TOPIC GUIDE: Sugar
"The UK should introduce a levy on sugary drinks"
PUBLISHED: 29 Jan 2016
AUTHOR: Anwar Oduro-Kwarteng
Share this Topic Guide:
Amid new advice from the World Health Organisation (WHO), which recommends that we halve our daily sugar intake to 5% of total calories consumed per day [Ref: BBC News], celebrity chef Jamie Oliver made headlines last summer when he publically called for a levy on sugary drinks in the UK. He argued such a tax would be “deeply symbolic”, and would go some way towards helping to alleviate childhood obesity in the UK [Ref: BBC News]. Although the government has so far resisted calls for a sugar tax, debate about how to deal with the cost of lifestyle illnesses, such as type 2 diabetes in children and adults, has polarised opinion. For some, the idea of a sugar tax makes perfect sense and, whilst difficult to implement, would “mark official recognition of growing global concern about the impact of sugar on the widening obesity epidemic” [Ref: Guardian]. Similarly, columnist Janet Street-Porter argues that: “When it comes to taxing sugar, I wish politicians would stop worrying about the nanny state and – just for once – be bold and brave. A tax on drinks would be a start.” [Ref: Independent] Others though are wary of the UK government attempting to intervene in our choices, with writer Alex Deane bemoaning the “paternalism” of the proposal to tax sugary products, describing it as being “hugely patronising” [Ref: Telegraph]. But this discussion is about more than just sugar – critics and supporters are contesting the limits of government action on influencing behaviour, and are at odds about where responsibility for lifestyle choices should rest – does government have a responsibility to intervene to change behaviour, or should it be left to individuals to make their own decisions? Should the UK implement a levy to protect children and young people from too much sugar? Or is a sugar tax a blunt instrument, ill-equipped to deal with the complexity of the obesity crisis in the UK?
DEBATE IN CONTEXT
This section provides a summary of the key issues in the debate, set in the context of recent discussions and the competing positions that have been adopted.
Why sugar, why now?
Public Health England released a controversial study in the autumn in which it outlined the dangers of consuming too much sugar and, among other measures, recommended the government introduce a tax or levy of 10-20% on sugary products to deal with obesity related illness [Ref: Guardian]. Sugar tax supporter Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, Chair of the Parliamentary Health Committee, underlines that “there is no time to lose”, and that the government has a responsibility to be “bold and brave” on childhood obesity, because a quarter of the most disadvantaged children in the country are obese by the time they leave primary school [Ref: Guardian]. Moreover, Jamie Oliver claims that introducing a levy of 20p per litre on soft drinks containing added sugar (equating to 7p on a 330ml can), “could have a significant impact on health in the UK, reducing sugary drink consumption by possibly 15%”, as well as raising up to £1bn per year in revenue [Ref: Daily Mail]. But the evidence itself is disputed, and statistics cited by critics argue that it is not a higher sugar intake that has caused the increase in obesity rates, because “per capita sugar consumption has fallen by 16% since 1992” [Ref: Institute of Economic Affairs].
What are the arguments for a sugar tax?
For scientist Robert Lustig, the case for a sugar tax is self-evident. He observes that: “Almost half of our daily consumption is in sugared beverages. The iron law of public health states that reducing the availability of a substance reduces its consumption, which reduces harms” [Ref: Guardian]. Jamie Oliver, along with many advocates of a sugar tax, stresses the effect that sugar has on the health of children - citing evidence that as many as 26,000 primary school children have to visit the hospital every year to have their rotten teeth taken out [Ref: Daily Mail]. And that’s in addition, supporters argue, to the 7000 amputations due to type 2 diabetes, and the £9 billion per year that the NHS spends treating these obesity related illnesses more generally [Ref: Daily Mail]. If the UK were to adopt a form of taxation on sugary drinks, proponents claim, it would not be the first country to do so. In January 2014, Mexico, which has one of the most overweight populations in the world, introduced a soda tax of 10% on all sugar sweetened drinks in a bid to reduce obesity related illness. Initial research suggests that the effect of the tax has been to decrease sugary drink consumption by an average of 6% by the end of 2014 [Ref: Time]. Furthermore, recent polling claims that 80% of Mexicans now link excessive amounts of fizzy drink with diabetes – prompting writer Alice Thompson to conclude that the Mexican sugar tax, “has sent out a vital message.” [Ref: The Times] Ultimately, supporters of a sugar tax in the UK argue that alongside improved labelling and industry regulation, it would be a crucial tool to help reconfigure consumer behaviour for the better, in the same way that: “Government intervention on smoking, done with incremental bans and restrictions, has transformed public health” [Ref: Guardian]. Professor Julian Hamilton-Shield agrees, declaring that: “No one can really doubt the harm sugar containing drinks do to children: they rot their teeth and likely make them obese and at risk of later type 2 diabetes. If a tax is needed to reduce sugar consumption, I am right behind it. No one complains about tobacco taxation: sugar should be treated in the same way.” [Ref: Daily Mail]
What are the arguments against a sugar tax?
