Comments
WTFwhatthehell t1_j62w3ki wrote
As a result a lot of drinks that used to be fully sugared, the manufacturers switched to a mix of sweeteners and sugar.
A friend who gets terrible migranes from the sweetners wasn''t very impressed because suddenly drinks that were formerly safe for her to drink got loaded down with sweetners.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j64apea wrote
Arguably, sugar in that concentration isn't safe for her either.
Someone who lives a lifestyle where they can legitimately healthily consume that much sugar and can't consume sweeteners does exist. And you might know them. But they'll be among a small number of edge cases.
This tax benefits a lot of people.
WTFwhatthehell t1_j64f4mr wrote
>Arguably
No, it's not arguable at all.
People don't just keel over dead from drinking an occasional glass of coke.
There's 35 grams of sugar in a 330 ml can of coke.
There's about 29 grams of sugar in 330 ml of orange juice.
Plenty of people can consume an occasional glass of either coke or orange juice without any negative impact on their health at all.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j64jvni wrote
Actually the numbers on rising cases of diabetes disagree with you.
Any country that provides healthcare (Even the US, they spend more on socialised medicine than most countries.) Should tax things which are unhealthy. Tobacco, alcohol, refined sugar. The tax the manufacturers pay goes part way to paying for the treatment of those who consume the product and part way to reducing consumption.
The company profits and should have to pay externalities.
People don't tend to drink large quantities of orange juice because it's sickly.
Coke, with the bitterness of caffeine and carbonated water to balance out the sugar, is designed to be drunk in larger quantities.
But by all means limit the portion size of orange juice to 200-250ml, as is the norm and so the same with that 330ml can of coke.
Neither drink is suitable for you if you're thirsty, and if you want a treat a small portion is enough for the taste.
WTFwhatthehell t1_j64mng7 wrote
People can drink a large glass of orange juice just fine, it's quite palatable.
There's more to diabetes than people drinking the occasional coke.
"The tax the manufacturers pay"
Every penny of the cost gets passed to consumers. It's a tax the customer pays.
Also, that's massively patriarchal and a huge slippery slope. I'll believe the UK parliament actually care about health the day they stop providing taxpayer-funded booze to members of parliament. The only people ever keen on these kinds of sin-taxes are people utterly convinced that they're better/wiser than others and they make sure they don't apply to themselves.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j64tej1 wrote
People drinking the occasional glass won't notice the tax. It's pennies.
The tax is well calibrated in this case to affect the ones most at risk of harm.
And manufacturers now sell both drinks for the same price and make more profit off a diet drink. What effect do you think that's going to have? More healthy options, more advertising of healthy options.
The fact diet coke and sugar coke cost the same in most cases is proof not all the cost is passed onto the customer. If it were they'd be undercut by a company willing to sell their diet drinks at a lower price than their sugar ones.
WTFwhatthehell t1_j64veny wrote
> People drinking the occasional glass won't notice the tax. It's pennies.
Which would be a great argument if a lot of them didn't change their recepies to include a fraction of sweeteners. As mentioned, it does affect some people.
>And manufacturers now sell both drinks for the same price and make more profit off a diet drink.
Neatly removing the incentive for consumers to pick the low-sugar option. Utterly defeating the claimed point of the tax.
There's already plenty of store-brand drinks that sell for a tiny fraction of the price of most softdrinks and like 3 massive conglomerates that sell most of the popular brands between them.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j654pq8 wrote
As I said having a reaction to sweeteners makes you an edge case and they can easily find sugary drinks without sweeteners. If they don't like a recipe they shouldn't buy it.
Perhaps they have to check the label a bit more but frankly so should we all.
You can't have it both ways. If the price is the same and the manufacturer has more incentive to sell you a healthier untaxed product, or the price is different in which case the consumer has the incentive to buy the healthier product.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/620155/share-of-diet-soft-drinks-in-the-united-kingdom/
There is a question over if this trend needed the tax in order to continue or not, but the switch to diet drinks looks likely to happen regardless.
But the fact that regardless of whether the incentive lies with the consumer or the manufacturer the trend is in the right direction.
People have generally realised they aren't healthy and just like alcohol, we're consuming less.
You're moaning about a tiny tax that benefits society as a whole, actually being largely paid by those 3 conglomerates while prices remain the same. I genuinely don't understand your problem.
