{"id":1248,"date":"2018-04-06T18:11:14","date_gmt":"2018-04-06T17:11:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/insulean.co.uk\/?p=1248"},"modified":"2018-11-20T16:09:50","modified_gmt":"2018-11-20T16:09:50","slug":"sugar-tax-soft-drinks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.insulean.co.uk\/sugar-tax-soft-drinks\/","title":{"rendered":"SUGAR TAX on Soft Drinks | Not Radical Enough | Insulean"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

After years of campaigning, the \u2018groundbreaking\u2019 sugar tax on soft drinks has finally started. Soft drink manufacturers will have to pay a levy<\/a><\/span> on the sugary drinks they sell. The tax burden lays squarely on them. Whether or not they pass this extra cost on to retailers and consumers is up to them. They almost certainly will – these are \u2018for profit\u2019 companies after all.<\/span><\/h6>\n

 <\/p>\n

The New Sugar Tax<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Plans to introduce the sugar tax were announced by the former Chancellor, George Osborne, in his March 2016 budget. This was met with fierce opposition from an army of campaigners, including Big Food. They cited an economic fallout, following potential job losses, as well as a lack of evidence that it would make an appreciable dent in the obesity crisis. Proponents of the tax argued strongly that there would be an impact on soft drink intake because consumers would respond negatively to the price hike.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Not Groundbreaking<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u2018Groundbreaking\u2019? No. No need for hyperbole. Groundbreaking would be taxing every single processed food that contains more than a teaspoon of sugar per serving. Groundbreaking would be ensuring that natural fat, that was stripped from our food and replaced with sugar and additives, be brought back by law. Ground-breaking would mean that a packet of Haribo sweets would now cost \u00a320. Yes, \u00a320. By comparison, a can of non-diet soda will now cost us an extra 10p. 20p at most. Not ground-breaking by my standards, but surely better than nothing and almost certainly a step in the right direction.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nanny State<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Many critics claim that this is a result of a ‘Nanny State’. Nonsense. Walk into any acute NHS Hospital and observe how chronic metabolic disease is crippling our health service. Observe the lives and limbs that are lost to diabetes. The amount of sugar and highly processed carbohydrates we are consuming as a nation, has significantly contributed to an explosion of lifestyle diseases, that have already<\/strong> brought our health service to its knees. Diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes, fatty liver disease, many cancers, and fertility problems are what us doctors are treating now. On an hourly basis. Lifestyle diseases. Diseases of modernity. <\/span><\/p>\n

Talk of a \u2018Big Brother\u2019 state is selfish and immature. You can no longer have your cake and eat it \u2013 literally and figuratively speaking. We are already sicker and fatter than we have ever been. That ship sailed a long time ago. We need to be thinking about reversing these diseases, by addressing the root causes – our diet and lifestyles.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

How Industry Responded<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

You may or may not notice the resultant price increase of your preferred soft drink. It will cost a few pence more, perhaps 10-20p more. The collective revenue, forecast to be circa \u00a3240 million pounds in 2018-2019, is less than half of what the Treasury was expecting. This is because the manufacturers found ways to slash the amount of sugar in many of their products, so as to avoid paying the tax.<\/span><\/p>\n

Industry responded as they always do – beat them or join them. There must have been intense lobbying to delay or stop the implementation of the new tax. There were countless attempts to downplay the role of sugar in causing disease \u2013 by discrediting active anti-sugar campaign groups. The tax pushed ahead regardless. By early 2018, half of the manufacturers had slashed the sugar content of several of their biggest brands. Some increased their prices, while others opted to reduce the size of the bottles, to limit the price rise.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Scotland, Irn Bru –\u00a0 a soft drink that has achieved near cult status, has had its sugar content cut by more than half – from 7 teaspoons of sugar per 330ml can, to just 3 teaspoons, despite huge consumer backlash. The \u2018\u2019Hands off our Irn Bru\u2019\u2019 petition attracted over 6000 signatures, with fans stockpiling the soft drink, ahead of the planned change in the recipe. It is worth noting that Scottish<\/span><\/a> children have among the poorest health in Western Europe. Lucozade, Ribena, and Fanta are also among the \u2018victims\u2019. Supermarkets have also reformulated their own-brand sweetened drinks, so as to come in below the threshold for the levy.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Doing it for the Children<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

The sugar tax was pushed forward following concerns about the number of sugary drinks that our children, teenagers, in particular, are consuming. This was done primarily to benefit their health, with the revenue generated being channeled toward school sports programmes and breakfast clubs.<\/span><\/p>\n

“Our teenagers consume nearly a bathtub<\/strong> of sugary drinks each year on average, fuelling a worrying obesity trend\u2019\u2019 <\/em>Steve Brine – Public Health Minister. (emphasis mine)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is no doubt that sugary drinks are the worst offenders when it comes to unhealthy food. They overload the body with an enormous amount of readily available sugar, that we are unable to process safely. These liquid sugar bombs wreak havoc on our weight-regulating hormones, fattening our internal organs first, then the rest of us – \u00a0if consumed frequently enough. The risk of developing Type 2 diabetes is 26% higher if you consume one or more sugary drinks each day. Recall that the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends no more than 6 teaspoons of added sugar a day<\/strong>, to prevent disease. A single can of cola contains 30g of sugar (7 teaspoons). This war has already been lost, long before it\u2019s even started.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Sugary

Sugary drinks | INSULEAN<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Small Print<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

It is interesting to note that pure fruit juices and drinks that contain a high amount of milk will be exempt from the levy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Pure fruit juices do not contain added sugar, but they certainly contain sugar. Fructose is sugar. Glucose is sugar. Once you squeeze the life out of apples to make apple juice, you end up with a concentrated sugar bomb. Below is an extract from my scathing article on the rising trend of\u00a0juicing<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Take a look at the nutritional breakdown of a can of Coca-Cola (330mls) and a typical apple juice (300mls)<\/span><\/p>\n