Sugar Tax good or bad or does it cover enough food areas

At the very least, it might encourage manufacturers to cut down on the amount of sugar. I'm not convinced that that a few pence on the price will make any great impact on those who buy /drink large amounts of any sugary product.

I agree with ginny I can't see a few pennies on the price making any difference whatsoever. Surely education is the only way forward.

When most people consume sugary foods/drinks responsibly (as in occasionally) I don't think extending the sugar tax to other foods is fair 12Michael.

What makes me a little nervous about this tax on sugar is that although it was recommended not to eat too much it wasn't the baddie that fat was . And before fat it was carbohydrates, and alcohol and red meat and.....

well you get my point.

I remember as a child we ate proper butter on bread and then margarine appears and the powers that be said OH NO !! Butter is bad for you eat margarine !! Now it's totally reversed and actually butter isn't bad for you .

Am I being cynical in thinking it's just a way to make us pay more for things?

And as the thin end of the wedge will there be a 'ketchup' tax next ( apparently theres lots of sugar in that!) or a 'biscuit' tax or a 'sweetened cereal' tax?

I can't see it discouraging anyone for the simple reason that there will probably be an initial dip in sales when prices rise because that's unusual. Then the price will become the norm over time and people will go back to buying it.

Also will supermarkets not be allowed to lowball it as a way of getting shoppers in the door ? Will they be dissuaded from making it part of buy one get one free offers?

I don't know.

I don't think you are being cynical at all NanaandGrampy there are hundreds of other foodstuffs that are equally bad for our children's health if they are eaten too often. I personally know a family who all live on fast food takeaways. Fish and chips one night, McDonalds another, Indian another.... etc.

I bet there are plenty more like them.

The sugar manufacturers spokes people were going on about how "surprised and disappointed" they were that Osborn has added this tax.
Why surprised I don't know it has been discussed for months now.

Whether it will do any good at all I don't know. Legislation to cut sugars in processed foods, breakfast cereals etc might be more useful. Some brands have over 30% added sugar.

I agree that legislation to reduce the amount of hidden sugar in everything from fizzy drinks to baked beans would probably be far more effective - but it would not bring in as much money of course!

As an ex smoker raising the price of cigarettes again and again certainly helped me to quit. £10 a packet now. Or near enough.

You already pay alcohol duty and VAT on alcoholic drinks Michael

I am sorry you have developed diabetes through drinking too much, but that is hardly a reason to further penalise everyone else.

As regards the sugar tax, I think it is the drinks manufacturers who are being charged a levy. This seems quite proper to me, and if the money is used to further sporting activities in schools, as has been said, it may help children to be fitter.
But whether it will have any effect on childhood obesity seems doubtful, as some children consume a lot of junk food in addition to their fizzy drinks.

I never drink soft drinks except for tonic with my gin, so it will not affect me.

Because of diabetes, dont drink sugary drinks, never have really prefer, tea/coffee (dont take sugar in either havn't done for years)gave up smoking 4 years ago. Good for my wellbeing but not my pocket my council tax has just gone up 3.99%. Never mind i will survive lol.

What concerns me is that, if manufacturers reduce the sugar content, will they compensate for the lack of sweetness by using artificial sweeteners (aspartame etc), which may bring their own health issues?

Much has been said about this being a measure to combat child obesity, but it will also have an effect - probably a greater effect - on children's tooth decay. The recent statistics about young children having to suffer multiple tooth extractions, even of milk teeth are horrific and dentists pin most of the blame on sugar-laden soft drinks.

here is my favourite economist, Tim Harford's, view

minimouse I share your concern about artificial sweeteners.

Artificial sweeteners bring their own risks and soft drinks manufacturers will get round this one way or another. Coke for example, can be bought for 75p per can in a corner shop or 20 cans for £5 in a supermarket so how on earth does anyone work out or pay this sugar tax out of this different pricing? If parents dont know by now that giving your children sugary drinks is harmful to their teeth and to their metabolism then this will not make any difference.

gill I agree.