Either this tax is working, which is good. Or it's not but still gaining additional tax revenue from some multinationals, which is also good.
Or we could hail corporate, more obese children I guess. All so your friend doesn't have to check a label to avoid a migraine.
WTFwhatthehell t1_j656h5v wrote
>"You're moaning about a tiny tax that benefits society as a whole, actually being largely paid by those 3 conglomerates while prices remain the same. I genuinely don't understand your problem."
The price did not remain the same.
Prices immediately shot up right after the tax was brought in, they merely went up on both types of drinks. The cost was passed on to consumers.
This is not hard to understand but you want to not understand it.
The trend in consumption existed before the tax and continued unaffected.
[deleted] t1_j65klad wrote
[removed]
SunglassesDan t1_j6156jt wrote
Seems like other factors involved beyond just the soda calories. A household level reduction of 6240 calories per year is less than 0.5 lbs/person/year.
shiruken OP t1_j61cta5 wrote
Looking closer at the 2021 study, it seems these results were in line with predictions:
>Assuming a mean UK household size of 2.4 people, this is equivalent to a reduction in sugar consumption from SSBs of 12.5 g per person per week... A modelling study conducted before implementation of the SDIL found that if the levy achieved reformulation it could be expected to lead to a decrease in sugar consumption from SSBs of 7-38 g per person per week and that this would be associated with a reduction in the number of obese individuals in the UK of 0.2-0.9% and a reduction in incidence cases of type 2 diabetes of 0.8-4.4 per 1000 person years. The reduction in sugar from SSBs we report one year after implementation of the SDIL is within this range.
The authors of the current study point out their results are similar to those seen in Mexico:
>Second, the magnitude and pattern of associations in our results are consistent with recent findings from Mexico that report a modest reduction in overweight or obesity prevalence in adolescent girls (aged 10 to 18) with a 1.3-PP absolute decrease 2 years after a 10% SSB price increase (compared to a 1.6-PP absolute decrease observed in this study in 10- to 11-year-old girls 19 months after the levy was introduced) [38]. Moreover, similar to the findings of this study, no significant reductions in weight-related outcomes were observed in adolescent boys in Mexico. We note, however, that the tax implemented in Mexico is not directly comparable with the UK SDIL; in Mexico; the tax had a different design aimed at increasing the price to consumers resulting in 100% of the SSB tax being passed through to consumers, equating to a 14% increase in prices [49], and, importantly, the tax was included as a wider package of anti-obesity measures, which included charging 8% on high-energy foods [23]. We note the importance of the finding that the tax in Mexico was more effective in girls who were heavier. Similar analysis was not possible here because we only had access to repeated cross-sectional data, which cannot be linked over time.
Orinoco123 t1_j6191dj wrote
You've applied the average evenly, not necessarily the case.
RudeHero t1_j62flam wrote
You're assuming every family drinks the exact same amount of soda
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j64atmq wrote
Diabetes is caused by sugar spikes more than just unhealthy weight.
EdanE33 t1_j64yb2o wrote
I noticed that coca cola for example changed the packaging of coke zero to look like coke original so people would buy it thinking it was the original. Now I almost never see actual coke original unless it's in a fast food restaurant.
insaneintheblain t1_j67d6lf wrote
Do the manufacturers then pass on the cost to the consumer?
Beta_Ray_Bill t1_j62nrmn wrote
They tried the sugary drink tax in Illinois years ago. Iirc everyone in Chicago just went to the suburbs to buy Soda. It actually ended up costing the city and repealed it before too awful long...
HiddenStoat t1_j62pgqq wrote
Why would people drive miles out of their way to save a few cents? Surely the cost in gas and time would make that uneconomical?
Beta_Ray_Bill t1_j62qj6w wrote
It wasn't just Chicago. It was the whole of Cook County. (My bad forgot to mention that). Last place I lived in Chicagoland I was moved out to the northwest. Just a few miles from Lake County, and Marb Reds were 55 cents cheaper.
Now imagine if your fam drinks soda, tea, Hi-c, Hawaiian Punch, Kool Aid, or any juice not exclusively fresh squeezed... Its a tax per ounce. Even on the kool-aid powder! Dole and Ocean Spray got hit too.
So many people stocked up outside of the County they took it back. Now you tell me.
