Sugar Tax

cells

antrobus wrote: »

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

I wonder if that is to do with rapid growth or the need of warm blooded mammals to maintain core temperature? smaller mammals having more surface area to mass requiring more energy. I recall reading that babies have something called brown fat which seems to only function as a calorie burner to generate warmth. However yes I can see the logic that babies might need high sugar diets to digest and process the high calories per kg they need

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

most the cheap stuff like the 40p/2litre bottles has no sugar in it as 300 grams of sugar costs a lot more money than 0.03 grams of sweeteners

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

most the cheap stuff like the 40p/2litre bottles has no sugar in it as 300 grams of sugar costs a lot more money than 0.03 grams of sweeteners

Maybe but easily available.

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=250617625

It would be interesting to know the mix of sales because I expect losing the full sugar lines could be margin enhancing for the suppliers... if people buy the non sugar version instead.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

Maybe but easily available.

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=250617625

It would be interesting to know the mix of sales because I expect losing the full sugar lines could be margin enhancing for the suppliers... if people buy the non sugar version instead.

I havent really checked but just going off memory of shopping trips I dont think the supermarkets for the value stuff highlight that there is no sugar in their fizz. So while coke would make clear its diet coke or lower sugar coke the house brands just call it cola

I recall some asda pop went from 12% sugar to a much lower figure 6%? with absolutely no change on the labels or indication whatsoever.

So yes I think all the sugar own brand cheap stuff will just rejig the formula to be under the tax or just get rid of the sugar altogether.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

Maybe but easily available.

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=250617625

It would be interesting to know the mix of sales because I expect losing the full sugar lines could be margin enhancing for the suppliers... if people buy the non sugar version instead.

also your link is a 2.9% sugar soda so well below the tax threshold. Per litre its got about 75% less sugar than a 'full fat' soda like coke.

So that lemonade will probably stay as is

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

also your link is a 2.9% sugar soda so well below the tax threshold. Per litre its got about 75% less sugar than a 'full fat' soda like coke.

So that lemonade will probably stay as is

Yes, misread the 'traffic light' section. If I was supplying a 40p 2l bottle of pop subject to these regulations I might be glad to see the back of them myself.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

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.

Ta muchly antrobus. I've had a look and the fund isn't invested in Cott ATM. Generally our investable universe is MSCI World plus the ASX 200. As the market cap of COTT is $1.5bn I suspect that they're too small to make the MSCI World Index.

They would make quite an interesting short for someone as they are pretty low yielding, are making a loss, are heavily leveraged and operating on thin margins even in good years: in the last 3 years they haven't managed to make a net profit of 1% of revenues. They are also trying to integrate the company that they bought, DSS, which is notably risky.

You heard it here first folks!

michaels

Hmm - just looked at the sugar content of the naked smoothie in my £1 boots/o2 lunch - 54g in one 450ml drink.

mwpt

michaels wrote: »

Hmm - just looked at the sugar content of the naked smoothie in my £1 boots/o2 lunch - 54g in one 450ml drink.

Ouch!

Make your own smoothies like I do.

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

Hmm - just looked at the sugar content of the naked smoothie in my £1 boots/o2 lunch - 54g in one 450ml drink.

But exempt from the proposed sugar levy.

Although some have called for them to be included. Which isn't surprising if some of them have 12g of sugar per 100ml; more than a full fat Coke.