5 ms·

"Actions to take" section: 1. Reduce and rebalance the number and type of price promotions in all retail outlets including supermarkets and convenience stores

by awjr 11y ago

"Actions to take" section: 1. Reduce and rebalance the number and type of price promotions in all retail outlets including supermarkets and convenience stores and the out of home sector (including restaurants, cafes and takeaways) 2. Significantly reduce opportunities to market and advertise high sugar food and drink products to children and adults across all media including digital platforms and through sponsorship 3. The setting of a clear definition for high sugar foods to aid with actions 1 and 2 above. Currently the only regulatory framework for doing this is via the Ofcom nutrient profiling model, which would benefit from being reviewed and strengthened 4. Introduction of a broad, structured and transparently monitored programme of gradual sugar reduction in everyday food and drink products, combined with reductions in portion size 5. Introduction of a price increase of a minimum of 10-20% on high sugar products through the use of a tax or levy such as on full sugar soft drinks, based on the emerging evidence of the impact of such measures in other countries 6. Adopt, implement and monitor the government buying standards for food and catering services (GBSF) across the public sector, including national and local government and the NHS to ensure provision and sale of healthier food and drinks in hospitals, leisure centres etc 7. Ensure that accredited training in diet and health is routinely delivered to all of those who have opportunities to influence food choices in the catering, fitness and leisure sectors and others within local authorities 8. Continue to raise awareness of concerns around sugar levels in the diet to the public as well as health professionals, employers, the food industry etc, encourage action to reduce intakes and provide practical steps to help people lower their own and their families sugar intake

awjr 11y ago
A "sugar tax" is not a bad idea if it is ringfenced to creating a healthier environment and funding NHS obesity-related treatments. The problem is that this type of tax will be subsumed within general taxation.
- puttyaccount 11y ago
  what about a "healthy food tax" ringfenced for funding the costs of end of life care for people with longer life expectancy??
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - sdoering 11y ago
    <sarcasm>Isn't this a very cynical pov? On the same grounds I could argue for trolls to be euthanized instead of feed. </sarcasm>
  - belorn 11y ago
    Yes, Minister made a similar joke that people who died from smoking tobacco are doing society a favor by limiting the need to spend money on elderly care and pensions.
    - stevetrewick 11y ago
      Except it's not a joke, it's probably true [0] : Research by the Institute of Economic Affairs argues that a tax on fatty food could actually increase the burden on the health system and unfairly penalise the poor. Dr Barrie Craven from the Department for Education at the University of Newcastle, who co-wrote the IEA report, said: "It is commonly assumed that obese people are a disproportionate burden on the NHS. "By 56, the obese are the most expensive but not over their lifetime. "We have to remember that the obese and smokers tend to die earlier and the healthy incur very expensive 24 hour care later in life for diseases such as dementia." [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9359212/Obese-and-smokers-less-of-a-burden-on-the-NHS-than-the-healthy-who-live-longer-report.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9359212/Obese-an...
- pm215 11y ago
  Why do you think it is important that the use of the tax be ringfenced? My view would be that the aim of the tax would be to nudge people into changing their behaviours, and it will do this whether the resulting income goes into funding obesity related treatments or just into the general taxation pot. Also, hypothecation doesn't really seem to me to rise above the level of a PR labelling exercise -- if sugar tax income is all spent on NHS obesity programmes, then the government will simply reduce the amount of NHS funding from the general pot correspondingly. Further, you get awkward effects if peoples' behaviour really does change where obesity programmes could end up underfunded because the sugar tax income falls. Better to just fund them to the right level from the general pot, I think.
  - mattzito 11y ago
    The issue is that if the tax is successful, and revenues start to fall from that particular source due to fewer sugary foods, there may be an instinct on the part of politicians to make up that money elsewhere. A good example in the US is cigarette taxes - while originally designed to fund cancer treatment and anti-smoking initiatives, a lot of states have come to depend on the revenue from those taxes. As more people switch to e-cigs, which are not taxed and offer big cost savings, states are talking about taxing e-cigarettes similarly. If the goal of the cigarette tax was harm reduction, presumably there's some incentive to have people smoke e-cigarettes instead of regular tobacco - but the real concern is the loss of the tax revenue the state has come to depend on. Ringfencing (theoretically) discourages this.
  - awjr 11y ago
    One of the big issues is that councils "fund" public realm changes from the central government grants. I do a lot of work with my local council to deliver better child safe cycle infrastructure. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund is coming to an end in 2016. Cycle City Ambition Grant money is an ad-hoc grant that only impacts 8 cities and many transport ideas would take years to deliver. Providing a national "fund" that councils could put together projects and then "bid" for funding with a focus on delivering healthy transport options (walking/cycling/public transport) would enable the delivery of huge long-term health benefits. One of the reasons London does so well with some of the cycling schemes is that there is a committed 10-year plan to invest in cycling. Without this type of financial commitment you don't get a good safe network. You get little bitty pieces of ad-hoc infrastructure that the council hopes to connect together eventually IF future grants become available.
- stevetrewick 11y ago
  Yup, UK doesn't do hypothecated taxes. In any case, if they do this correctly it should be revenue neutral because the only possible justification for this - the one used by all the public health activists - is there are negative externalities which need to be compensated for, which makes this a Pigouvian tax [0] and PTs are supposed to be revenue neutral (though see the wiki for the huge amount of complications in making this so). [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
stevetrewick 11y ago
I'm not in favour of such a tax, but even if I were I would object to much of that. 1 through 4 and 6 through 8 fall somewhere on a spectrum from redundant to positively Orwellian.
- jbob2000 11y ago
  What the hell? Educating people on healthy eating is Orwellian? How...
  - stevetrewick 11y ago
    It isn't. Manipulating 60+ million people's choice architecture (as per e.g. 7) on the other hand certainly is. YMMV but either way it's still redundant if adding a tax as a market correction functions as expected. If it doesn't, there isn't a market solution so the tax is redundant. And if there turns out to be no negative externalities as per the IEA, then the whole thing is just one big Orwellian exercise in public health authoritarianism. But don't concern yourself, it's for your own good and won't someone think of the children ?