Gremlinintheengine t1_j64ijkj wrote
Yeah I live close to the TN/ GA border. We cross the line to buy groceries because sales tax is cheaper in GA. Houses are cheaper there too, but we won't move there because GA has an income tax that would make living a mile south way more expensive.
shiruken OP t1_j648qz4 wrote
That was a direct tax on consumption though (i.e. the consumer was taxed). The UK's is a tax on the production of sugar-sweetened beverages as an incentive for manufacturers to reduce the amount of sugar in their products.
Also, there's evidence that Chicago's sugar tax actually worked. According to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, purchases of the taxed beverages decreased by 21%, even after accounting for cross-border shopping.
ubermeisters t1_j617kue wrote
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
shiruken OP t1_j61ua3q wrote
Companies are the ones paying the tax.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_j61ppz4 wrote
[removed]
AllanfromWales1 t1_j6104ot wrote
The study clearly shows the change over that time period, but I'd be interested to know what else was going on over that time to be sure there were no other factors than the sugar tax. In particular for boys.
shiruken OP t1_j614c6q wrote
Authors suggest it could be changes in advertising, which predominantly impacts boys:
>While our finding that the SDIL had greater impacts on obesity prevalence in girls than boys is consistent with previous studies [38], it is unclear why this might be the case, especially since boys were higher baseline consumers of SSBs [13]. One explanation is that there were factors (e.g., in food advertising and marketing) at work around the time of the announcement and implementation of the levy that worked against any associations of the SDIL among boys. There is evidence that soft drink manufacturers altered their marketing strategies in different ways in response to the SDIL including repackaging and rebranding products [55]. Numerous studies have found that boys are often exposed to more food advertising content than girls [56–59], both through higher levels of TV viewing [59] and through the way in which adverts are framed. Physical activity is often used to promote junk food, and boys, compared to girls, have been shown to be more likely to believe that energy-dense junk foods depicted in adverts will boost physical performance [56] and thus they are more likely to choose energy-dense, nutrient-poor products following celebrity endorsements. There is also evidence that girls tend to make healthier choices when it comes to diet (e.g., consuming more fruit and vegetables and less energy-dense foods) and other health behaviours (e.g., brushing teeth) [60]. One possibility for the observed differences between boys and girls may be that girls were more responsive to public health signalling arising from discussions around the SDIL or that they were more likely to choose drinks that had been reformulated to contain less sugar following the SDIL announcement.
BerriesAndMe t1_j62g220 wrote
Wonder how much it has to do with gender stereotypes tbh. Girls are still taught to accommodate while boys are told to go get what they want.
A family saying they have to scale back on sodas due to cost may have different effect on boys and girls in each family.
lightning_palm t1_j6eovib wrote
> A family saying they have to scale back on sodas due to cost may have different effect on boys and girls in each family.
This assumption stands in contrast to the following research:
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Redden, J. P., & Edward White, A. (2015). Spending on daughters versus sons in economic recessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(3), 435-457, https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/42/3/435/1819102
> Abstract > > Although parents often try not to favor one child, we examine whether specific environmental factors might bias parents to favor children of one sex over the other. This research draws on theory in evolutionary biology suggesting that investment in female versus male offspring depends on resource availability. Applying this to consumers, a series of experiments show that poor economic conditions favor resource allocations to daughters over sons. For example, poor conditions led people to bequeath more assets to girls in their will, and to choose girls to receive a US Treasury bond and a beneficial extracurricular activity. It is proposed that this happens because spending on children represents a reproductive investment, and that boys’ and girls’ relative reproductive value varies with economic conditions. Supporting this account, perceptions of which child will have more children statistically mediates the effect of economic conditions on preferences for girls. Consequently, the effect is strengthened as a child approaches reproductive age, and it is moderated by individual differences (risk aversion and monogamy) directly related to our theoretical model. This research contributes to the consumer behavior literature by revealing how, why, and when environmental factors influence spending on girls versus boys.
