Sugar tax a ‘cynical revenue raising device’ that will hit the UK’s poorest hardest
The sugar tax is “poorly-designed”, “paternalistic” and “cynical”, according to two major think tanks.
Once it is introduced tomorrow (Friday 6 April), consumers will have to pay up to 24p extra per litre for their fizzy drink fix.
The government hopes that the levy will reduce obesity by making shoppers think twice before purchasing unhealthy beverages.
Read more: A.G. Barr has defended its reduced sugar Irn Bru recipe
But the policy has been slammed by two think thanks, the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) and the Adam Smith Institute, who say that the tax will only harm poorer consumers.
Tax a ‘cynical revenue raising device’
“Many countries have tried taxing soft drinks and none of them have seen a decline in obesity,” said the IEA’s Christopher Snowdon. “The UK will be no different. The sugar levy is a cynical revenue raising device that will clobber people on low incomes.
“The British public are being treated like children,” he continued. “Thanks to the sugar levy, several iconic brands – including Ribena, Irn-Bru and Lucozade – have effectively been discontinued.
“Millions of people are having their choices restricted by a bossy government in thrall to the fanatical ‘public health’ lobby.
“Unless reason prevails, this will only be the start of tobacco-style regulation of the food supply.”
Sugar levy will hit poorest hardest
Daniel Pryor, head of programmes at the Adam Smith Institute, also took issue with the levy, commenting:
Our poorly-designed, paternalistic sugary drinks tax will hurt poor people and there’s no evidence that it works.
When Mexico passed a similar measure in 2014, it reduced the calories people consumed by just 16 a day. That’s a generous estimate, and shows how clearly useless this tax will be as a tool for fighting obesity.
Pryor also remarked that some manufacturers were now responding by reformulating their products, which in turn hurts consumers.
“Lucozade’s Twitter feed is now filled with angry ex-customers who don’t like the new recipe and there have already been some absolute scenes in Scotland as people stockpiling original Irn-Bru indicate that there’s significant public opposition to this measure,” he continued.
“Let’s see this tax for what it is, a slippery slope. When it’s failed to achieve its objective of lower obesity campaigners will up their calls for high taxes on chocolate and confectionery. And who pays the most? As a regressive tax it takes more of poorer people’s incomes. It’s time for the government to admit nanny doesn’t know best.”