Sugar tax a bitter pill for some to swallow
When John Pemberton introduced his new tonic drink at his local pharmacy in 1886, the claims were quite remarkable.
A cure for morphine addiction, indigestion, nerve disorders, headaches, and impotence, it seemed there were few things it couldn't do. And the name of this wholesome new health product? Coca-Cola.
Move forward 130 years, and the health profession's attitude towards soft drinks has changed somewhat. Last week the Government published draft legislation which effectively gives the industry 16 months to change the recipes of its drinks – or face a hefty new tax.
The striking thing about the proposed new sugar tax, which is set to come into force in April 2018, is that it is solely focused on fizzy pop.
While sweets, chocolates and breakfast cereals have all come under fire for their high sugar content, they will also escape censure under the new proposals.
The Government is proposing a two-band levy for soft drinks. Drinks which contain more than five grams of sugar per 100ml – just over an ounce per pint – will be subject to a tax of 18p per litre. This rises to 24p a litre for drinks containing more than eight grams per 100ml.
As things stand, the new law would add 8p to the price of a 330ml can of full-strength Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Lucozade Energy and Irn-Bru. The lower rate would catch drinks such as Dr Pepper, Fanta, Sprite, Schweppes Indian tonic water and alcohol-free shandy.
The tax will be imposed on companies according to the volume of the sugar-sweetened drinks they produce or import.
Pure fruit juices and milk-based drinks will be excluded and the smallest producers will have an exemption from the scheme.
The new law will bring Britain into line with other countries such as Belgium, France, Hungary and Mexico, all of which have imposed some form of tax on drinks with added sugar.
But why is it the fizzy drinks industry which is being singled out for special treatment? Part of the reason is the exceptionally high sugar content which many of these products contain. Public Health England recommends that people should not consume more than 30 grams of sugar a day, equivalent to six spoonfuls.
But the other concern is that, unlike a chocolate bar or slice of cake, they are not automatically seen as a treat. People who drink them tend to have them every day.
For teenagers they are the number one source of sugar intake, and for children of all ages they account for a third of their daily sugar intake.
They have also been dubbed "empty calories" by dieticians, who say they have no nutritional benefit.
The issue is particularly acute in Shropshire. Earlier this year, it was revealed that Telford & Wrekin was ranked as the sixth worst place in the UK for obesity, with 32 per cent of the population said to be clinically overweight, and many suffering type two diabetes.
The rest of Shropshire fared a little better, with 23 per cent of people suffering from obesity.
Bariatric consultant at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, John Loy, is hopeful that the sugar tax will benefit the public. "With the epidemic rise in type two diabetes due to obesity, we must look at the reasons for this," he says.
"Obesity-related diseases are now causing more deaths than smoking-related diseases and this cannot be ignored. In my view sugar is the new tobacco."
Telford-based Dr Faraaz Bhatti said he is "quietly supportive" of the tax, but also sceptical about whether it will in itself achieve the desired goal.
"Will it tackle the nation's obesity crisis? I am sceptical, however, the intention seems to be good," he says.
Soft-drink manufacturers point out that they also produce drinks, such as Coca-Cola Zero Sugar and Pepsi Max cherry, which have little or no added sugar, and these will not be subject to the tax.
The draft laws have been published by HM Revenue & Customs as part of an overview of legislative changes to tax law the Government plans to introduce in its finance bill for 2017.
It is expected that the tax will raise £520 million a year.
However, the move has come under fire from the Taxpayers Alliance, which says it will hit low-income families hardest, and questioned whether it will raise the revenue the Government claimed.
