The debate around sugar is going to dominate the agenda today with a major move overnight by the UK who have announced a sugar tax on soft drinks and the prediction is that Australia will be seeing one too in the not too distant future.
The tax was announced by the British Chancellor George Osborne in his budget. He told parliament it was a long-term plan for the nation’s children.
“No matter how difficult and how controversial it is, you cannot have a long-term plan for the country unless you have a long-term plan for our children’s health care.”
He said it was difficult decision but they needed to tackle it.
“I am not prepared to look back at my time here in this Parliament, doing this job and say to my children’s generation… I’m sorry. We knew there was a problem with sugary drinks. We knew it caused disease. But we ducked the difficult decisions and we did nothing,” he told the House of Commons.
Those products facing the highest charge include regular Coke, Red Bull, 7up, Ginger beer, Tonic Water, Lucozade Energy, Irn Bru (a Scottish carbonated drink) and Strawberry Ribena.
( Sorry kids..)
The tax will be levied on the volume of the sugar-sweetened drinks companies produce or import and applied to the producers.
The Office for Budget Responsibility said it could result in a “pretty substantial price rise” on products – as much as 80% on a two-litre bottle of cola.
Drinks with more than 8 grams of sugar per 100 milliliters will be taxed at a higher rate than drinks with less than 5 grams of sugar per 100 milliliters.
Mamamia reveals how much sugar is in your favourite drinks. Post continues below.
Controversially “pure fruit juices” and milkshakes or milk drinks such as sugary coffees will not be subject to the sugar-levy.
But in a move that has shocked the British to the core the humble Gin and Tonic will..
Celebrity Chef Jamie Oliver reacted to the British Government’s move to introduce the sugar-levy from 2018 by writing on social media:
We did it guys !!we did it !!! A sugar levy on sugary sweetened drinks ……,”
“A profound move that will ripple around the world ….business can not come between our Kids health !!”
Oliver told Sky News that he believed the tax would be copied in countries such as Australia.
“Surprisingly and fascinatingly we’ve seen Mr Osborne come out with a bold, brave tax…I’m shocked but in all the right ways, I’m humbled actually,” he said.
“This will travel right around the world, to Canada, to Australia,” he said.
Some though found Oliver’s joy distasteful saying the tax was going to only hurt the poor.
But is Jamie Oliver right? Will it come to Australia?
Fairfax Media reports that other countries do have a similar tax – Scandinavian countries, Hungary, Mexico and France, Chile, the Californian city of Berkeley and Dominica. Denmark introduced a soft drink tax and a fat tax, reports The Sydney Morning Herald and then repealed them saying they didn’t work after public pressure.
In Mexico though the tax has had success.
Mexico introduced a 10 per cent “soda” tax a year ago and the levy has cut purchases by an average of 6 per cent.
The effect was greatest on lower-income households, according to the Mexican National Institute of Public Health and the University of North Carolina.
In Australians we consume 1.28 billion litres of soft drink annually and our obesity levels are skyrocketing, but despite concerns over our health overwhelmingly it seems we don’t support a similar style tax.
In 2014 a poll commissioned by the Australian Beverages Council found that two-thirds of Australians feel a tax on soft drinks would be ineffective in reducing obesity and the majority of those surveyed were against the introduction of such a tax.
Last year the Heart Foundation said in a submission to the government’s tax review that a 20 per cent tax to sugar-sweetened beverages could reduce consumption by 24 per cent.
But Australian Beverages Council chief Geoff Parker said introducing such a policy to Australia would achieve little.
“Soft drinks are not the root cause of obesity. “ he told News Limited.
“In Australia only 1.8 per cent of the daily intake of kilojoules for adults comes from soft drinks and in fact the amount of sugar consumed through soft drinks has dropped while obesity continues to rise,” he said.
“A tax on soft drinks would do little to reduce obesity and will only hit Australian families where it hurts most – their pockets,” Mr Parker said.
Top Comments
Is it really the 'obvious foods' like chocolate, soft drink and lollies we need to be told has huge amounts of sugar in them? Surely people are clever enough to work that one out for themselves. What about the immense amounts of hidden sugar in items such as pasta sauce, childrens yogurts and sauces and dressings. Why won't the government help consumers to make quick healthy choices while doing their grocery shop through a system such as the traffic light system which was touted years back but got squashed yet again by big manufacturers because heaven forbid we all find out the countless teaspoons of sugar hiding in the supposed low fat or children's yoghurts? So a tax gets introduced toevery can of soft drink containing more sugar than the government maximum amount. Won't the soft drink companies just reduce the sugar amount slightly to get under the government mandated amount...which will still be crap for you but allow them to dodge the tax? Or the other classic, just reduce the packaging size but keep the same sugar level. These companies are not going to just accept this tax on their products. They will lobby the government and get crafty to dodge it. But in the mean time doing your grocery shop and buying reasonably healthy packaged foods at the supermarket remains an exercise in science and reading and understanding food labelling.