Much of the criticism of a UK sugar tax centres on concerns about government intervention in the area of public health. For critics, personal choice is key, and as one Telegraph opinion piece argues: “The solution to the sugar crisis lies in personal responsibility. If someone is eating or drinking more sugar than they should, they ought to stop.” [Ref: Telegraph] Opponents of a sugar tax also suggest that singling out one food group, in this case sugar, fails to acknowledge the complexity of obesity, and as Fiona Hunter observes, “issues around nutrition are never black and white….there is no such thing as healthy and unhealthy foods, only healthy and unhealthy diets.” [Ref: Spectator] Other critics place an emphasis on alternatives to a tax, such as more exercise, with Professor Richard Tiffin suggesting that, “our expanding national waistline reflects rising levels of inactivity and sedentary occupations more than poor diet.” [Ref: Telegraph] More broadly critics focus on the ineffectiveness of so called ‘sin taxes’ on changing consumer behaviour. Campaigner Christopher Snowden uses the example of the failed Danish ‘Fax tax’ which was levied on all food products which contained more than 2.3% saturated fat, and was rescinded after little over a year [Ref: BBC News]. He observes that the policy failed because people found ways of obtaining fatty foods regardless of the tax, by purchasing them abroad for less money, shopping at cheaper food stores, or by simply paying more for the products – resulting in the tax having little or no observable effect on obesity rates, and ultimately becoming a symbol of “well-meaning government folly.” [Ref: Spectator] Another point of contention in the debate is the disproportionate effect sin taxes have on less well-off members of society, with critic Ruby Lott-Lavigna stating that “the sugar tax will just be a tax on the poor.” [Ref: New Statesman] Other products such as chocolates, sports drinks and soft drinks are already subject to a 20% VAT rate, unlike most other foodstuffs [Ref: Telegraph], and as such a levy on sugary drinks would be a double tax, again hurting the poor the hardest.
It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Students will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading.
Robert Lustig Guardian 27 October 2015
Janet Street-Porter Independent 23 October 2015
Jamie Oliver Daily Mail 22 October 2015
Alice Thompson The Times 4 September 2015
Linda Tirado Guardian 1 December 2015
Alex Deane Telegraph 22 October 2015
Telegraph 13 July 2015
Christopher Snowden Spectator 22 May 2015
Tina Rosenberg Guardian 3 November 2015
Christopher Snowden Institute of Economic Affairs August 2014
Definitions of key concepts that are crucial for understanding the topic. Students should be familiar with these terms and the different ways in which they are used and interpreted and should be prepared to explain their significance.
Useful websites and materials that provide a good starting point for research.
Sir Liam Donaldson The Times 5 January 2016
Chris Askew Independent 30 November 2015
Sarah Wollaston Guardian 30 November 2015
Rod Liddle The Sun 28 October 2015
Joseph Thorndike Forbes 26 October 2015
Telegraph 23 October 2015
Ian Wright Guardian 23 October 2015
Ruby Lott-Lavigna New Statesman 23 October 2015
The Times 22 October 2015
Fiona Hunter Spectator 22 October 2015
The Week 21 October 2015
Carole Malone Daily Mirror 21 October 2015
Gaby Hinsliff Guardian 3 September 2015
Guardian 15 July 2015
Lizzie Wade Wired 13 July 2015
Christopher Snowden Cato Unbound 12 January 2015
Richard Tiffin Telegraph 26 June 2014
Links to organisations, campaign groups and official bodies who are referenced within the Topic Guide or which will be of use in providing additional research information.
IN THE NEWS
Relevant recent news stories from a variety of sources, which ensure students have an up to date awareness of the state of the debate.
Guardian 25 January 2016
BBC News 7 January 2016
Telegraph 6 January 2016
Independent 30 November 2015
BBC News 30 November 2015
City AM 4 November 2015
ITV News 3 November 2015
Daily Mail 30 October 2015
BBC News 29 October 2015
The Times 24 October 2015
Sky News 23 October 2015
BBC News 22 October 2015
The Times 22 October 2015
Daily Mail 22 October 2015
Guardian 21 October 2015
BBC News 19 October 2015
Time Magazine 12 October 2015
Independent 27 August 2015
BBC News 5 March 2014
BBC News 10 November 2012
This site contains links to websites operated by parties other than Debating Matters. Although we make every effort to ensure links are current, they will sometimes break after Topic Guide publication. If a link does not work, then the publication reference and date should enable you to find an alternate link. If you find a broken link do please send it to the webmaster for review.
TOPIC GUIDE MENU
Select the relevant option
Related topic guides