 12-oz sodas. (roughly 40-50 g per drink)
I actually do think that sugary soda and other drinks plays a not insubstantial role in how they get those staggering sugar numbers (and probably the growth of childhood/teen obesity, as my understanding is that most people don't drink lots of soda, but those who do tend to drink huge amounts (and are disproportionately younger). And it's really easy to mindlessly drink soda.
Would I impose a tax if I were in charge? Probably not (and I am skeptical that it would be effective anyway), but reducing the amount that people who drink soda immoderately consume is probably a good thing if it happens.2 -
The idea of the sugar tax on sugary drinks took into consideration "average annual sugar consumption" was even then falling. Setting a two year compliance date of 6th April gave the companies time to modify their recipes. Two companies have retained their flagship products but include low sugar ones as so many other have also. At the time of announcement the then canceler did give a highest possible tax take, which has been halved by company actions. This was the anticipated outcome but even so any money is to provide activity equipment for children.
The battle was with hidden sugar! Even with these changes the "annual average sugar consumption" will still be much higher than desirable. It is to be hoped the nation will see fewer dental work and extractions being done on young and even very young children.
It has been reported the UK farming industry have not been advised to reduce their sugar production. oops.0 -
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
There is no medical evidence to support the claim that artificial sweeteners are more harmful that sugar.9 -
SpecialKitty7 wrote: »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)
The UK tax is very different to what Cool County did. It only taxes the most sugary of full sugar drinks, has two years based on how much sugar is in the drink and does bit add anything to low sugar or artificially sweetened drinks.2 -
lemurcat12 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).
The aim of the tax is to reduce the amount of sugar people are consuming. The amount of people who regularly drink irn bru, sprite, fanta at will be less. This is a success in that sense.
The wider aim of reducing childhood obesity will take a decade before we can judge.1 -
The aim of the tax is to reduce the amount of sugar people are consuming.
Yet without any evidence that reduced sugar consumption will inherently influence health outcomes.The amount of people who regularly drink irn bru, sprite, fanta at will be less.
Again, so what? Superficial metric.This is a success in that sense.
I'd question whether superficial outcomes can be considered a success.The wider aim of reducing childhood obesity will take a decade before we can judge.
If we can't demonstrate now that this will directly influence obesity then we'll have no clue in ten years time whether it actually had an effect or not. It's the perfect political intervention. No credible data to support the implementation, vague superficial outcomes with little meaningful extant data as a baseline and vague, ambiguous long term outcomes.
If obesity is reduced in ten years then there's no way to demonstrate contribution, if it's not then the politicians will just blame someone else.
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
There is no medical evidence to support the claim that artificial sweeteners are more harmful that sugar.
Probably not, but they nevertheless cause gut issues in some people - I am one. However, I rarely drink sugary soft drinks anyway so now I'll probably consume even less2 -
The battle was with hidden sugar!
Only 5% of the UK sources of added sugar are from savory products (i.e., hidden sugar), so I don't see why that would be the battle. The hidden sugar thing is ridiculous because it's not hidden and it's not significant. People who go on about hidden sugar want to not take responsibility for/make excuses for their own diet, IMO.
https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/Top-sources-of-added-sugar-in-our-diet.aspx4 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »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.
I am a child of the 70's so I also grew up with it. However the culture has changed in that time too. Food establishments (fast food and sit down) didn't have free refills back then like they do now. If you wanted a refill, you had to pay extra for it. This in many respects did limit my intake because I didn't want to pay for a refill and my parents wouldn't pay for a refill when I was a child. Some people are getting super large drinks and then refilling them multiple times while they eat because it's free thus consuming hundreds (if not thousands) of empty calories in the process. I've also watched shows like the biggest loser where people are consuming up two (2-liter) bottles of soda a day on average. How is that even remotely healthy?
Money does dictate day to day decisions for most people and if something becomes too expensive then most people will make alternative choices so that they stay within their budgets. So because of this, I totally agree with the sugar tax. It definitely shaped my families habits in the past and it would do so again in the future. As long as that money is being spent responsibly, which yes, is an oxymoron when you talk about government spending. haha7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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."
And of course we always believe everything government tells its people.5 -
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.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?7 -
I’ll make some predictions.
- Taxes does influence behaviour. We will see a reduction in consumption of sugary soda.
- People will replace with something else.
- Other nations will adopt a wait and see approach.
