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
-
The point is a bit more subtle than that. It's pretty easy to agree tobacco use is just a linear scale, using less is better. The general perception is, there is never a case that taking a smoke is going to benefit someone. We also have second hand smoke effects. Overall, we're never going to feel bad about the concept of getting someone not to smoke.paperpudding wrote: »I dont think the malourishment/poverty argument applies here - all foods are not going to be more expensive just high sugar foods like soft drinks
Here in Australia (apologies if I already said this 3 years ago, too lazy to scroll back)- we effectively have a high sugar foods tax - because GST (equivalent of UK VAT) does not apply to essential foods and services.
Things like soft drinks are not included in the essential foods criteria hence do have GST applied to them.
Food is less clear. Overall, one could eat perfectly healthy without ever drinking a soda. But it is also true, there are times a soda could save someone's life - being in a hypoglycemic state. A person could just flat out be starving. For sugary foods, people could actually be underweight with sensory issues that lead to not eating. So we can feel bad about making food less affordable, conceptually, even if we'd agree on some level on the specific foods being made less affordable.
I'm not sure if Australia's model is the most applicable. It's a general tax, and the tax is just removed from foods considered essential, like minimally processed things.
Like in the US, several of our states have sales tax that isn't applied to store bought foods, but is applied to restaurant supplied hot foods. We don't think of it as a restaurant tax.1 -
How many lives have been saved by soda?2
-
NorthCascades wrote: »I don't know why it's impossible to have a level headed conversation on this topic. ☹️
It's an interesting question.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »I dont think the malourishment/poverty argument applies here - all foods are not going to be more expensive just high sugar foods like soft drinks
Here in Australia (apologies if I already said this 3 years ago, too lazy to scroll back)- we effectively have a high sugar foods tax - because GST (equivalent of UK VAT) does not apply to essential foods and services.
Things like soft drinks are not included in the essential foods criteria hence do have GST applied to them.
We have something similar in some places too, but it's reasonably confusing. And prices also just vary so much based on where one purchases things. I recall when we had our ill-fated experiment with a soda tax people were making a thing in the media comparing the cost of a soda to a beer at the local 7-11. Not only does beer vary a huge amount in cost, but if one buys a single soda at a 7-11, it is going to be much more expensive per oz than if one buys soda at a regular grocery store in a 6 or 12-pack, and of course there are places that are cheaper still. Not saying that does or does not support the tax (I am neutral until good studies are done), but it shows that people aren't actually buying based on a relatively small (in absolute $1, not percentage) difference in many cases.
Anyway, I would like for there to be studies, using the fact that some places have instituted taxes (or not exempted some products from tax breaks applying to other foods).0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I don't know why it's impossible to have a level headed conversation on this topic. ☹️
It's an interesting question.
I mean, a seatbelt can potentially be used as a murder weapon, to choke somebody like with piano wire. In practice, that doesn't happen enough to make seatbelts a bad idea. Things that don't happen shouldn't get equal weight to things that happen commonly.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I don't know why it's impossible to have a level headed conversation on this topic. ☹️
It's an interesting question.
I mean, a seatbelt can potentially be used as a murder weapon, to choke somebody like with piano wire. In practice, that doesn't happen enough to make seatbelts a bad idea. Things that don't happen shouldn't get equal weight to things that happen commonly.
While very true, I've seen nothing to indicate that the sugar tax made an impact on the obesity rate in the UK. I've seen claims that are supposed to be based on studies showing that calorie intake from soft drinks alone decreased by a few thousand calories on average per year. But if people get less calories from soda but still consume the calories..... what was accomplished overall?
I don't know of any lives saved by soda... or steak. But both can be consumed in moderation within a healthy diet.1 -
Alcohol can be consumed in moderation within a healthy diet, that isn't an argument that we shouldn't tax it. I use gasoline in moderation and pay tax on that, too, which isn't a logical contradiction, or the end of the world.4
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Alcohol can be consumed in moderation within a healthy diet, that isn't an argument that we shouldn't tax it. I use gasoline in moderation and pay tax on that, too, which isn't a logical contradiction, or the end of the world.
But unlike alcohol, which they knew would increase tax revenue and not change drinking habits much, the sugar tax didn't even raise tax revenues much.