Most Australians are educated enough to read food labelling without the need for more Government interference in our lives. People need to accept responsibility for their own decisions without expecting Governments to 'fix' every problem.
I don't know very much about the traffic light system but companies have introduced a 5 start healthy food rating. However when i look at some of the foods that have 4 stars i can't work or how they rate the foods. They are often highly processed and are very sweet. I read the labels and there isn't much sugar or salt but the food is very sweet. I avoid them add i just don't trust this system and it makes me cynical about any other rating systems.
I have a friend whose daughter is fructose intolerant. She is very educated about food labels and even she makes mistakes sometimes. My husband was in a rush and bought some cereal that was 4 star health rating for the kids and when we tasted it, it was incredibly sweet. I still don't know what made it taste so sweet. You often rely on these star ratings so upy can get out of shops faster but they can be very deceptive. One popular cereal has 2.5 teaspoons of sugar per 100gms but has a 4 star rating? Food labels are not always that easy to read. And it is difficult working out what is considered high or low amounts.
I agree with this tax and then going further, with a market presence limit put on sugary foods. I should not be able to buy Cadbury chocolate when I get a prescription filled, buy stamps or a newspaper, am at the checkout, from children's school fundraisers or when I get petrol. Greedy food giants - stop marketing us to death with your poison!!!!!!
Perhaps you'd like to see the government setting all our diets and issuing us a ration card to be used at stores to obtain our allocated food?
Why should we trust adults to make their own decisions about what to eat?
You could always say no.
I think the Anon has a point. Yes I know it's convenient to be able to pick up some chocolate whilst out shopping for other things, and maybe the newsagency should be an exception, but really a chemist is supposed to somewhere you go for your health, so considering some people may be struggling with diabetes etc and they have to go to their chemist to get their prescription surely they shouldn't then be subjected to chocolate at the counter. Let's put it into perspective you wouldn't find a GP's reception area with chocolate/coke/cigarettes on display to buy. Yes occassionally you see this kind of thing at a hospital but that has got more to do with the fact that people might be in a huge wait and need to have a drink or snack, but you certainly wouldn't even see that at the counter when you check in.
Also my pet hate is petrol, I go to get petrol and not only do they have the chocolates right there at the counter but they hassle you about it, and say do you want a... whatever bar, they won't even process your payment till you say yes or no. I mean if I wanted one obviously I would have put it on the counter in the first place. I actually specifically go to a petrol station that doesn't ask this (though the chocolates are on the counter there too) so the rest of them don't get my business. Because here is the thing I never give into that pressure but I often want the chocolate bar when they ask, if I take it i feel depressed that I gave into it and am now eating something unhealthy, but even the majority of times I say not to it it makes me a bit depressed because then I am driving away thinking how yummy that would be. After all like many people I am addicted to sweets, I just choose not to give into my addiction on the majority of occassions, but it isn't easy, so I don't need someone encouraging me to do it.
Yes fine you can have chocolate maybe somewhere else but not within viewing distance of the counter of petrol stations and chemists. This means that those who impulse buy won't be tempted, but on the other hand those who have gone their purely for the chocolate bar will be able to find it. In particular chemists should not sell this stuff, becuase there are usually other places nearby, e.g. supermarkets etc that sell these things, whereas I guess with petrol stations often these are the only things open nearby or late at night so I think they should be able to sell some junk still as long as it is not near the counter. But chemists remit should be health only. In actual fact I believe we should get rid of chemists altogether and just do the prescriptions at supermarkets. I am so sick of some chemist asking me a million personal questions when others are in a queue with me when all I want to do is get my prescription filled. If I wanted expert medical advice I would ask the doctor, you know in his private office with the door shut. I hate the invasion of privacy at the chemist, and in any case I have already discussed my medical condition with the doctor I am not looking for the chemist's unasked for input.
Pharmacists are experts in medications, Dr's are not. A pharmacist who takes the time to ensure you are full informed and that the medication being dispensed is appropriate is a good pharmacist. I have a life threatening penicillin allergy, and a pharmacist potentially saved my life by asking questions and refusing to dispense a non penicillin antibiotic that was chemically similar enough to penicillin to have killed me. It wasn't listed as penicillin, but a pharmacist who understood the chemistry was able to foresee and prevent an adverse outcome.
I don't understand how you can argue that businesses should modify to accommodate your poor impulse control, essentially "protecting you from yourself" but qualified expert health professionals should fail to exercise their professional duty of care.