tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/sugar-levy-25922/articlesSugar levy – The Conversation2018-04-06T11:45:32Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/945202018-04-06T11:45:32Z2018-04-06T11:45:32ZSugar tax: what you need to know<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213406/original/file-20180405-189830-1rlytgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=GG3uJv9gEpsmlHGEoz9sdA-1-8">shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you like swigging sugary drinks, you might get a bit of a surprise next time you go to buy one, as a so-called <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43414777">sugar tax</a> has now come into force in the UK. </p>
<p>From now on, drinks with a sugar content of more than 5g per 100ml will be taxed 18p per litre and 24p for drinks with 8g or more. It’s hoped the tax will help to reduce sugar intake, as scientists have shown that <a href="http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.long">sugary drinks lead to weight gain</a> and diabetes. <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/613532/obes-phys-acti-diet-eng-2017-rep.pdf">Figures show</a> that 58% of women, 68% of men and 34% of 10- to 11-year-olds in the UK are classed as overweight or obese. </p>
<p>Of course, a tax alone is not going to solve the obesity problem overnight. Sugary drinks may be a leading source of sugar in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-latest-data-on-nations-diet">the UK diet</a>, but they are not the only contributor to obesity. So while we are not going to see obesity prevalence crashing down anytime soon, what taxes can do is contribute to change. </p>
<h2>How to reduce sugar</h2>
<p>The UK sugar tax aims to incentivise sugar reduction in drinks. Because it is imposed on drinks over a certain sugar threshold, manufacturers have the option of lowering sugar levels to avoid the tax. This way, the government is sending a clear message to the industry: get your act together and get sugar down. </p>
<p>On this measure of success, we don’t have to wait for the tax to be implemented to know that it has had an effect. According to the the UK Treasury, over 50% of soft drinks manufacturers (including retailer own-brands) <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drinks-industry-levy-comes-into-effect">have already reduced sugar levels</a>, responding to the stick of legislation. So much so, in fact, that the Treasury has <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drinks-industry-levy-comes-into-effect">downgraded its forecast</a> of how much money the levy will bring in – still standing at an impressive £240m. </p>
<p>The taxes will also make a contribution to the funding of programmes designed to reduce obesity. Such “earmarking” of taxes is relatively rare, but in the UK the tax was introduced in the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2016-documents/budget-2016">March 2016 budget</a> with the explicit goal to “fund a doubling of the primary schools sports premium”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213408/original/file-20180405-189821-1pusfvs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213408/original/file-20180405-189821-1pusfvs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213408/original/file-20180405-189821-1pusfvs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213408/original/file-20180405-189821-1pusfvs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213408/original/file-20180405-189821-1pusfvs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213408/original/file-20180405-189821-1pusfvs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213408/original/file-20180405-189821-1pusfvs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Theoretically, a 1.75 litre bottle of cola bought from a supermarket could increase in price by about 25%.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=GG3uJv9gEpsmlHGEoz9sdA-1-16">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We know this approach is workable. In 2015, Jamie Oliver voluntarily imposed a 10p extra <a href="http://jech.bmj.com/content/71/11/1107">charge on the sugary drinks</a> served in his restaurants, encouraging others to do the same. The proceeds were donated to The <a href="http://www.childrenshealthfund.org.uk/about/">Children’s Health Fund</a>. In the two and a half years since, the fund has given away £162,000 in grants to improve child health. And <a href="https://www.sustainweb.org/news/mar18_school_fountains/">according to Sustain</a> – the NGO that manages the fund – 146,000 children have benefited from improved access to drinking water, as a result of the extra charge.</p>
<h2>Will it change what people buy?</h2>
<p>The UK government has not made changing people’s dietary habits an explicit aim of the tax. But evidence from elsewhere does suggest people buy less when a tax comes into force. For example, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5442881/">in Mexico</a> – which introduced a one peso per litre excise tax on sugary drinks in 2014 – purchases of taxed drinks fell by almost 8% in the following two years. Larger decreases were seen in households at the lowest socioeconomic level. And people also bought more of the untaxed drinks – notably water. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-world-can-learn-from-mexicos-tax-on-sugar-sweetened-drinks-56696">What the world can learn from Mexico's tax on sugar-sweetened drinks</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the Mexico case, however, we don’t actually know if people started buying fewer sugary drinks because of the price hike, or because of another reason. This is because <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5442881/">the data</a> simply measures the decline after the tax, not why the decline is happening. So while prices are likely to have a played a role, there could be <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919217308837">another mechanism</a> at work. It could be, for example, that the tax started a conversation, raised awareness, got the industry talking about what it would do in response, and stimulated other actions to reduce consumption. </p>
<h2>The lasting measure of success</h2>
<p>Getting people talking, even arguing, about the tax is also an important part in all of this. Is it fair, as it affects people who are poor more than the rich? Why do we need what is essentially a punitive measure to get industry to act? If we are against the idea, then what else would work better and can we prove it?</p>
<p>These questions are important because it’s when these conversations percolate through society, that norms can change. Less so-called nanny statism and more people working it out for themselves. Working out, perhaps, that producing and consuming a lot of sugary drinks is not normal at all, but something weird that should be relegated to the past. </p>
<p>An important measure of the success of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-your-drink-is-liable-for-the-soft-drinks-industry-levy">Soft Drinks Industry Levy</a>, then, will be if it contributes to changing these norms – in industry and society. And if it does, it will help to contribute towards a healthier society and healthier people.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94520/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Corinna Hawkes receives funding from the UK Department of Health as co-investigator on the Obesity Policy Research Unit.
