Sugar tax

[HTP99]

hyphen said:

ashleyman said:

HTP99 said:

As I've mentioned before, I can spend £1.60 odd on a 500ml bottle of full fat coke or go to the next aisle and pick up a litre for a £1, I Just don't get this so called "sugar tax".

I don’t understand this either. 500ml are more expensive than 1L priced at £1 and also more expensive than 1.5L when on offer at 2 for £3 which seems like it’s a permanent offer. Makes no sense.

Does the litre bottle fill in your cars cupholder? Would you be seen carrying around a litre bottle around town and swigging from it?

I actually prefer a 330ml can; if unavailable like in my JS local, I'll get a 500ml bottle if I fancy a Coke there and then, the 1 litre is for home as a mixer. I don't walk about town swigging from any bottle or can!

I just find it odd that the 1ltr is vastly cheaper than the 500ml, when we are supposed to be cutting back and there is legislation in place to supposedly do this.

[simoid]

BevR said:

simoid said:

It’s almost certainly got to cause an increase risk of something.

[citation needed]

These are some of the most studied food related chemicals and no one has found a link. At most there may be some people that develop allergic symptoms

There are loads of papers out there, this is just the first one that came up:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31985...

Sugar substitutes in various food and beverages are very popular in most of the countries. Extensive scientific research has demonstrated the safety of the six low-calorie sweeteners currently approved for use in foods in the U.S. and Europe (stevia, acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose) each with an acceptable daily intake. A number of studies have been carried out to confirm the safety of artificial sweeteners. A number of studies have also shown the adverse effects of the same. But most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human, small sample size, high doses, statistically non-significant or borderline significant, etc.

So they haven’t found it yet sorry I know, bad science.

Interesting caveats there nonetheless if I’m comprehending: they’re safe with an acceptable daily intake, but studies have found adverse effects when taking high doses? That could be said about anything

[gregs656]

garagewidow said:

Can you imagine the uproar if it turns out to be linked to alzheimers or some such other condition.

Artificial sweeteners are studied a lot.

[ashleyman]

hyphen said:

ashleyman said:

HTP99 said:

As I've mentioned before, I can spend £1.60 odd on a 500ml bottle of full fat coke or go to the next aisle and pick up a litre for a £1, I Just don't get this so called "sugar tax".

I don’t understand this either. 500ml are more expensive than 1L priced at £1 and also more expensive than 1.5L when on offer at 2 for £3 which seems like it’s a permanent offer. Makes no sense.

Does the litre bottle fill in your cars cupholder? Would you be seen carrying around a litre bottle around town and swigging from it?

It’s not a convenience tax is it. It’s a sugar tax.
If there’s more sugar in a 1L then it should cost more than it’s smaller counterpart. Going by the prices of the larger bottles (1L for £1 or 2x 1.5L for £3) a 500ml should cost 50p, not £1.65.

If you based prices on the smaller options 1L of Coke should be £3.30.

I used to have 500ml bottle every now and again at work. Now I get a 1L and use a glass which means I’m actually drinking more.

[Dr Jekyll]

ashleyman said:

It’s not a convenience tax is it. It’s a sugar tax.
If there’s more sugar in a 1L then it should cost more than it’s smaller counterpart. Going by the prices of the larger bottles (1L for £1 or 2x 1.5L for £3) a 500ml should cost 50p, not £1.65.

If you based prices on the smaller options 1L of Coke should be £3.30.

But how much of the larger bottle's price is tax compared with the smaller?

[ashleyman]

Dr Jekyll said:

ashleyman said:

It’s not a convenience tax is it. It’s a sugar tax.
If there’s more sugar in a 1L then it should cost more than it’s smaller counterpart. Going by the prices of the larger bottles (1L for £1 or 2x 1.5L for £3) a 500ml should cost 50p, not £1.65.

If you based prices on the smaller options 1L of Coke should be £3.30.

But how much of the larger bottle's price is tax compared with the smaller?

Surely a larger bottle that costs less than the smaller will pay less tax per ml.

[simoid]

It’s market forces and nothing else.

[dandarez]

BevR said:

simoid said:

It’s almost certainly got to cause an increase risk of something.

[citation needed]

These are some of the most studied food related chemicals and no one has found a link. At most there may be some people that develop allergic symptoms

There are loads of papers out there, this is just the first one that came up:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31985...