Whilst it's not always easy to always make healthy eating choices, avoiding sugary drinks is probably the easiest thing to do to make a difference to a diet.

I'm with the ones who think education, even just using the education (ability to read lists of ingredients) one has, is the only way that is going to make any real difference.

There's no such thing as hidden sugar in any product that has to declare its ingredients on its container.

And I don't think more sport in schools is the best way to get kids fitter. I don't know what is the best way–possibly just more walking/cycling/other gentle but everyday exercise–but I don't think it's school sports.

PS the tax doesn't bother me personally as it won't affect me.

bags not every parent encourages their child to walk or cycle, or be interested in music, literature or the arts. School fills in the gaps in many ways, not just sport. But sport doesn't just contribute to children's fitness - team games encourage them to work together.
I'm eternally grateful to my teacher Miss Crossley, who took me and a few other 8 year olds, on four different public buses to see the Nutcracker at the Palace Theatre in Manchester, in 1958.
It sparked a love of classical music that wouldn't have been fostered at home.

I agree with all that, janea, I just don't think most kids enjoy or get much out of school sports, partly because of the nature of the beast: school sports mainly have to be team sports or athletics. I'm not decrying those but they represent a very small part of all the ways to get fit and stay fit and I firmly believe that regular walking or swimming (and various other things), both of which one can do alone or in a group, is just as good as anything else. Whether most parents encourage this is another matter. That's where education (not necessarily schooling) comes in. In the end it's education that changes the way people think. One could regard the sugar tax as a form of educating effort if only to make people think a bit more about the amount of sugar they consume.

Goos luck with that, I say.

The worst offender re sugary soft drinks is Old Jamaica Fiery Ginger Beer, hardly a children's drink!

It's all the extra sugar that is in so called "diet" foods that should be tackled.

I think the sugar in drinks is more worrying for children's teeth than obesity.

It is about time the advice kept up with the latest research, even if they said we think that... x effect may be caused by eating... y food, but further studies are required. then one could make up ones own mind about the risks you are prepared to take.. and the effort you are prepared to go to to avoid certain stuff.

So far it seems to be cut out processed meat, red meat once a week max, seven or more fruit and veg, lots of omega fats.. less sugar, but are artificial replacements ok or not?

then a grey area of fat for cooking. one possible causes cancer, the other possibly causes heart disease... both half heard reports on the radio...

less sugar, well the dcs only have sweets about once per week. and really really dilute as gnats pee squash (diluted approx 1:30) (ordinary not no added) perhaps other treats once a week with me. their dad though is a different matter.

processed and red meat easy to loose.
oily fish easy to add to diet at least once per week, though not yet achieving twice.

and I am flummoxed on the fats. not a clue what to do for the best.

It's a start and it sends out the message.

Education should be the answer, but the message just doesn't get through.

Am I the only one who thinks this is just the first measure? In general governments 'test the water' to see how a policy is perceived and then add to it later. I think that once this has become acceptable they will work towards a tax on all sugar.

I thought school sports now extended beyond team games and included things like dance which is not so competitive and suits more children.

When OFSTED went into the Royal Ballet School some years ago their report said they didn't do enough sport. When challenged they said the children needed to be competitive. They clearly had no idea how competitive an 11 year old had to be just to be accepted!

No you're not alone in that thought Nonnie - I wrote 'it's a start'. Common sense dictates that you introduce change gradually.

Re school sports, that depends on the school. I've worked with schools with amazing ranges of PE provision not just team sports, from sailing to golf to Zumba to yoga and everything in between. The emphasis has been on getting the children moving, and encouraging them to find something that they might enjoy outside of school as well.

Many sports clubs provide free tuition to school-aged children in return for the use of the school hall for their adult classes. Examples include fencing, marshal arts, badminton. More schools are finding that teenage girls, a group traditionally difficult to motivate, will turn up for dance classes - disco, tap, street dance, etc..