She is on the Future of Food Advisory panel convened by Dave Lewis, CEO of Tesco.</span></em></p>Why you might soon be paying more for your favourite sugary drink.Corinna Hawkes, Professor of Food Policy, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/660672016-09-27T15:47:35Z2016-09-27T15:47:35ZCase against soft drink levy is sugar coated<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139268/original/image-20160926-31840-t9xipe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">RTimages</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A proposed levy on <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drinks-industry-levy-12-things-you-should-know">sugary soft drinks</a> was recently brought into question by <a href="http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/write/MediaUploads/Publications/The_Economic_Impact_of_the_Soft_Drinks_Levy.pdf">a study produced for the industry</a> which appeared to show that the costs would well outweigh the benefits.</p>
<p>The report, by the forecasting group Oxford Economics, concluded that adding a levy of 18p to 24p per litre to sugary drinks would have a negligible effect on calorie reduction but significant costs in terms of industry job losses. These findings were <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22oxford+economics%22+soft+drinks&hl=en&biw=1440&bih=794&tbm=nws&ei=0NvoV66iMsXgaMbroMgC&start=10&sa=N&dpr=1">widely reported</a>, with a coalition of other businesses subsequently joining the British Soft Drinks Association in opposing the levy. </p>
<p>Worryingly, many media outlets failed to disclose that the study was produced for the British Soft Drinks Association. But of greater concern is the way that it underestimates the benefits of the levy and overestimates its costs, potentially misleading public debate.</p>
<h2>Underestimating effect</h2>
<p>One of the main arguments put forward in the study is that the levy would only reduce sugar consumption by five calories per person per day. There are reasons to question this. Cross-price “elasticities” are used to calculate how the consumption of some goods are affected by a change in the price of others. The study takes its estimates of these from a recent <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6189">paper in the British Medical Journal</a> which looked at the market demand for different drinks. </p>
<p>However, in copying these estimates it ignored those elasticities that were statistically insignificant, thus distorting the results. It should have been acknowledged that the consumption of water and diet beverages could benefit from a hike in the price of sugary drinks, meaning that the study’s conclusions most likely underestimate the extent to which consumers would substitute sugary drinks for sugar-free alternatives. In addition, the study ignored the standard errors of these elasticities. This downplays the enormous amount of uncertainty associated with this kind of modelling. </p>
<p>Allied to this, the study takes no account of the signalling effect to consumers of the taxation – only the price effect. In other words, people may consume fewer sugary drinks not just because the price has gone up but also because the perception of them as “unhealthy” has been strengthened. <a href="http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:747887/FULLTEXT02">Empirical research</a> into the effect of taxation has shown that, in some instances, consumption of products such as alcoholic drinks do appear to have decreased beyond the level expected by the price increase alone. </p>
<p>And as pointed out by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37121617">BBC Reality Check</a>, the study assumed that no further changes would be made to the formulation of soft drinks, which is at odds with <a href="http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/write/MediaUploads/Publications/BSDA_Annual_Report_2015.pdf">what the industry is currently doing</a>. If the existence of the levy leads to more drinks being reformulated to contain less sugar (and thereby avoid some or all of the tax) then total sugar consumption from sugary drinks should fall even in the absence of product substitution.</p>
<h2>The health hit</h2>
<p>Not only may total sugar reduction be greater than predicted in the study, the beneficial health impacts could be better too. First of all, the reduction in total sugar consumption anticipated in the study is averaged out across the whole population. This ignores the fact that consumption of sugary drinks is concentrated among teenagers. </p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-results-from-years-1-to-4-combined-of-the-rolling-programme-for-2008-and-2009-to-2011-and-2012">National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2008-2012</a>, people aged 11 to 18 consume on average 21g of added sugar per day from soft drinks. This is more than double the amount consumed by people aged between 19 and 64. For this reason the “five calories per person per day” conclusion is misleading. It will be much higher for teenagers – a key target group of the levy. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139273/original/image-20160926-31870-103nlgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139273/original/image-20160926-31870-103nlgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139273/original/image-20160926-31870-103nlgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139273/original/image-20160926-31870-103nlgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139273/original/image-20160926-31870-103nlgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139273/original/image-20160926-31870-103nlgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139273/original/image-20160926-31870-103nlgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There’s an awful lot of sugar in many canned soft drinks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Evan Lorne</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Moreover the study assumed that the only intended health effect of the levy is to help prevent obesity. But a reduction in the consumption of sugary drinks will also help prevent tooth decay and could reduce the incidence of Type 2 diabetes as well (independently of its effects on body weight). Tackling these two diseases has long been part of the levy’s purpose, as outlined by <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470179/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_action.pdf">Public Health England</a>, which formally proposed the tax last year. </p>
<p>Lastly, the study also treats all sugars the same. Naturally-occurring lactose in milk and fructose in processed juices are counted the same as the refined white sugar (sucrose) added to energy drinks and carbonated drinks. Since the study argues that consumers will switch from energy drinks and carbonated drinks to milk and juices, the overall calorie reduction seems limited. From a dietary point of view, however, milk and juices offer additional benefits (for example, vitamins and minerals, and no added caffeine) which these other drinks do not. Encouraging this switch may be considered a benefit of the levy independently of its effect on calorie intake.</p>
<h2>Unemployment</h2>
<p>One of the perceived risks of the levy is that it will lead to economic contraction and unemployment. The study estimates that lower sales will reduce the industry’s GDP contribution by £132m and result in 4,000 job losses, a figure subsequently cited in the headlines of <a href="http://www.cityam.com/247091/oxford-economics-study-finds-soft-drinks-tax-cost-uk">City AM</a> and <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1569900/george-osbornes-sugar-tax-on-soft-drinks-set-to-put-4000-british-jobs-at-risk/">The Sun</a> among other newspapers. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"779116720879505409"}"></div></p>
<p>However, the employment effects it examines are confined to the soft drinks industry and exclude the dairy industry, which, according to study itself, stands to benefit from a 3.7% increase in the volume of milk sold. Based on the figures provided in the study, if the effects on the dairy industry are included then this would reduce the GDP and employment effects by around three quarters – in other words, the predicted loss in GDP would be £33m and the reduction in employment more like 1,000 jobs. Taking into account the likely increase in water and diet drinks sales would further reduce the predicted losses, possibly even turning them into a gain. </p>
<p>As noted before, there is also a degree of uncertainty attached to forecast modelling, which again is not adequately communicated. <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/5827/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf">Evidence</a> from other countries has shown that when it comes to the effects of “health taxes” on employment, the taxes tend to be outweighed by other factors affecting the revenue, profitability and employment prospects of the industry in question. Anticipating all these in advance is inherently difficult. </p>
<p>Acknowledging this might have made the “can the tax” coalition more cautious when claiming about the levy that “<a href="http://canthetax.org.uk/economic-impact/supply-chain/">we know that it will cause the loss of over 4,000 jobs</a>”. Regrettably, as often happens when research becomes yoked to interest group lobbying, such nuance is all too easily lost.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66067/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Richardson has publicly supported a soft drinks levy. His reasons are outlined in the publication ‘Sugar Shift: Six Ideas for a Healthier and Fairer Food System’, Food Research Collaboration Briefing Paper, February 2015. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thijs van Rens is academic co-lead of the University of Warwick's Global Research Priority in Food.</span></em></p>A widely quoted study produced for the soft drinks industry made much of the costs, but downplayed the benefits, of a tax on sugary drinks.Ben Richardson, Assistant Professor in International Political Economy, University of WarwickThijs van Rens, Associate Professor of Economics, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/570032016-04-01T11:47:35Z2016-04-01T11:47:35ZWhy finding a real alternative to sugar is so difficult<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116777/original/image-20160330-28455-1j1phef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sweets for my sweets ...</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=spoonful%20of%20sugar&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=237309733">Kozlenko</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>So much for the decades in which fats and oils were public enemy number one on our dinner plates. There is <a href="http://www.actiononsugar.org/index.html">more and more evidence</a> that sugar – or more precisely, carbohydrate – is behind our increasing rates of <a href="http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/nearly-one-third-world%E2%80%99s-population-obese-or-overweight-new-data-show">obesity</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150402101410.htm">heart disease</a>. Even if the mechanisms by which this occurs are still not well defined, there are endless <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/">calls for</a> reducing its quantities in the foods we eat. Most recently in the UK this led to the chancellor, George Osborne, <a href="https://theconversation.com/sorry-jamie-oliver-id-be-surprised-if-sugar-tax-helped-cut-obesity-56471">announcing</a> a tax on sugary soft drinks. </p>