So what does having such a thing accomplish?0 -
robertw486 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alcohol can be consumed in moderation within a healthy diet, that isn't an argument that we shouldn't tax it. I use gasoline in moderation and pay tax on that, too, which isn't a logical contradiction, or the end of the world.
But unlike alcohol, which they knew would increase tax revenue and not change drinking habits much, the sugar tax didn't even raise tax revenues much.
So what does having such a thing accomplish?
What does "much" mean?0 -
robertw486 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I don't know why it's impossible to have a level headed conversation on this topic. ☹️
It's an interesting question.
I mean, a seatbelt can potentially be used as a murder weapon, to choke somebody like with piano wire. In practice, that doesn't happen enough to make seatbelts a bad idea. Things that don't happen shouldn't get equal weight to things that happen commonly.
While very true, I've seen nothing to indicate that the sugar tax made an impact on the obesity rate in the UK. I've seen claims that are supposed to be based on studies showing that calorie intake from soft drinks alone decreased by a few thousand calories on average per year. But if people get less calories from soda but still consume the calories..... what was accomplished overall?
I don't know of any lives saved by soda... or steak. But both can be consumed in moderation within a healthy diet.
Have there been studies released about the effect of the tax one way or the other? That's the question, and it will be hard to analyze given confounding factors, so the fact that lots of different places try these things is useful -- more studies can be done and other places can take them into account in deciding what to try.
I am not convinced any particular sugar tax is helpful, but I am interested in what the results are, and I have not seen anything reported regarding this one.1 -
Look into Hungary's junk food tax. It's considered to be an example of success. To the point that manufacturers of junk food altered their recipes to make their products healthier to avoid the tax, which is the ultimate win. 🙂3
-
robertw486 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I don't know why it's impossible to have a level headed conversation on this topic. ☹️
It's an interesting question.
I mean, a seatbelt can potentially be used as a murder weapon, to choke somebody like with piano wire. In practice, that doesn't happen enough to make seatbelts a bad idea. Things that don't happen shouldn't get equal weight to things that happen commonly.
While very true, I've seen nothing to indicate that the sugar tax made an impact on the obesity rate in the UK. I've seen claims that are supposed to be based on studies showing that calorie intake from soft drinks alone decreased by a few thousand calories on average per year. But if people get less calories from soda but still consume the calories..... what was accomplished overall?
I don't know of any lives saved by soda... or steak. But both can be consumed in moderation within a healthy diet.
Have there been studies released about the effect of the tax one way or the other? That's the question, and it will be hard to analyze given confounding factors, so the fact that lots of different places try these things is useful -- more studies can be done and other places can take them into account in deciding what to try.
I am not convinced any particular sugar tax is helpful, but I am interested in what the results are, and I have not seen anything reported regarding this one.
There are quite a few already done, but most seem to isolate on the sugar intake from the drinks alone. Since sugary drink consumption as a whole stayed about the same, and many drinks reformulated to lower sugar, people had a slightly lower sugar consumption. But.... if they drink less soda, avoid the taxes mostly, and still overeat I don't know that much was accomplished.
Some studies state that it might have an impact on obesity rates in 10-20 years, others imply that sugar consumption was already on the way down and thus the tax had no impact. And as is common with politics involved, the raised money is no longer specifically earmarked to help reduce child obesity rates. So whatever they do raise might or might not go towards the original cause.0 -
The question is whether reducing sugary drink consumption (or cals from sugary drinks) reduces overall overconsumption, and I think they'd need to focus in on that. It's possible it could, as the highest consumers of sugary drinks get a ton of cals from sugary drinks and it seems reasonably likely that for at least a subset cals from drinks don't affect cals from foods. Worth studying, at least.
I also think if the laws lead to more lower cal options (this is not really about drinks, since there are no sugar options available for drinks and at least some of the laws also have targeted diet drinks), that could be a positive. I do think there's some evidence that calorie labeling laws for prepared foods tend to result in more lower cal options.0 -
As yet I've not come across anything in the press or health information which indicates the sugar tax is making any difference here in the UK. Early on products were reformulated but now, I'm not so sure. Those who can pay do and those who can't don't, in my experience.
