The sugary drinks tax was recently confirmed in UK parliament by The Queen, and suddenly it’s become a reality for companies. Cue lashback.
Last week, the UK & Ireland Coca-Cola general manager Jon Woods wrote a scathing op-ed for The Telegraph, saying that the weight of tax would only be lost in consumer’s wallets.
The UK TaxPayer’s Alliance (TPA) also protested against the fact that milk-based drinks and café beverages would be exempt.
As for us? Well, a tax on sugary drinks (even if not milkshakes – yet!) is a solid stepping stone to greater awareness of and policy around sugar.
Not convinced? Here are Sarah’s answers to the five biggest challenges against a sugar tax, including the TPA’s.
1. “This is a discriminatory tax. All sugary drinks – nay, foods – should be targeted!”
With the UK Government currently recommending cereal over avocados, a holistic tax on sugar wouldn’t have got past the cutting room floor. Yet, a tax on even some sugary drinks is a means to more sophisticated policy.
“Soft drink is a low hanging fruit,” explains Sarah. “Few dispute that they are crappy contributions to life. Plus, liquid sugar is the most dangerous – it’s a large and fast dumping to the liver, which is what causes the health issues as the liver struggles to deal with such a large and fast injection.”
2. “But ‘sin taxes’ don’t work!”
Jon Woods says there is no evidence that a tax of soft drinks reduces obesity. But actually, the jury is out – and credible (i.e. not funded by Coca-Cola) organisations like the Obesity Policy Coalition estimate it could save thousands of lives and reduce heart attacks and strokes.
“Various studies show a 20 per cent hike in soft drink prices could slash consumption by up to 24 per cent, and case studies in France, Hungary and Mexico show such taxes do impact sales. Which will make the soda companies consider the amount of sugar they put in.”
3. “We should be targeting education.”
In England, sugar tax revenue has already been pledged to increasing school hours, breakfast clubs and sports programs. But the real beauty of the tax is that people are now looking twice at their sugar habits.
“I Quit Sugar readers and social media forums have raised concerns that we should direct funds and effort towards education on nutrition. But look what’s happened! This sugar tax debate has got the nation talking…and through this we all get educated. It’s a double boon.”
4. “Make healthy food cheaper instead!”
Well, tap water is cheaper than pop, and if the tax prompts people to choose the former, it’s doing its job. Nonetheless, we are petitioning for tax revenue to subsidise fresh fruit and veg if it is introduced in Australia.
“Indeed, 85 per cent of Australians support the idea of a soft drink tax if the revenue was used for programs to reduce childhood obesity and encourage children to play sports.”
5. “This is just another tax on the poor.”
The TPA is concerned that middle-class frappé drinkers will escape a sugar tax, while the poor will bear the brunt. But statistics show that a tax on soft drinks is right on target (disadvantaged areas have much higher levels of obesity and its related illnesses).
“Statistically, there is higher soft drink consumption in demographics of socioeconomic disadvantage, which may be why the poorer the area, the more rampant the sugar advertising.”
We’re keen to change this. If you agree, sign the I Quit Sugar petition for an Australian sugar tax at http://ift.tt/1Vrkqjx and spread the message by sharing and tagging your friends on social media.
Are you ready to transform your life and find food freedom?
Join our 8-Week Program today (and you could win lunch with Sarah!)
0 comments :
Post a Comment