• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2026 Survey »

Sugar Tax - Failed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Member496333
  • Start Date Start Date
M

Member496333

Guest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49768817

If I'm reading this article correctly, it appears that the sugar taken out of beverages has simply been moved into 'food' plus a bit more for good measure. An accident?

No matter the reason, according to the article, sugar consumption has increased since the introduction of the levy on sugary drinks. Yet another public health failure. Anyone surprised?
 
Not at all surprised - having worked for a food processing company in the research and development department I know that many firms must have long established contracts with suppliers, where there are land purchases, investment in machinery, staff recruitment and policy decisions all resting on the fact that they have a buyer for their products.
A company cannot reduce output of what they have had in the pipeline for years - possibly even decades, and manufacturers cannot turn around and refuse to honour their agreements. The sugar had to go somewhere, and if not into drinks then into the foods which the same firm produces.
 
I think the food industry's job is to make profits and the current model is to turn cheap starch and sugar into volume sales driven by convenience and addiction plus mass marketing. The sugar tax signaled that some effort had to be made or shown to be made in the form of 'reduced sugar' lines or smaller products but now we have a PM who is anti 'nanny state' and sin taxes which is a signal to the food manufacturers that he is not going to give PHE any legislative teeth to reduce sugar globally rather than in drinks. Until there is a global reduction of sugar, surely there is no reason for manufacturers to change their efficient production and buying processes.
 

Agreed. It's capitalism at work and entirely expected. I just find it mildly amusing that, allegedly, sugar consumption has increased as a result of a measure that was meant to reduce it. I was never in favour of a "sugar tax" anyway. I believe in education and personal responsibility over legislation and bullying. Taxing sugar in processed foods isn't the answer to the world's health crisis. The answer is not eating processed foods.
 
The article is saying that sugar tax appears to have been successful in reducing the intake of sugar from soft drinks:-
'Sales of soft drinks increased between 2015 and 2018, but shifted towards low- or zero-sugar versions.

It works out as more than 30,000 tonnes less sugar - 5 billion fewer calories - being sold in such drinks each year.'
​
Although sugar consumption in food has increased by 0.5%, that can't be considered as a failure of the sugar tax as there is no sugar tax on food.
 
Dark Horse said:
Although sugar consumption in food has increased by 0.5%, that can't be considered as a failure of the sugar tax as there is no sugar tax on food.
Click to expand...

Probably a matter of perspective, but personally I think any sugar taxation measure that results in increased sugar consumption is a failure. This one was just kicking the can down the road. But I'm biased because, as I said above, I was largely opposed in the first place.
 
The sugar tax's only good point was to highlight to Josephine and Joe public that something is wrong with sugar.

As the tax did not cover all sugars, substitutes and starch based products (I purposefully do not use the word food) it would always fail.

The tax should have educated the public fully about blood sugar / insulin / relationships to disease. Another clear fail as demonstrated by the marches yesterday when our best people (children) did not realise that they were marching not only as they think to save the world, but for even a higher degree of processed sugar and starch items (by the back door).
 
I want to see sugar tax carried over to food too. It’s a start. Education is indeed necessary but like with many other things it is not enough.
 
Last edited:
Listlad said:
It’s a start.
Click to expand...

No.. it's a continuation of the nanny state telling us all what we should be eating..

If you wish to sub-contract your health to "authority" then fine but please don't ever assume we all do.

The Eatwell Guide has been such a "resounding success" in that regard.
 
It will come whether you object or not.
 

NEVER give any government an excuse to tax you because the money will NEVER completely be directed to the problem.
 

Agreed. The answer is to make one's own food, instead of relying on a corporation to do it for you under the watchful eye of 'The Government". Of course everyone these days has a reason why they don't have the time to cook an egg, but nevertheless.

We can keep kicking the can down the road, but what's next? Wait another forty years for toxic seed oils to be taxed as well? Eat food instead of products, and the problem goes away overnight. This is the correct message. Taxing ingredients left right & centre merely enforces the notion that we should let other people make our food.
 
Mike D said:
NEVER give any government an excuse to tax you because the money will NEVER completely be directed to the problem.
Click to expand...
I am a great believer in taxation as a means of redistributing income, ploughing back profits from industry into the hands of national population and communities and as a means of pushing through good policy including health policy. Are you?

The money raised could be ploughed back into the NHS for example and maybe spent educating our GP’s and health care workers where needed.
 
Listlad said:
I am a great believer in taxation as a means of redistributing income, ploughing back profits from industry into the hands national population and communities and as a means of pushing through good policy including health policy. Are you?
Click to expand...

A fine socialist principal I'm sure...
However in the real world show me a recent govt that has done anything like that?
 
You don't know what the increase in sugar consumption would have been if the sugar tax hadn't been implemented. It might have been much higher.

Taxing has reduced the consumption of sugar in those products which were affected by the sugar tax. What hasn't worked is the voluntary reduction in sugar in foods not affected by the sugar tax. Some people might argue that the sugar tax should be extended to those foods.
 
bulkbiker said:
A fine socialist principal I'm sure...
However in the real world show me a recent govt that has done anything like that?
Click to expand...
... embryonic derailing.

Suffice to say there good examples out there both at home and abroad.
 
If we stopped perpetuating the idea that humans should eat potions boiled up in government controlled industrial cauldrons, we wouldn’t need to plough so much money into the NHS in order to treat the consequences. Chicken & egg? Pun intended
 

I'm not at all with regard to your first point, just on principle and secondly, I'm Australian with nothing more than a passing interest in the NHS.
 
Mike D said:
I'm not at all with regard to your first point, just on principle and secondly, I'm Australian with nothing more than a passing interest in the NHS.
Click to expand...
Same here. I have only a passing interest in fiscal policy in Australia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…