Tax on sugary drinks

[))Denise((]

In the news articles on the main site there is a report that increasing the tax on sugary drinks in the US would decrease the number of people with Type 2 http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2012/Jan ... 16702.html

As someone who doesn't drink tea or coffee, sweet sugary drinks were my drink of choice before diagnosis, at one point I was drinking about 8 litres a week.

Did this cause my diabetes? I'd say, probably yes.
Would having to pay more tax on the drinks made any difference to how many I drank? I'd say, probably no.

Anyone else have an addiction to sweet sugary drinks before diagnosis?

 

[pianoman]

I have mixed feelings regrading the use of taxes to coerce behaviour -- especially when the science is still undecided as to what constitutes an healthy diet.

But in the USA (at least) there does seem to be some need to redress an imbalance; where massive subsidies are paid to farmers to grow corn (maize)*. Corn costs significantly more to grow than it sells for on the open market, and yet they are growing a massive surplus. The beneficiaries of this arrangement are not the farmers, but those who make and use HFCS as cheap filler in everything from soft drinks to hot dog buns. This is why it is cheaper to buy a 2 litre bottle of soda than some fruit, for example. The soda can be "cheap" to the consumer (until you factor in the health costs) but still highly profitable for the manufacturer.

So there is no real need to tax the soda... simply remove the subsidies, or redirect them to allow farmers to grow more wholesome food, at reasonable prices.

*The documentary "King Corn" examines this situation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiCRwMMh9k8

 

[Sid Bonkers]

A tax on sugary drinks would have absolutely no effect on the amount consumed unless the tax was in the region of 5000% + .

Work it out if a canned drink is what, 50p and a tax of 20% is added then that can is going to cost 60p, would that make anyone think oh, I think ill have a healthier option? :lol: :lol:

 

[noblehead]

You only have to look at the tax on cigarettes and the price people pay for a pack of 20 to see it doesn't work.

 

[phoenix]

I don't think it is necessarily a problem of sweetened drinlks. The US has increased their overall sugar intake and much of that rise is from beverages (many containing high fructose syrup) but this doesn't apply in either Australia or the UK, but they have similar problems to the US.
In both countres the consumption of added sugars has fallen (( from 1980-2003 by 16% in Australia and 5 in the UK.)In Australia , children's consumption of sugar laden drinks has halved over the last decade.
What has risen in Australia (and I suspect in the UK) is the proportion of calories from chocolate, cakes and cookies, pizza and packet chips(crisps). These are all high density foods.. lots of calories from a mixture of fat and carbohydrates.
A tax on industrial junk foods might be better but this would really hurt some with low incomes who, wisely or not, rely on these products. Ideally it would be better if the tax gained were used to subsidise fresh produce. ( but how?)
Education must be important, but most people actually know that these things shouldn't form the basis of their diet. Can there be anyone who hasn't heard of Jamie Oliver and his crusade against processed foods?