(there is an agricultural debate going on over here, UK. Whether to allow one "off use" of the use of the banned noenicitinoids on sugar beet seeds. Last year we were faced with the same debate to be saved by a cold spell which disrupted the lifecycle of the specific yellow aphid which eats the young plants. it seems a minute % of the toxins enter the plant the remains go into the soil to taint it for several years to come. Flowering crops are supposed not to be planted for, I think three years to protect the bees and other pollinators. I can't remember the miniscule amount of noenicitinoids it takes to kill thousands of bees! I'm sure there will be the same debate next year and out into the future until another method is found. All that to protect the right of those who can afford to buy the stuff, to eat sugar! We grow 61% of our sugar needs but as in the legal definition of needs and what's for children. What does a child need to prosper and what does it think it wants, Needs are essential excessive sugar is not)0 -
I'm still waiting to hear about all the people who are only alive because of soda.
It would break my heart if the best argument against a soda tax was made up.4 -
Cherimoose wrote: »
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.
I think attributing rising obesity to technology oversimplifies things. Sure, it's a contributing factor, but at the same time soda consumption was decreasing, the soda manufacturers were busy developing and marketing sugary juices, teas, flavored waters, sports drinks, energy drinks, and other "head fake, healthier" alternatives to supplement their soda sales.
The sugar tax in the UK is a "sin tax," like alcohol and tobacco. We shouldn't be consuming too much sugar for our health anyway, so it makes it difficult to argue against. I really hope manufacturers don't simply replace sugar with other sweeteners, because those are equally detrimental to our health, if not more, just in other ways.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I'm still waiting to hear about all the people who are only alive because of soda.
It would break my heart if the best argument against a soda tax was made up.
I'm not going to claim "only alive because of soda" but my weight maintenance is currently largely dependent upon adding a ton of sugar to my diet. Due to a series of medical incidents early last year, I was left with delayed gastric emptying and am only able to eat about 50% of my normal quantity of solid food. I'd already experienced unintentional weight loss and I've never been able to catch up again but at least I can maintain where I'm at by padding out my calories with sugar in liquid or semi-liquid form, especially right now when I'm regularly burning a ton of extra calories clearing snow.
(And I'm not arguing against the tax because I'm fortunate enough to be in a financial position where tax doesn't impact my consumption of anything, plus I also live in a country where fast food and snack food has been taxed for decades.)1 -
I really hope manufacturers don't simply replace sugar with other sweeteners, because those are equally detrimental to our health, if not more, just in other ways.
Which ways?
I get that excessive sugar is not good for weight control nor dental health - although of course is fine in moderation for most people.
In what way are other sweeteners detrimental?
Incidentally here in Australia where soft drinks and co are subject to GST which essential food stuffs are not, that includes diet versions of such.
But it was never a sugar tax here - more of a not getting the exemption from GST that essential foods do.
2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I'm still waiting to hear about all the people who are only alive because of soda.
It would break my heart if the best argument against a soda tax was made up.
I can't claim it "saved my life," but once after donating blood, I experienced extreme lightheadness about an hour later (first time that happened to me) while I was in a shopping mall. A regular (non-diet) soda from a nearby food outlet felt like it kept me from fainting, which would have been unpleasant at best. The stools available (no real chairs) at high-top tables would likely not have kept me from cracking my head on the hard floor if all I had done was sit down. Of course, I don't know whether it was the calories, the hydration, or a combination that did the trick. And if juice had been available in sufficient quantity (there was at least a pint of soda in the cup), that would likely have had the same result. But it wasn't readily available the way soda is.0 -
Cherimoose wrote: »
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.
I think attributing rising obesity to technology oversimplifies things. Sure, it's a contributing factor, but at the same time soda consumption was decreasing, the soda manufacturers were busy developing and marketing sugary juices, teas, flavored waters, sports drinks, energy drinks, and other "head fake, healthier" alternatives to supplement their soda sales.
The sugar tax in the UK is a "sin tax," like alcohol and tobacco. We shouldn't be consuming too much sugar for our health anyway, so it makes it difficult to argue against. I really hope manufacturers don't simply replace sugar with other sweeteners, because those are equally detrimental to our health, if not more, just in other ways.
Ju curious: Were you by any chance born around or after 1980? 😉
I'm not saying that your first paragraph is inaccurate, in a "50,000 foot view" sense, but it has a kind of . . . foreshortening? . . . that sometimes happens when we talk about history that we weren't alive/adult during.
Also, just for fun:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p11 -
-
NorthCascades wrote: »I'm still waiting to hear about all the people who are only alive because of soda.
