I agree that sugar in soft drinks is problematic and would definitely like to see some action taken to reduce this. However, the article claims that both the Yew Report and the Eddington Research Centre study say the effects will be positive. In fact, what they actually say is more negative than that. Through their research, the Eddington study found that a direct tax paid by the consumer is much more effective than an indirect tax placed on the manufacturer. Yet, it is the latter which our government is doing. The Yew Report does indeed discuss potential positive effects of the tax, but it also points out that not all manufacturers and consumers will adapt. Some manufacturers will continue with the same sugar-heavy recipe and some consumers will simply pay the higher price and continue to consumer the product. In addition to that, they say that some consumers will simply consume alternative sugary goods, resulting in no impact on health at all. So, while government action is necessary, I am personally not sure that the proposed indirect tax will in fact make the kind of difference we would all like to see, and I don’t understand why the government would ignore such useful studies as those discussed above. We can learn from taxes already imposed in other countries and ensure that we implement the most effective system possible to protect the health of young people today.
