U-turn on UK sugar tax? Health bodies hold breath as Truss considers scrapping soft drinks levy

20 Sep 2022 --- UK prime minister Liz Truss faces mounting pressure not to scrap the sugar tax on soft drinks, which has been in force for several years, and keep healthy food strategies that have previously been laid out on track.

According to health groups, stepping back on nutrition food policies might fuel obesity and crucially, any funds raked in from the sugar levy in Britain over the last four years, will be spent funding obesity-related treatment via the NHS.

“It would be a radical departure to go back on a policy which had majority parliamentary support when it passed. [Truss] Gives no opportunity for formal consultation, extensive debate or scrutiny,” Katharine Jenner, Obesity Health Alliance director, tells NutritionInsight.

“She would be presenting her MPs, the vast majority of whom support the levy, with a choice of either accepting this move or rebelling against a package of measures that includes vital help with energy bills,” she continues.

Successful tax?
Jenner flags that the UK’s sugar levy has so far been one of the few policies which is good for business, health and the government through tax revenues.

“The levy has already removed 48 million kilos of sugar from the nation’s diets through reformulation but didn’t have a negative impact on business. Soft drinks retail sales grew a further 5.6% in 2021 to £3.39 billion (US$3.87 billion),” says Barbara Crowther, co-ordinator of the Children’s Food Campaign.

The levy on sugar is also a revenue stream for the British government, raising £301 million (US$344 million) for the financial year 2020 to 2021, compared to £337 million (US$386 million) in the previous financial year (2019 to 2020) and £240 million (US$275 million) in 2018 to 2019.

A U-turn on dietary policy might cause growing inequalities and increase the country’s already high obesity levels.Governmental U-turn
The sugar tax helped reduce sugar intake in soft drinks by 30%. Helping reduce “empty calories” from soft drinks, rising levels of obesity and poor dental health, according to the Obesity Health Alliance.

“It is dangerous territory to move from having an inadequate strategy to no strategy at all. This U-turn by the government would not only further delay an already urgent intervention to a UK public health crisis, it would also waste the considerable investment spent so far on the 2021 National Food Strategy, which sought to address obesity, the junk food cycle, health inequalities and access to real whole foods,” adds the British Association for Nutrition and Lifestyle Medicine (BANT).

Currently, the tax works on drinks with more than five grams of sugar per 100 ml being levied by 18p (US$0.21) per liter, while those with eight grams or more of sugar per 100 ml have an extra tax of 24p (US$0.27) per liter.

Nanny state woes
Truss campaigned with a “no new taxes” message, pledging not to take on plans to restrict multi-buy deals on food and drinks high in sugar, salts and fats.

“[People] don’t want the government telling them what to eat,” she highlighted in her campaign to become the leader of the UK conservative party.

She has previously stated that “taxes on treats hit those on lowest incomes” and that people should be “free to choose” what to consume and have “sweet freedom,” as she hails personal responsibility.

Truss’s attempts to reduce the sugar tax are seen as an effort to help with the cost of living crisis in the UK, where inflation is running rampant, reaching 9.9% in August – 13.1% for food inflation. A tax scrap would also help cut red tape for businesses in an effort to revitalize economic growth.

Both sugar taxes and obesity affect the poor disproportionately; supporters argue that it helps pay for breakfast programs and sport initiatives in schools in poor areas. And that the real monetary benefit comes at a reduced healthcare bill.

“Junk food does nothing to ameliorate hunger in households struggling to put food on the table. In fact, research shows that ultra-processed foods impair appetite control and make people feel hungrier, exacerbating the problem and ultimately driving people to spend money they don’t have on food, or worse still go without,” says Satu Jackson, CEO at BANT.

“Over 2,000 school breakfast clubs, school holiday programs feeding a million children, and primary school PE and sports equipment have been funded as a result of the £300 million (US$343 million)raised each year by the successful Soft Drinks Industry Levy,” adds Crowther.

Professor Graham MacGregor, Chair of Action on Sugar and Action Salt put at £100 billion (US$115 million) annually the costs of the UK unhealthy diets.

Paralyzed action on sugarTruss’s attempts to reduce the sugar tax are seen as an effort to help with the cost of living crisis in the UK.
A much-anticipated UK report on its fight against sugar has still not been published, much to ire of campaign groups. The report, which had to be published a year ago, was delayed until this autumn, but has yet to reach the public.

Furthermore, the UK food strategy toward healthier foods and sugar reduction has been in a paralyzed state as former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson feared new taxes would push up the cost of food.

“This shambolic decision will no doubt massively impact the NHS and the nation’s health which will suffer the consequences and escalating cost of treating obesity, Type 2 Diabetes and tooth decay,” McGregor flagged.

Experts sound the alarm
A U-turn on dietary policy might cause growing dietary inequalities and increase the country’s already high obesity levels.

Dr. Sally Moore, professor at University of Leeds, told FoodIngredientsFirst that a change of plans by the Truss administration would delay the “much-needed transformation of the UK retail food environments.”

“Current levels of obesity in the UK are unacceptably high, and the amount of saturated fat, sugars and salt we eat exceeds that recommended for health,” underscores Moore.

“The obesity measures were designed to make it easier for businesses to do the right thing, ensuring they wouldn’t lose out to cynical competitors content to profit from making customers ill. U-turning on them now will undermine the hard work of progressive businesses and waste millions of pounds they have invested in making their products and shopping environments healthier,” concluded Ben Reynold, deputy chief executive of Sustain.

By Marc Cervera

This feature is provided by Nutrition Insight’s sister website, Food Ingredients First.

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com