It would break my heart if the best argument against a soda tax was made up.
Why does the ability of something to save a life have any impact? It's obvious you are for the tax, but should we tax protein supplements, energy gels, or Gatorade?
Why does the ability of something to save a life have any impact? It's obvious you are for the tax, but should we tax protein supplements, energy gels, or Gatorade?
I think attributing rising obesity to technology oversimplifies things. Sure, it's a contributing factor, but at the same time soda consumption was decreasing, the soda manufacturers were busy developing and marketing sugary juices, teas, flavored waters, sports drinks, energy drinks, and other "head fake, healthier" alternatives to supplement their soda sales.
The sugar tax in the UK is a "sin tax," like alcohol and tobacco. We shouldn't be consuming too much sugar for our health anyway, so it makes it difficult to argue against. I really hope manufacturers don't simply replace sugar with other sweeteners, because those are equally detrimental to our health, if not more, just in other ways.
In the UK case, a great number of the soda types sold were reformulated before the tax deadline was reached. So certainly more other sweeteners come into the picture. I really don't see this as a problem, as used in moderation they aren't harmful. Similar to sugar really, but fewer calories.0 -
I think this is something that varies by person. Some studies suggest that people are less likely to have a satiety effect from liquid cals. I suspect some are that way, some are not.0 -
Ju curious: Were you by any chance born around or after 1980? 😉
No, I was born well before 1980. I lived through the sugar-free craze, the fat-free craze, and every other fad that has come and gone in the past 50 years. I feel that we're currently in the "processed, fake, healthy food" craze where manufacturers are putting "organic," "natural," "gluten-free," or "vegan" on processed foods to make us think they're somehow healthier than their conventional counterparts. I just try to stick with a majority of whole, unprocessed foods, and mostly cook from scratch at home.
A quick Google search finds many reports of negative side effects from consuming too much artificial sweetener. Some reports are anecdotal, I know, but the American Diabetes Association lists Splenda as a national sponsor on their website. So, of course they're never going to publish anything negative about Splenda. They also list several pharmaceutical companies as sponsors, so how motivated are they to help people get off of the medications their sponsors manufacture? That's just an example.
Personally, I try to avoid artificial sweeteners, and when I do have them, I try to choose stevia or something less "chemical." To each their own. I should probably just stay out of the debate topics, because my views aren't usually mainstream.
2 -
Personally, I try to avoid artificial sweeteners, and when I do have them, I try to choose stevia or something less "chemical."
Oddly enough, stevia is the only artificial sweetener that bothers me (causes heartburn), as well as being the only one where I notice a nasty aftertaste. It annoys me greatly that so many manufacturers are jumping on the "more natural" marketing angle and sticking stevia in their products, because that eliminates those as options for me.3 -
There is now talk here UK, of the sugar tax being applied to baked goods etc.0
-
Hearing this morning UK, the government is delaying the planned restriction on "buy two get one free" on, "unhealthy" foods. This governments strategy is stuttering.1
-
Processed Food: An Experiment That Failed - Robert Lustig, MD, MSL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djNScR4qAIc 0 -
I have to listen to many a rant from a certain friend (well, associate) who feels personally attacked because many of the options available in the supermarkets are sugar free.
He comes from a generation that had it drilled into them by big-sugar that aspartame is the devil.
Whilst it annoys me that people are so immersed in the propaganda that they aren't willing to try and see how sugar-free drinks might help them overall, I don't necessarily think that taxing sugar alone is enough. Essentially that just acts as a poverty tax - those that can afford will still buy and those that can't will become more resentful.
IMO, the better strategy is the government bringing out more education regards sugar-free alternatives and working to reverse the damage done by unregulated corporate giants, acting in their best interest to protect their shares.
Even then, true change happens through generations and will take longer than we may like to have any actual, quantifiable effects.0 -
Very interesting conversation. I believe that actions like "sugar taxes" only help politicians. It would be much more helpful if governments banned advertising of sugary products (like they did cigarettes) and did a lot of public service info sessions (on tv and billboards like they did for recognizing the early signs of a stroke FACE) explaining how these empty calories are very addictive and literally cause your brain to make you want more and more of them without ever giving you a feeling of satiety. They should discuss the scientific studies that go along with these findings. This would be much more effective in my humble opinion.0
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
- 426 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