Exclusive: Co-author of analysis for WHO calls on government to control the food industry rather than being subservient to it

The sugar tax has been so successful in improving people’s diets that it should be extended to cakes, biscuits and chocolate, health experts say.

The World Health Organization wants the next UK government to expand coverage of the levy to help tackle tooth decay, obesity, diabetes and other illnesses.

The plea is published in the WHO’s bulletin, which urges governments worldwide to use the reformulation of food to address the growing crisis of excess weight.

Experts from Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) have analysed the outcomes of two flagship government policies intended to make food healthier – the sugar tax and sugar reduction programme, which were introduced in 2018 and 2015 respectively.

The levy on the soft-drinks industry led to a 34.3% fall in total sugar sales from such products between 2015 and 2020 and many fizzy drinks containing much less.

But the sugar reduction programme only yielded a 3.5% drop over the same period in the amount of sugar used in the manufacture of the everyday foodstuffs it covered, the experts write in their analysis for the WHO.

Dr Kawther Hashem, a co-author and lecturer in public health nutrition at QMUL, said ministers should trial a sugar tax-style levy on treat foods that still have almost as much sugar as they did as 2015 despite firms being asked to cut sugar by 20% before 2020.

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    ·
    6 months ago

    The levy on the soft-drinks industry led to a 34.3% fall in total sugar sales from such products between 2015 and 2020 and many fizzy drinks containing much less.

    They all contain artificial sweeteners instead, which the same WHO advises against.

  • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
    ·
    6 months ago

    I and a good number of other type one diabetics ended up in ER due to the sugar tax.

    Honestly I am not against the tax. Just feel the companies should have rebounded a little.

    Many T1ds were so used to buying coke etc when they are going low. We got hit hard by how quickly the companies adapted and started only selling the lower sugar versions.

    To the extent that the NHS will now RX small buttles of high glucose drinks. (Lemon or Berry flavoured but non fizzy) just to ensure T1ds have an easy source of sugar to prevent unsafe low blood sugar comas.

    As I say its something easy to fix now. We all just grab fruit juice. But the change and companies reactions to it. Left many of us waking up in an ambulance on the way to ER.

    If they start applying it to all products. And the companies all act the same way. Just reducing sugars without any clear branding.

    It will leave us with zero easy high sugar option that can be grabbed easily from any small village shop etc.

    • Patch@feddit.uk
      ·
      6 months ago

      It always seemed weird to me that most companies just discontinued their traditional sugary variety and went diet only, instead of having a diet version and the sugary version just at a higher price.

      The death of original Irn Bru is a bit of a tragedy, and I'm not even sure what the point of low sugar Lucozade is supposed to be.

      • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
        ·
        6 months ago

        Hilariously lucozade was originally used for exatly what the new gluco shots given buy the NHS were.

        Its original name was glucoaid. And it was used in hospitals in the 50s and 60s to give energy to paiteints.

        Back in the 80s when I was diagnosed Lucozade was what we were recomended to keep for the job. But there was so much better tasting stuff. I never got into it.

  • LifeBandit666@feddit.uk
    ·
    6 months ago

    Thing is the sugar tax seems to have done fuck all in changing the prices so sugar free options are cheaper. Whenever I look in the supermarket, Fanta and Fanta zero for example are the same price, which is just far more expensive than it used to be.

    So tell me how the sugar tax has made it healthier? I'm just gonna buy the full fat one if it costs the same.

    • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
      ·
      6 months ago

      Thing is the sugar tax seems to have done fuck all in changing the prices so sugar free options are cheaper.

      I don't think it was ever intended to.

      So tell me how the sugar tax has made it healthier?

      The manufacturers don't want the same flavour drink at two different prices, so they reduced the amount of sugar in the full fat variety, making it more... semi-skimmed. So people who still drink it are consuming less sugar which for most people (see the post about the impact on diabetics) is healthier. However, not consuming food or drink with added sugar is the healthiest option.

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
      ·
      6 months ago

      It has not changed the price of sugar free. Because the compqnies have drematically reduced the sugar in other sodas.

      IE you can nonlonger buy full sugar coke etc. So no tax is actually payable.

      Ir is definitely improved diets. But to give you an idea of how much the sugar is reduced.

      The first few years after the change. Type 1 diabetics like me ended up in ER.

      Because we had spent years ,(decades in my case) turning to fullvsugar drinks to avoid dangerous lows in hot summers.

      Now coke etc has only a small amount more sugar then diet coke.

      Many of us only realised this as we came to in an ambulance on the way to ER.

      It was such an issue that the NHS now prescribes us very high sugar drinks in small plastic ( 100ml) bottles we can carry for emergencies.

      We all also now know to stick to fruit juice if we need to buy something in an emergency. As that is not covered by the rule so has tons of added sugar.