Sugar substitutes in various food and beverages are very popular in most of the countries. Extensive scientific research has demonstrated the safety of the six low-calorie sweeteners currently approved for use in foods in the U.S. and Europe (stevia, acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose) each with an acceptable daily intake. A number of studies have been carried out to confirm the safety of artificial sweeteners. A number of studies have also shown the adverse effects of the same. But most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human, small sample size, high doses, statistically non-significant or borderline significant, etc.

Still begs the question as to why anyone with a modicum of common sense thinks it's ok to continually put something down your gullet that is 'ARTIFICIAL'! I was in Waitrose having a freebie coffee this morning, early - I grabbed some fruit. I sat down to have the coffee and read the Waitrose freebie mag (do the crossword). This 'sporty' type gal comes in panting - trainers, running gear, the pony tail long and rubber banded, you know the sort. I had my bag on one stool and she just lifted it off and put it on the shelf by my coffee. I thought, 'excuse me too!'
I budged along a bit and carried on with the crossword.
She gets her coffee, out comes the mobile, tapping away. Then stops. fk ME! She just empties a least half a doz yellow satchets of Canderel in her drink!
I bet I could have outrun her to the bus stop too, at well over twice her age!

Me?
I gave up sugar in hot drinks in the early 90s. Not hard. Make the amount smaller every time you have a drink... eventually, you realise you don't need it. I have a sweet tooth too! Don't touch anything that says sugar-free or low fat or low this. Not if I can help it.
I gave up st drinks too at the same time. I have one Coke a year to remind me how f. awful it is now compared to that in the green glass bottles in the 50s and 60s. Trouble is today it's hard to avoid crap.

But sweeteners can go f off. Who, in their right mind, would consume something like Aspartame when one of the men behind it getting the ok, after it had been banned initially by the US FDA, has the surname Rumsfeld, and a first name Donald! He was then drug company Searle Chairman Rumsfeld vowed to 'call in his markers', to get it approved. He did. You consume it if you want. I'd rather have a spoonful of natural raw cane sugar ANY DAY!

As for the NHS recommending them.
On the NHS website it says this: Dietitian Emma Carder states:
"Research into sweeteners shows they're perfectly safe to eat or drink on a daily basis as part of a healthy diet."

That must be the most ridiculous statement I've ever read re 'as part of a healthy diet'.

[anonymous-user]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

Provisional year-to-date receipts so far for 2019-20 (April to October 2019) are £251 million

Total SDIL receipts for 2018-19 were £240 million (SDIL was introduced April 2018, therefore the first liability quarter, April to June 2018, was not due until July 2018. January to March 2019 liabilities were not due until April 2019, hence receipts for 2018-19 relate to production and liabilities from the first three quarters of the year)

Just under 94% of net liabilities were declared at the higher rate during 2018-19 (this trend has continued in 2019-20 at just above 94% year-to-date (April to September 2019)

[ambuletz]

bought this to try it out


at abou £2.80 for a 700ml botle its not cheap. It did taste like you was drinkkng cola from when you was a kid. Had a very pronounced herby taste to it (made me think of jagermeister slightly). Tbh it tasted alot like you was drinking the10p bottles of panda pops. I'm sure if it was flat it would taste exactly the same.

Would I bother with it agian. Nope. I'll just get regular coca-cola.

[Halb]

ambuletz said:

bought this to try it out


at abou £2.80 for a 700ml botle its not cheap. It did taste like you was drinkkng cola from when you was a kid. Had a very pronounced herby taste to it (made me think of jagermeister slightly). Tbh it tasted alot like you was drinking the10p bottles of panda pops. I'm sure if it was flat it would taste exactly the same.

Would I bother with it agian. Nope. I'll just get regular coca-cola.

How come you tried it out?
I don't drink cola (or pop really, I like lager shandy from tesco) but I fancy trying the above as the herbally taste interests me.

[ambuletz]

Halb said:

How come you tried it out?
I don't drink cola (or pop really, I like lager shandy from tesco) but I fancy trying the above as the herbally taste interests me.

reviews of people saying it tasted like what coke used to be/childhood. If you're someone who likes dandilion & burdock I think this might be something you'll like too.

Edited by ambuletz on Tuesday 14th January 21:11

[Halb]

ambuletz said:

reviews of people saying it tasted like what coke used to be/childhood.

you've piqued my interest! I'm gonna try one. I've had their lemonade ( wanted a pop with no artificial sweeteners), it's very nice. I think most pop just tastes of 'sweet' with nothing else.

[Catatafish]

All these drinks with artificial sweeteners seem to quench my thirst for about 2 secs, then I am thirsty again, so I steer clear most of the time.