by awjr 11y ago

awjr 11y ago

A "sugar tax" is not a bad idea if it is ringfenced to creating a healthier environment and funding NHS obesity-related treatments. The problem is that this type of tax will be subsumed within general taxation.

puttyaccount 11y ago
what about a "healthy food tax" ringfenced for funding the costs of end of life care for people with longer life expectancy??
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sdoering 11y ago
  <sarcasm>Isn't this a very cynical pov? On the same grounds I could argue for trolls to be euthanized instead of feed. </sarcasm>
- belorn 11y ago
  Yes, Minister made a similar joke that people who died from smoking tobacco are doing society a favor by limiting the need to spend money on elderly care and pensions.
  - stevetrewick 11y ago
    Except it's not a joke, it's probably true [0] : Research by the Institute of Economic Affairs argues that a tax on fatty food could actually increase the burden on the health system and unfairly penalise the poor. Dr Barrie Craven from the Department for Education at the University of Newcastle, who co-wrote the IEA report, said: "It is commonly assumed that obese people are a disproportionate burden on the NHS. "By 56, the obese are the most expensive but not over their lifetime. "We have to remember that the obese and smokers tend to die earlier and the healthy incur very expensive 24 hour care later in life for diseases such as dementia." [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9359212/Obese-and-smokers-less-of-a-burden-on-the-NHS-than-the-healthy-who-live-longer-report.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9359212/Obese-an...
pm215 11y ago
Why do you think it is important that the use of the tax be ringfenced? My view would be that the aim of the tax would be to nudge people into changing their behaviours, and it will do this whether the resulting income goes into funding obesity related treatments or just into the general taxation pot. Also, hypothecation doesn't really seem to me to rise above the level of a PR labelling exercise -- if sugar tax income is all spent on NHS obesity programmes, then the government will simply reduce the amount of NHS funding from the general pot correspondingly. Further, you get awkward effects if peoples' behaviour really does change where obesity programmes could end up underfunded because the sugar tax income falls. Better to just fund them to the right level from the general pot, I think.
- mattzito 11y ago
  The issue is that if the tax is successful, and revenues start to fall from that particular source due to fewer sugary foods, there may be an instinct on the part of politicians to make up that money elsewhere. A good example in the US is cigarette taxes - while originally designed to fund cancer treatment and anti-smoking initiatives, a lot of states have come to depend on the revenue from those taxes. As more people switch to e-cigs, which are not taxed and offer big cost savings, states are talking about taxing e-cigarettes similarly. If the goal of the cigarette tax was harm reduction, presumably there's some incentive to have people smoke e-cigarettes instead of regular tobacco - but the real concern is the loss of the tax revenue the state has come to depend on. Ringfencing (theoretically) discourages this.
- awjr 11y ago
  One of the big issues is that councils "fund" public realm changes from the central government grants. I do a lot of work with my local council to deliver better child safe cycle infrastructure. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund is coming to an end in 2016. Cycle City Ambition Grant money is an ad-hoc grant that only impacts 8 cities and many transport ideas would take years to deliver. Providing a national "fund" that councils could put together projects and then "bid" for funding with a focus on delivering healthy transport options (walking/cycling/public transport) would enable the delivery of huge long-term health benefits. One of the reasons London does so well with some of the cycling schemes is that there is a committed 10-year plan to invest in cycling. Without this type of financial commitment you don't get a good safe network. You get little bitty pieces of ad-hoc infrastructure that the council hopes to connect together eventually IF future grants become available.
stevetrewick 11y ago
Yup, UK doesn't do hypothecated taxes. In any case, if they do this correctly it should be revenue neutral because the only possible justification for this - the one used by all the public health activists - is there are negative externalities which need to be compensated for, which makes this a Pigouvian tax [0] and PTs are supposed to be revenue neutral (though see the wiki for the huge amount of complications in making this so). [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

stevetrewick 11y ago

I'm not in favour of such a tax, but even if I were I would object to much of that. 1 through 4 and 6 through 8 fall somewhere on a spectrum from redundant to positively Orwellian.

jbob2000 11y ago
What the hell? Educating people on healthy eating is Orwellian? How...
- stevetrewick 11y ago
  It isn't. Manipulating 60+ million people's choice architecture (as per e.g. 7) on the other hand certainly is. YMMV but either way it's still redundant if adding a tax as a market correction functions as expected. If it doesn't, there isn't a market solution so the tax is redundant. And if there turns out to be no negative externalities as per the IEA, then the whole thing is just one big Orwellian exercise in public health authoritarianism. But don't concern yourself, it's for your own good and won't someone think of the children ?