Should 'slushy' ices be subject to the UK's proposed 'soft drinks industry levy'?How about 'candy sprays'? Or 'dissolvable powders'? What should government do about all those lattes laced with caramel shots ('liquid drinks flavourings' to cognoscenti)?

Such existential issues are among the 46 specific questions that make up the government's formal consultation on the levy, humanely rebranded by the media as the ‘sugar tax.’

But there are no questions about the other major sources of sugar in the British diet - chocolate, breakfast cereals, biscuits, ice cream, or the white stuff itself, in bags. Nor, more fundamentally, on whether there should be a tax at all.  ‘Alternative proposals’ are explicitly excluded.

In short, the UK government has begun a pseudo-consultation, about administration of a policy already decided, not about the policy itself.  It evades every question worth asking about the tax.

It was introduced in the March 2016 budget by chancellor George Osborne as a bit of populist light relief in a speech full of economic bad news.  He effectively proposed three levels of tax - a higher rate on products with 8 g or more per 100 ml, lower on 5-8 g/100 ml, and zero on below 5 g/ml.  Osborne has since been sacked, but the new government is carrying on.

 

You can read the full article HERE

 

Food Labelling Services comments:

This appears to be more a political 'sweetener' to gain voters rather than a regulation to reduce the sugar in the consumers diet. Just targeting the soft drinks industry on its own will not impact the obesity issue in the UK - there are many other sources of sugar- confectionary, cerals, biscuits & cakes to name a few. This piece of legislation should be re-thought focusing on the reason why it was suggested in the furst place - ie to help prevent obesity.