- When there is no appreciable change to the obesity rates the taxes will remain (too convenient) and something else will be tried.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.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
Why is this directed at me? I’m questioning the statement of someone who suggested artificial sweeteners are more harmful than regular sugars. I’m well aware of the cause of obesity - too many calories, regardless of the source, as I pointed out in a different post. I’m also not a proponent of these taxes so I’m not sure why I’m quoted here.2 -
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.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
Stay tuned, those items wil be coming.3 -
just tax obesity if that is the end goal. i predict homemade soda will be big in the UK4
-
I’ll make some predictions.
- Taxes does influence behaviour. We will see a reduction in consumption of sugary soda.
- People will replace with something else.
and- When there is no appreciable change to the obesity rates the taxes will remain (too convenient) and something else will be tried.
This is exactly what I think.
4 -
Packerjohn 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.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
Stay tuned, those items wil be coming.
There's already an "Obesity-is-illegal" dystopian YA novel: https://www.amazon.com/Gone-Parallel-Book-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B00C27ZEQO (I only downloaded it because it was free. As for quality, suffice to say that in general—barring Project Gutenberg public domain classics—one gets what one pays for. In other words, noting that this book exists should not be construed as a recommendation.)1 -
Cherimoose wrote: »
A nanny state micromanages every aspect of your life, under the false premise that you're not capable of making good choices without them.
But its for your own good! You don't need freedoms; see here's all the data that shows it will be much better for you when we handle everything for you.
1 -
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.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
Nothing is being banned, just taxed.1 -
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.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
In case you didn't see my earlier post upthread:
"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/#3085d5097df63 -
the other side of the coin, however, is that Type 1 diabetics, who frequently use high sugar drinks such as Lucozade when they are having a low blood sugar moment, now will find they need to consume DOUBLE the amount of reduced sugar liquid to get the same level of carbs. Not difficult you might think, but try getting 200ml of lucozade into a belligerent/in denial teenager rather than 100ml.....1
-
janejellyroll wrote: »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."
And of course we always believe everything government tells its people.
Do you have any particular evidence that the government is lying about this or is this just free-floating cynicism?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.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
Did you read the article? Nothing has been banned.5 -
girlinahat wrote: »the other side of the coin, however, is that Type 1 diabetics, who frequently use high sugar drinks such as Lucozade when they are having a low blood sugar moment, now will find they need to consume DOUBLE the amount of reduced sugar liquid to get the same level of carbs. Not difficult you might think, but try getting 200ml of lucozade into a belligerent/in denial teenager rather than 100ml.....
And how much of the sugary drink consumption is directly related to the needs of T1 diabetics who need high sugar drinks for medical reasons?
2 -
As a child in the UK I never drank sugary drinks and still don't as an adult. I still became obese. It had nothing to do with sugary drinks.
We pay tax on cigarettes and alcohol, people still buy them.
It won't change a thing.3 -
WinoGelato 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.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
Why is this directed at me? I’m questioning the statement of someone who suggested artificial sweeteners are more harmful than regular sugars. I’m well aware of the cause of obesity - too many calories, regardless of the source, as I pointed out in a different post. I’m also not a proponent of these taxes so I’m not sure why I’m quoted here.
Sorry. I wasn't directing it AT you. I agree with what you said. Just adding my thoughts.1 -
Packerjohn 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.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
In case you didn't see my earlier post upthread:
"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
Uh-huh. It's good that there is a positive effect. But that wasn't what my statement was about. To clarify, if the government starts adding a Special tax to whatever they believe we the people don't need, where does it stop? And do you really trust the government to always have YOUR best interest in mind?3 -
Packerjohn 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.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
In case you didn't see my earlier post upthread:
"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
But nowhere in that article does it say what happened to the obesity rates in Hungary. Kinda an important piece of information to be left unsaid.
I just glanced through the related report, http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/332882/assessment-impact-PH-tax-report.pdf?ua=1
Again, they note a reduction in the consumption of the products but NOWHERE do they comment on a reduction in the actual obesity. Seem much happier with the revenue generated, and less concerned with the underlying problem.6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »girlinahat wrote: »the other side of the coin, however, is that Type 1 diabetics, who frequently use high sugar drinks such as Lucozade when they are having a low blood sugar moment, now will find they need to consume DOUBLE the amount of reduced sugar liquid to get the same level of carbs. Not difficult you might think, but try getting 200ml of lucozade into a belligerent/in denial teenager rather than 100ml.....
And how much of the sugary drink consumption is directly related to the needs of T1 diabetics who need high sugar drinks for medical reasons?
so one minority group without a choice in terms of medical need (who ordinarily would favour artificial sweeteners) are to be penalised (both financially and in terms of availability) for the actions of another group who have a choice, but choose not to exercise that choice?3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions