Sugar Tax

Generali

http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/health/behaviour-change-and-the-new-sugar-tax/

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

The government can't lose either. If it doesn't reduce sugar consumption, they treasury gets more money.

That's the economics of it.

As I understand it, we have a situation where the scientific evidence is that the consumption of sugars-sweetened drinks is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Thus the more people who drink full-fat Coke and the like, the more sick people will get, imposing costs on everybody, irrespective of whether or not they drank full-fat Coke in the first place.

This is what is known as a negative externality. If you identify a product that has a negative externality, you tax it. The tax will discourage people from consuming the product, and the tax proceeds will compensate everybody else for the additional costs.

Even if the result of the SDIL is that it has no effect on the consumption of sugar sweetened soft drinks, at least it will mean that the consumers of such drinks will now be bearing the true costs of their consumption.

michaels

antrobus wrote: »

That's the economics of it.

As I understand it, we have a situation where the scientific evidence is that the consumption of sugars-sweetened drinks is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Thus the more people who drink full-fat Coke and the like, the more sick people will get, imposing costs on everybody, irrespective of whether or not they drank full-fat Coke in the first place.

This is what is known as a negative externality. If you identify a product that has a negative externality, you tax it. The tax will discourage people from consuming the product, and the tax proceeds will compensate everybody else for the additional costs.

Even if the result of the SDIL is that it has no effect on the consumption of sugar sweetened soft drinks, at least it will mean that the consumers of such drinks will now be bearing the true costs of their consumption.

Causation vs correlation?

Have you measured all externalities including paying less pensions to those who die younger?

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

Causation vs correlation?...

Not the foggiest idea. But the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has recommended that the consumption of sugars-sweetened beverages should be minimised in children and adults.

I don't have any objection to politicians actually taking notice of scientific advice now and again.

michaels wrote: »

...Have you measures all externalities including paying less pensions to those who die younger?

Nope. I'm simply explaining the economic argument.

mwpt

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/29/irn-bru-ag-barr-soft-drinks-financial-impact-sugar-tax

AG Barr, the Scottish soft drinks maker best known for Irn-Bru, has reiterated its annoyance at George Osborne’s sugar tax but says it expects little financial impact because it will change its recipes to adapt to the measure.

A good outcome then.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/29/irn-bru-ag-barr-soft-drinks-financial-impact-sugar-tax



A good outcome then.

Those Irn Bru/Coke/Ribena drinks need to shave in the region of 20% of the sugar out of their formulation. It shouldn't be that hard I'd imagine (speaking as someone who is not a food scientist).

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Those Irn Bru/Coke/Ribena drinks need to shave in the region of 20% of the sugar out of their formulation. It shouldn't be that hard I'd imagine (speaking as someone who is not a food scientist).

I am not convinced that AG Barr is quite saying what the Guardian thinks it is saying. They state that "To ensure success in the UK market we are focusing our marketing efforts on our lower and no sugar products and are substantially reducing the sugar content of our portfolio to reflect consumers’ changing preferences.”

That does not necessarily mean that they are going to screw around with the recipe for Irn-Bru, particularly when they also state that "brand loyalty and consumer preference will drive continued demand" for those drinks that do attract the levy.

I think what they are really saying is that they are going to carry on producing full-fat Irn Bru because people will be willing to pay the higher price for it, but that they are also going to produce lots of other low-fat alternatives just in case they're wrong.:)

cells

I cant even taste the difference any more between normal and diet coke. maybe i'm just getting old or maybe they have improved the formula as a decade or two ago there was a definite noticeable difference.

mwpt

cells wrote: »

I cant even taste the difference any more between normal and diet coke. maybe i'm just getting old or maybe they have improved the formula as a decade or two ago there was a definite noticeable difference.

I agree with you. It has been a while since I tasted either, so maybe my memory is playing tricks on me but I had some diet coke over the weekend (rum and coke actually) and the difference in taste seemed to be a lot narrower than I remember.

N1AK

michaels wrote: »

Have you measured all externalities including paying less pensions to those who die younger?

Why should he have to he hasn't made any claims that would require that analysis, I'm sure there are figures available and if you want to refute them you are free to find them and try to do so.