Thurstans, S., Opondo, C., Seal, A., Wells, J., Khara, T., Dolan, C., ... & Kerac, M. (2020). Boys are more likely to be undernourished than girls: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in undernutrition. BMJ global health, 5(12), https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/12/e004030
> Abstract > > Background Excess male morbidity and mortality is well recognised in neonatal medicine and infant health. In contrast, within global nutrition, it is commonly assumed that girls are more at risk of experiencing undernutrition. We aimed to explore evidence for any male/female differences in child undernutrition using anthropometric case definitions and the reasons for differences observed. > > Methods We searched: Medline, Embase, Global health, Popline and Cochrane databases with no time limits applied. Eligible studies focused on children aged 0–59 months affected by undernutrition where sex was reported. In the meta-analysis, undernutrition-specific estimates were examined separately for wasting, stunting and underweight using a random-effects model. > > Results 74 studies were identified: 44/74 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In 20 which examined wasting, boys had higher odds of being wasted than girls (pooled OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.40). 38 examined stunting: boys had higher odds of stunting than girls (pooled OR 1.29 95% CI 1.22 to 1.37). 23 explored underweight: boys had higher odds of being underweight than girls (pooled OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26). There was some limited evidence that the female advantage, indicated by a lower risk of stunting and underweight, was weaker in South Asia than other parts of the world. 43/74 (58%) studies discussed possible reasons for boy/girl differences; 10/74 (14%) cited studies with similar findings with no further discussion; 21/74 (28%) had no sex difference discussion. 6/43 studies (14%) postulated biological causes, 21/43 (49%) social causes and 16/43 (37%) to a combination. > > Conclusion Our review indicates that undernutrition in children under 5 is more likely to affect boys than girls, though the magnitude of these differences varies and is more pronounced in some contexts than others. Future research should further explore reasons for these differences and implications for nutrition policy and practice.
BerriesAndMe t1_j6hhrjm wrote
I was more thinking about personal choices of the kids less the parents.
But I was mostly wondering out loud and have no data at all. So thanks for doing the research for me.
shiruken OP t1_j60m6tu wrote
Direct link to the peer-reviewed study: N. T. Rogers, et al., Associations between trajectories of obesity prevalence in English primary school children and the UK soft drinks industry levy: An interrupted time series analysis of surveillance data, PLoS Medicine, 20(1), e1004160 (2023)
>Background: Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are the primary source of dietary added sugars in children, with high consumption commonly observed in more deprived areas where obesity prevalence is also highest. Associations between SSB consumption and obesity in children have been widely reported. In March 2016, a two-tier soft drinks industry levy (SDIL) on drinks manufacturers to encourage reformulation of SSBs in the United Kingdom was announced and then implemented in April 2018. We examined trajectories in the prevalence of obesity at ages 4 to 5 years and 10 to 11 years, 19 months after the implementation of SDIL, overall and by sex and deprivation.
>
>Methods and findings: Data were from the National Child Measurement Programme and included annual repeat cross-sectional measurement of over 1 million children in reception (4 to 5 years old) and year 6 (10 to 11 years old) in state-maintained English primary schools. Interrupted time series (ITS) analysis of monthly obesity prevalence data from September 2013 to November 2019 was used to estimate absolute and relative changes in obesity prevalence compared to a counterfactual (adjusted for temporal variations in obesity prevalence) estimated from the trend prior to SDIL announcement. Differences between observed and counterfactual estimates were examined in November 2019 by age (reception or year 6) and additionally by sex and deprivation quintile. In year 6 girls, there was an overall absolute reduction in obesity prevalence (defined as >95th centile on the UK90 growth charts) of 1.6 percentage points (PPs) (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 2.1), with greatest reductions in the two most deprived quintiles (e.g., there was an absolute reduction of 2.4 PP (95% CI: 1.6, 3.2) in prevalence of obesity in the most deprived quintile). In year 6 boys, there was no change in obesity prevalence, except in the least deprived quintile where there was a 1.6-PP (95% CI: 0.7, 2.5) absolute increase. In reception children, relative to the counterfactual, there were no overall changes in obesity prevalence in boys (0.5 PP (95% CI: 1.0, −0.1)) or girls (0.2 PP (95% CI: 0.8, −0.3)). This study is limited by use of index of multiple deprivation of the school attended to assess individual socioeconomic disadvantage. ITS analyses are vulnerable to unidentified cointerventions and time-varying confounding, neither of which we can rule out.
>
>Conclusions: Our results suggest that the SDIL was associated with decreased prevalence of obesity in year 6 girls, with the greatest differences in those living in the most deprived areas. Additional strategies beyond SSB taxation will be needed to reduce obesity prevalence overall, and particularly in older boys and younger children.
