In 2010 the Scotish Government commited itself to:


• Reducing energy consumption – controlling exposure to, demand for and consumption of excessive quantities of high calorific foods and drinks.


• Increasing energy expenditure – increasing opportunities for and uptake of walking, cycling and other physical activity in our daily lives and minimising sedentary behaviour.


• Focusing on early years – establishing life-long habits and skills for positive health behaviour through early life interventions.


“For many leading brands of sugar-sweetened drinks, around a glassful has been found to contain a worrying nine or more teaspoons of sugar. While these drinks are high in calories they are of limited nutritional value and, at a time when the intake of sugar by people in Scotland already far exceeds recommended levels, we are increasingly concerned about how sugary drinks contribute towards health conditions like diabetes.”


The idea of a sugar tax is not new. It was in place in Scotland from the early 18th


century until it was finally repealed by UK Prime Minister William Gladstone in 1874.


However, opinion over whether such a tax would work in terms of its stated intention of reducing consumption remains divided.


Taxing sugar might reduce consumption and this might lead to reductions in diabetes, obesity and heart disease. But the impact of a 20 per cent tax as suggested by the BMA is likely to be small and limited. To have any real impact the tax might have to be closer to the 77 per cent on a pack of cigaretes or 79 per cent on a botle of whisky.


A tax of this nature would be complicated to introduce and administer and is likely to prove deeply unpopular. When the Danish Government tried to do something similar recently with faty foods the tax collapsed within a year due to widespread resentment and evasion.


Such a tax would also be potentially regressive in that it would have a substantially larger impact on the poorest members of society.


Moreover, recent changes to EU agriculture policy mean that by 2017 sugar will be substantially cheaper than it was in 2005, a time when consumption was rising.


Finally, the UK Government is adamant there will be no new specific food taxes.


So the BMA’s proposal seems to be dead in the water. 84 September 2015


“For many leading brands of sugar- sweetened drinks, around a glassful has been found to contain a worrying nine or more teaspoons of sugar. While these drinks are high in calories they are of limited nutritional value and, at a time when the intake of sugar by people in Scotland already far exceeds recommended levels, we are increasingly concerned about how sugary drinks contribute towards health conditions like diabetes.”


What they and the Government in Westminster have shied away from is a compulsory ‘traffic lights’ system for food packaging. The system uses labels marked with red, amber and green signals to show whether a product is high, medium or low in fat, saturated fat, sugars and salt.


This approach is advocated by the Faculty of Public Health who point out that it is more effective than the system of guideline daily amount (GDA%) favoured by a number of large retailers. They argue that the traffic light labels are likely to reduce dietary and health inequalities across socio-economic groups because they are much easier to understand.


However politicians remain resistant, and while they hesitate to act on the problem sugar continues to rot not just our teeth but the very fabric of a healthy society.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100