I read somewhere that they have a negative impact on the gut flora, but may be bs.

As for the sugar tax, I'd prefer the obese to be fined on sight or billed by the NHS...

[DaveGrohl]

That acesulfamine K stuff makes my mouth water but not in a good way. It seems to be in every artificially sweetened drink these days bafflingly. I'm happy with sucralose but it always seems to be accompanied by that damn stuff. Anyone know why it's so prevalent?

[R Mutt]

ashleyman said:

hyphen said:

ashleyman said:

HTP99 said:

As I've mentioned before, I can spend £1.60 odd on a 500ml bottle of full fat coke or go to the next aisle and pick up a litre for a £1, I Just don't get this so called "sugar tax".

I don’t understand this either. 500ml are more expensive than 1L priced at £1 and also more expensive than 1.5L when on offer at 2 for £3 which seems like it’s a permanent offer. Makes no sense.

Does the litre bottle fill in your cars cupholder? Would you be seen carrying around a litre bottle around town and swigging from it?

It’s not a convenience tax is it. It’s a sugar tax.
If there’s more sugar in a 1L then it should cost more than it’s smaller counterpart. Going by the prices of the larger bottles (1L for £1 or 2x 1.5L for £3) a 500ml should cost 50p, not £1.65.

If you based prices on the smaller options 1L of Coke should be £3.30.

I used to have 500ml bottle every now and again at work. Now I get a 1L and use a glass which means I’m actually drinking more.

Taxing the smaller bottles would be a plastic/ convenience tax but would make people drink more, or pay more tax for the greater amount of sugar in the larger bottle. I'd support that.

I saw someone on FB praising Sainsburys' 'real lemonade' due to its real sugar content which was surprising as it was in an R. Whites-esque 1.5/ 2litre bottle which usually (whether in the case of the original or the supermarket own brand ripoff) denotes saccharine muck within. More surprising considering even San Pelligrino contains stevia or similar which is evident in the taste.

[oyster]

hyphen said:

ashleyman said:

HTP99 said:

As I've mentioned before, I can spend £1.60 odd on a 500ml bottle of full fat coke or go to the next aisle and pick up a litre for a £1, I Just don't get this so called "sugar tax".

I don’t understand this either. 500ml are more expensive than 1L priced at £1 and also more expensive than 1.5L when on offer at 2 for £3 which seems like it’s a permanent offer. Makes no sense.

Does the litre bottle fill in your cars cupholder? Would you be seen carrying around a litre bottle around town and swigging from it?

Exactly, it's fairly damn obvious isn't it.

The 500ml bottles are convenience items, usually found in a fridge.
The larger bottles are not convenience items and are usually not found in a fridge.

Has nothing to do with sugar tax. Why are people getting confused here about it?

[oyster]

ashleyman said:

Dr Jekyll said:

ashleyman said:

It’s not a convenience tax is it. It’s a sugar tax.
If there’s more sugar in a 1L then it should cost more than it’s smaller counterpart. Going by the prices of the larger bottles (1L for £1 or 2x 1.5L for £3) a 500ml should cost 50p, not £1.65.

If you based prices on the smaller options 1L of Coke should be £3.30.

But how much of the larger bottle's price is tax compared with the smaller?

Surely a larger bottle that costs less than the smaller will pay less tax per ml.

Why?
The sugar tax is not based on the price of the product (like VAT is).
It's based on the volume of added sugar (in the same way duty is charged on alcoholic drinks).


So a 1 litre bottle for sale for £1.00 might have say £0.24 of sugar tax.
The 500ml bottle on sale for £1.60 would have £0.12 of sugar tax.

The difference in selling price is the choice of the retailer.

[Not-The-Messiah]

Any way is it working? as anyone noticed an increase in skinny people and less fat ones?

Be fun in a few years when its showed thats its made ball all of a difference well apart from making poor people poorer.

[hotchy]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Any way is it working? as anyone noticed an increase in skinny people and less fat ones?

Be fun in a few years when its showed thats its made ball all of a difference well apart from making poor people poorer.

Sales of coca cola are through the roof, irn bru has completely collapsed because they took the sugar out. Went from 2+ pallets a month of irn bru 2ltr to 4 cases and coca cola has increased to 4+ pallets from 1. Probably the same nationwide in scotland anyway.

Has been the same on everything. Monster and redbull kept the full sugar and suddenly we sell loads where as before it was rockstar who cut sugar and nobody likes anymore.

They also ruined lucozade.

Edited by hotchy on Wednesday 15th January 14:07