SoulKnightmare t1_j61eq91 wrote
This doesn't mean they should get rid of it.
r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j62o178 wrote
That sounds like a textbook example of cherry picking. What was the effect and significance overall without grouping by age, gender and economical situation?
AutoModerator t1_j60lunn wrote
See the Best of r/science 2022 Winners!
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_j60q3j6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j62bxhg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j62n3zh wrote
[removed]
insaneintheblain t1_j67d8jq wrote
A good way to reduce sugar intake in a household is to not buy soft drinks
[deleted] t1_j60oeq8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j61w8sn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6417hd wrote
[removed]
swbarnes2 t1_j65cpep wrote
They found positive results in one and only one subset of subjects? Could be cherry picking.
Kindly_One_6756 t1_j60tihf wrote
While it doesn't sound like a great result initially I think it's important to remember that the only major country with more affordable food in the entire world is the USA and that the tax itself is fairly small. It's not like it has caused soft drinks to double in price or anything like that.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-much-each-country-spends-on-food/
K1rkl4nd t1_j61v81x wrote
With the way retailers work off margin, the soft drink industry as a whole is walking into a period of demand destruction due to rising retail prices. Coke moved their everyday 12oz can 12pk price to $8.29. Three years ago that was a good sale price for a 24pk. With 20oz in convenience stores teetering between $2.39 and $2.49, we won't have to worry about taxation, as volume will fall off. We're already pricing in a 8% volume reduction, but still netting about 2% dollar growth for the year due to taking rate increases.
randomizeme1234 t1_j60ul9c wrote
Amazing such a clear sex difference in metabolism exists already at this early age, mostly pre-puberty.
murderedbyaname t1_j60xc1x wrote
Did I miss that correlation? Not being sarcastic. I don't see a conclusion in the study? The difference between cis gender males and females is the ratio of body fat and where it is in the body, and where the muscle is located in men vs women. I swear I thought I read that that had been disproven to have an effect on metabolic processes in men vs women, but it's been a while since I may have seen that.
randomizeme1234 t1_j610d42 wrote
Clearly the differences between boys and girls go far beyond ratios of fat and muscle and how they are distributed. What is remarkable in this study is that it is happening at the level of intermediary metabolism, even at such an early age.
murderedbyaname t1_j611b8u wrote
Right, I just don't see a theory posited in the study as to why, so when you brought up metabolism I scanned it again and there's no mention. Not saying it's a bad theory. I'd like to see them posit theories.
fail-deadly- t1_j613vkt wrote
Maybe it’s easier for poor families to say no to girls when they want the sugar.
Alarmed_Zucchini4843 t1_j61ao7e wrote
That was exactly my thinking.
randomizeme1234 t1_j61xqnb wrote
Well, metabolism is what links sugar intake to fat production. Too much sugar will eventually lead to excess being converted to fat, via an intermediate called acetyl-CoA. There are quite a few biochemical transformations that take place along the way. If you're interested, look up 'lipogenesis'. Part of the process is regulated by insulin, which is secreted when sugar is ingested. Note: if you follow the link at the bottom of this article it will take you to the original published study.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j642xfa wrote
Metabolism isn't going to be able to explain the difference. It's just the calories consumed by boys hasn't reduced that much.
randomizeme1234 t1_j6489hd wrote
Maybe. Unfortunately I could not see that the study controlled for that. They do mention other studies showing boys more susceptible to junk food advertising.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j649ft5 wrote
>Unfortunately I could not see that the study controlled for that.
We have hundreds if not thousands of studies around weight, fat gain and calories.
There is no reason to think that this situation is magically different than RCT on the subject.
kittenTakeover t1_j611hd3 wrote
Does it the sex difference is due to metabolism?
randomizeme1234 t1_j61vfiu wrote
No, the other way around.
shiruken OP t1_j60q51m wrote
Just to provide additional context, this "sugar tax" is imposed on the manufacturers of sugar-sweetened beverages as an incentive to reduce the amount of sugar in their products.
Research published in 2021 showed that the levy did not impact the volume of soft drinks purchased but the amount of sugar in those drinks was 30 g lower per household per week (a 10% reduction).