Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey

Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, May-13-17, 03:05
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 21,837
Stats: 217/192/160 Female 5'10"
Progress: 44%
Location: UK
Default Sugar tax must apply to sweets as well as drinks, say campaigners

From The Guardian
London, UK
12 May, 2017

Sugar tax must apply to sweets as well as drinks, say campaigners

Action on Sugar urges ministers to extend sugar levy to confectionary makers to tackle childhood obesity and diabetes

The sugar tax should be extended to cover sweets, not just soft drinks, according to public health campaigners. The charity Action on Sugar said it wanted ministers to get tough on childhood obesity by forcing confectionery manufacturers to reduce the sugar in their products.

Chocolates and sweet confectionery account for 9% of all the sugar eaten by children aged between four and 10 and for 11% by those aged between 11 and 18.

The levy, which is due to come into force in the UK affecting heavily sugared fizzy drinks from next year, should also be applied to sweet treats sold in coffee shops and restaurants because those often contained a lot of sugar and calories, the campaign group said.

Under the new rules, producers or importers of soft drinks will have to pay a sugar tax of 18p per litre on drinks containing five grams or more of sugar per 100 millilitres and 24p per litre more if their products contain eight grams or more per 100 millilitres. The Treasury expects the levy to raise £520m a year.

“Action on Sugar is urging the next government to implement a mandatory sugar levy on all confectionery products that contain high levels of sugar to ensure maximum impact to help tackle the obesity and type 2 diabetes crisis,” said Graham McGregor, Action on Sugar’s chairman, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine at Queen Mary University of London.

“The levy should be structured by the Treasury as per the soft drinks industry levy, whereby it is aimed at manufacturers to encourage them to reduce sugar in their overall product ranges. The next government needs to bring in tough measures to ensure compliance and put public health before the profits of the food industry.”

Dentists in Britain backed the move as a way of tackling tooth decay. “When the sugar levy is already showing that progress is possible, it makes no sense to draw an arbitrary line and ignore the likes of sweets or energy drinks that are so aggressively marketed at children,” said Mick Armstrong, chair of the British Dental Association. “Ministers keep giving the impression that it’s ‘mission accomplished’ on sugar controls. Dentists are confronting an epidemic of tooth decay and government must show it is prepared to go further on advertising, reformulation targets and through the tax system.”

A sugar tax on sweets had to be mandatory because “voluntary sugar reduction vis reformulation alone will not combat obesity”, said McGregor.

Conservative sources said they would not be extending the sugar tax. “Reducing childhood obesity is vital, and we’re pleased that Public Health England says that our plan to address it is the most ambitious in the world,” a source said.

The Food and Drink Federation, which represents manufacturers, recently warned that the 20% cut in sugar content of most types of foodstuffs being sought by Public Health England by 2020 was highly unlikely to happen because it would not be “technically possible, or acceptable to UK consumers”.

Action on Sugar
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, May-13-17, 04:19
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,588
Plan: ~25NC/IF
Stats: 342.2/196/000 Male 72 inches
Progress: 43%


Man I feel like such a curmudgeon. I think the real problem here is letting a government collect more funds to promote a failed public health philosophy of, "Eat less, move more".

We'll see even MORE and LARGER banners like this trying to pounding the message home..

Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, May-13-17, 07:27
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Posts: 3,434
Stats: 170/136/130 Female 62 inches
Progress: 85%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA

I joined John Banzhanf and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in the 1980s. It took many years to get cigarettes banned from airplanes, but it happened. That was the first step. So it will be with sugar, and this new sugar tax is that foot-in-the-door moment. We know sugar for the beguiling poison it is.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, May-13-17, 08:48
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 12,525
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario

I don't think it matters what the sugar tax is on. How many people are there in the UK who will actually be priced out of the market with a sugar tax? It's not like people in our societies can just barely afford to eat sugar, double the price--what's twice practically free? Still not much. But people see the tax, they say, oh, people think this is serious enough to have a punitive tax--I think there's probably some propaganda value to a tax.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, May-13-17, 12:30
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 10,383
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
Progress: 84%
Location: USA

It is a start. Especially since the most extraordinary parts of The Case Against Sugar was how many and how loudly even experts cried about having their sugar.

This is a tough opponent.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, May-14-17, 14:46
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,174
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA

If they're going to tax sugar it should be all sugar, not just the sugared soft drinks. I got fat on other foods - including a lot of homemade desserts - and never drinking soft drinks. I didn't discover Starbucks Frappuccinos until long after I was obese. I loved them, but couldn't afford them as often as I would have liked.

And here is the US, our government has to stop subsidising the sugar industry.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, May-15-17, 08:12
Squarecube's Avatar
Squarecube Squarecube is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 853
Plan: atkins/paleo/IF
Stats: 186.5/159.0/160 Male 5' 11"
Progress: 104%
Location: NYC

Would we be pleased if they taxed bacon, lard, pork rinds, butter?

Guvmints get things wrong all the time.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, May-15-17, 09:53
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,193
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA

Originally Posted by Squarecube
Would we be pleased if they taxed bacon, lard, pork rinds, butter?

Guvmints get things wrong all the time.

And that possibility is quite likely, as the aforementioned fat sources are still considered unhealthy by the very "experts" who advise governments. When a government, any government, taxes an item to stifle free will, that's when I get off the bus. I don't need enforced behavior modification. And agreed, the subsidies must stop.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:54.

Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.