Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ubermeisters t1_j617kue wrote

Reply to comment by shiruken in The implementation of a soft drinks industry levy in the UK in 2018 was associated with an 8% reduction in obesity among 10-11 year old girls with the greatest reductions seen in those living in the most deprived areas. No such association was found in 10-11 year old boys or younger children. by shiruken

That doesn't make sense to me. The volume of soft drinks didn't change, but the amount of sugar per household did? so the tax made people buy beverages with less sugar? Those would still be taxed though right? something doesn't add up here, I'm not convinced this is correlative.

−14

shiruken OP t1_j619d72 wrote

The amount of soft drinks sold didn't change but the soft drinks now contained less sugar, hence the reduction in total sugar consumption. Beverage companies reduced the sugar content of their products to avoid the levy.

32

ubermeisters t1_j619rtc wrote

so basically this is proof that the tax has done nothing other than convince companies to reduce soda sugar I guess? these are not the most promising results I've ever seen that's for sure. This is a rounding error at best.

Narrator: He didn't know what he thought he knew, ya know?

−14

shiruken OP t1_j61bm8k wrote

>the tax has done nothing other than convince companies to reduce soda sugar

Well, that was the goal of the program.

>This is a rounding error at best.

An 8% reduction works out to over 5,000 prevented cases of obesity among 10-11 year girls each year. It's strong evidence for an effective, if modest, public policy intervention.

37

ubermeisters t1_j61pk3i wrote

yeah I definitely was under the impression that it was supposed to be affecting people's habits, since the people are the one paying the tax... shouldn't the companies pay the tax if this is geared towards changing the way they do business? I don't understand why consumers have to foot the bill to get a company to change? What happened to this world ugh

−17

shiruken OP t1_j61ua3q wrote

Companies are the ones paying the tax.

20

ubermeisters t1_j623w5c wrote

Ok. well I'm officially going to renounce any claim to know what I'm talking about then, and I'm going to stop talking and go freshen up on this. embarrassing to think I knew such fundamental things about this soft drink tax, just to be wrong twice in a row.

Thanks stranger.

14

spazzardnope t1_j62gqsm wrote

Why is Coke dearer for full fat than Diet or Zero though? Just something I’ve noticed but seems the consumer gets stuffed too.

1

AftyOfTheUK t1_j61ml02 wrote

>so basically this is proof that the tax has done nothing other than convince companies to reduce soda sugar I guess

That was the intention of the tax... to reduce sugar in soda.

20