Sugar Tax

antrobus

cells wrote: »

...in what ways does the nutritional requirements of a baby differ from a child or adult? As a guess they may need more protein but why/how would they need more sugar?
....

While most adults require 25 to 30 calories per kg, a 4 kg infant requires more than 100 kcals/kg (430 calories/day). Infants 4 to 6 months who weigh 6 kg require roughly 82 kcals/kg (490 calories/day). Energy needs remain high through the early formative years. Children 1 to 3 years of age require approximately 83 kcals/kg (990 kcals/day). Energy requirements decline thereafter and are based on weight, height, and physical activity.

http://www.nutritionmd.org/health_care_providers/general_nutrition/lifetime_childhood.html

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

Got to be careful not to feed the confirmation bias. I think consuming animal based products has a much greater impact on health. When I search science daily and obesity and animal products it tells me exactly what I already believe.

I tend to believe if you're pretty buff already then fine tuning consumption of fat, sugar and protein might make a difference. If your're fat you already know why and it's because you eat too much or don't move enough or both. It's not because you have a great diet but have a thing for fizzy pop.

The sugar tax is for the kids so the question is will it deter poor parents from feeding their kids crap? Maybe but I'm always amazed at the efforts people make to be crap parents.

Well, I agree with much of this but I'm not sure what it has to do with my post. I responded to cells who is questioning the science behind the link of sugar to obesity. I stand by my statement that I can make a choice to believe mainstream science, widely reported and not generally disagreed with that there is a causal link between certain high sugar intake and obesity, or I could believe cells, leveraged landlord and fountain of knowledge on DHP&TE, and his sidekick wotsat.

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

As very cheap soda will either double in price or become a loss leader I think it will have a marked impact on behaviour.

Value lines are lower margin so maybe retailers will pull them in preference to brands where pricing can be more easily blurred. There must be close to 100 different Coke pack formats and promotions within the different retailers at any one time.

I'm a big diet Coke drinker and my experience is you need to shop with a calculator to find best value. Not too difficult to adjust prices in their portfolio (maybe run a promotion or two less).

It does seem that the larger sized packs at the value end will be hardest hit. A 2 litre bottle of Tesco lemonade is currently 40p but will attract a tax of 48p. I must admit I don't fully understand why people buy large volumes of own label pop but I'd agree these lines will disappear and the suppliers must be sweating on this.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. It would be great if the new tax didn't raise a single penny.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

Well, I agree with much of this but I'm not sure what it has to do with my post. I responded to cells who is questioning the science behind the link of sugar to obesity. I stand by my statement that I can make a choice to believe mainstream science, widely reported and not generally disagreed with that there is a causal link between certain high sugar intake and obesity, or I could believe cells, leveraged landlord and fountain of knowledge on DHP&TE, and his sidekick wotsat.

My take is it's obesity that's more of a causal link to a number of conditions rather than the amount of sugar in the diet. Losing weight cures a number of these conditions. Sugar is part of this equation but it's a step back.

If x billions less calories are consumed as a result of this tax that seems like a good outcome because we're over consuming calories. Whether those calories are from carbohydrates, fat or protein seems, to me, to be a secondary consideration.

wotsthat

wotsthat wrote: »

It does seem that the larger sized packs at the value end will be hardest hit. A 2 litre bottle of Tesco lemonade is currently 40p but will attract a tax of 48p. I must admit I don't fully understand why people buy large volumes of own label pop but I'd agree these lines will disappear and the suppliers must be sweating on this.

Thought about this some more. That 40p includes VAT at 20% already - there's just no margin to play with. Sugared own-label fizzy pop is done for.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

My take is it's obesity that's more of a causal link to a number of conditions rather than the amount of sugar in the diet. Losing weight cures a number of these conditions. Sugar is part of this equation but it's a step back.

If x billions less calories are consumed as a result of this tax that seems like a good outcome because we're over consuming calories. Whether those calories are from carbohydrates, fat or protein seems, to me, to be a secondary consideration.

Ok, I understand your view now.

I agree with it but add that I favour the mainstream view that high sugar intake has additional impact on various body functions and additional health detriments. You don't seem to believe this, so we can move on.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

Value lines are lower margin so maybe retailers will pull them in preference to brands where pricing can be more easily blurred. There must be close to 100 different Coke pack formats and promotions within the different retailers at any one time.

I'm a big diet Coke drinker and my experience is you need to shop with a calculator to find best value. Not too difficult to adjust prices in their portfolio (maybe run a promotion or two less).

It does seem that the larger sized packs at the value end will be hardest hit. A 2 litre bottle of Tesco lemonade is currently 40p but will attract a tax of 48p. I must admit I don't fully understand why people buy large volumes of own label pop but I'd agree these lines will disappear and the suppliers must be sweating on this.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. It would be great if the new tax didn't raise a single penny.

This tax is the worst nightmare for the middle-class, nanny-state-loving Guardianista. On the one hand it satisfies the something must be done side of things but the tax will be very regressive at the same time.

Anyone know who makes generic soda in the UK? Are they listed?

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

Ok, I understand your view now.

I agree with it but add that I favour the mainstream view that high sugar intake has additional impact on various body functions and additional health detriments. You don't seem to believe this, so we can move on.

It's not that I don't believe the ratio of macro-nutrients impacts bodily functions (you can't outrun a poor diet) but rather this is secondary when considering the health of the general population who would benefit from simply consuming less and moving more.

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

This tax is the worst nightmare for the middle-class, nanny-state-loving Guardianista. On the one hand it satisfies the something must be done side of things but the tax will be very regressive at the same time.

Anyone know who makes generic soda in the UK? Are they listed?

I think Cott Beverages are the biggest own-label producer in the UK.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

...Anyone know who makes generic soda in the UK? Are they listed?

Cott Corporation. NYSE listed.

I have one report from 2006 which states that their UK operation had over half the private label soft drink market.

http://www.beveragedaily.com/Manufacturers/Cott-cleared-to-buy-Macaw-in-UK

Other suppliers mentioned are Prince's, Silver Spring and Villa. Princes is Mistubishi. Tokyo quoted. Silver Spring used to make Virgin Cola but has since gone bust. Villa was based in Sunderland and also went insolvent, had a new owner and went insolvent again a few years later. No idea what happened to the production capacity.

Presumably life is tough in the private label soft drinks market.