Sugar Tax – Positive Action or Nanny State?
Yesterday saw the arrival of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy, also known as the Sugar Tax, which has been marketed as a tax to encourage drinks manufacturers to reduce the amount of sugar in drinks, with the aim of reducing childhood obesity. The UK is currently one of the worst countries in Europe for it’s levels of overweight or obese children, and in England alone – 1/3 children are obese or overweight when leaving primary school. Research has shown that 80% of people who are obese in their early teens go on to become obese adults.
By adding on a tax to drinks which are high in sugar, the Sugar Tax aims to encourage families to make healthier choices and drink sugar free or reduced sugar alternatives. It clearly is having some impact, as since the Levy was first announced in 2016, 50% of manufacturers have reduced their sugar content – leading to a reduction of 45million kg of sugar every year. Those who continue to have over a specified % of sugar in their products will incur the Sugar Tax, or a increased price as a result.
The levy is expected to raise 240 million pounds a year, which will be used to double the primary schools sports premium, enable schools to purchase top quality sports and PE equipment, and provide a funding boost for breakfast clubs.
Whilst I completely understand the concerns around the amount of sugar our children are consuming, I can also understand some of the concerns around the levy. For me, it feels like again we are missing the bigger picture, and that whilst the money is being used to fund useful initiatives, I feel it would be far better to focus on prevention rather than repairing the damage – e.g. education and initiatives to encourage healthy choices in the first instance, rather than charging people for their bad habits on the pretence that its helping manage a problem.
Firstly, and perhaps the element that concerns me most is that some sugar, in moderation, is potentially better for you in the long run than the processed sweeteners and artificial sugars which may inevitably start being used as a result. Artificial sweeteners are just that – artificial, fake and processed. Aspartame for example, is commonly used as a sweetener in Diet or Low Calorie drink options but has been one of the most controversial sweeteners used in the UK in decades, with many researchers claiming it increases the risk of cancer (thought this has not been proven).
There are also many people, particularly those with the health condition PKU, who are unable to have artificial sweeteners, and as such, by encouraging manufacturers to use more of these, they are limiting the choice of drinks available to these individuals. My sisters partner is also type one diabetic, and clearly there are times when a quick way to manage a hypo is to find a quick source of sugar to manage his symptoms. Removing choice from those who should be able to make their own decisions, or making them pay more for the benefit seems a little harsh.
Ribena has faced a bit of a backlash this week, with resulting changes to their recipe being described as disgusting, where as Coca Cola have explicitly stated that they will not be changing their recipe, and that people should be free to choose the Classic Coca Cola if they wish, but that Diet Coke and Coke Zero are both available as alternatives.
As someone who used to have a major Coca Cola addiction (caffeine in itself is evil!!) I can honestly say that I knew it wasn’t good for me, I knew it wasn’t a healthy choice of drink, however I continued to drink multiple cans a day. A tax on the drink or increase in price for the benefit, would not have stopped me from drinking it, it would have simply cost me more money to do so.
For me, it seems a little unfair to remove choice from those who are able to drink them in moderation, in order to protect those who buy it in the excess.
What are you thoughts on the Sugar Levy? Do you think it’s a step in the right direction?