<p>Had we ever come up with a proper substitute for sugar, of course, we wouldn’t need to have this debate. In <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-what-happens-to-your-brain-when-you-give-up-sugar-for-lent-37745">our sweetness-addicted era</a>, it is one of science’s greatest challenges. So why has it eluded us for so long, and are we any closer to a solution?</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116984/original/image-20160331-31093-1gmtfqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116984/original/image-20160331-31093-1gmtfqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116984/original/image-20160331-31093-1gmtfqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116984/original/image-20160331-31093-1gmtfqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116984/original/image-20160331-31093-1gmtfqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116984/original/image-20160331-31093-1gmtfqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116984/original/image-20160331-31093-1gmtfqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116984/original/image-20160331-31093-1gmtfqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Saccharine on sale.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=saccharine&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=240640765">Lunasee Studios</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Replacing the sweetness of sugar in foods is actually relatively straightforward. The first synthetic sweetener, saccharine, was <a href="http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/05/saccharin-discovered-accident/">discovered accidentally</a> by a young Russian chemist named Constantin Fahlberg in 1879 while studying coal-tar derivatives, when he unknowingly got it on his hands and licked his fingers. Saccharine became widely used around World War I, when natural sugar was in short supply. In the 1960s scientists discovered several more artificial sweeteners in similarly serendipitous ways, including aspartame and acesulfame K.</p>
<p>As well as these discoveries, there are naturally occurring sweeteners that we have actually known about for much longer (see table below). The <a href="http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/Guarani1.html">Guarani</a> peoples of modern-day Brazil and Paraguay have been using the leaves of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-rose-by-any-other-name-the-low-down-on-healthy-coke-33552">stevia</a> plant as a sweetener for about 1,500 years. And the seeds of the West African katemfe fruit, which contain a sweet chemical called thaumatin, have been on our radar since the 19th century. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116771/original/image-20160330-9712-1frvkxu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116771/original/image-20160330-9712-1frvkxu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=185&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116771/original/image-20160330-9712-1frvkxu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=185&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116771/original/image-20160330-9712-1frvkxu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=185&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116771/original/image-20160330-9712-1frvkxu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116771/original/image-20160330-9712-1frvkxu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116771/original/image-20160330-9712-1frvkxu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Sweetness’ is relative to sugar – stevia is 275 times as sweet.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Sweet but sour</h2>
<p>Yet while we have plenty of options for sweetness, there are several difficulties associated with using non-sugar sweeteners in foods. There have been various cancer scares over the years, which have affected <a href="http://drrichswier.com/2015/05/25/fda-generated-stevia-myth/">stevia</a>, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637197/">saccharine</a> and <a href="http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/hidden_dangers.htm">aspartame</a>, among others. Some artificial sweeteners have <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/09September/Pages/Do-artificial-sweeteners-raise-diabetes-risk.aspx">also been</a> linked to type 2 diabetes. </p>
<p>To compound this, governments class all non-sugar sweeteners as additives, which means they are assigned an E-number – even stevia and thaumatin. In an era where consumers have become increasingly wary of these numbers even when there aren’t specific health risks, manufacturers have been moving towards so-called “clean-label” products that are free of them. This puts these sweeteners at a disadvantage. </p>
<p>Aside from health and labelling, sugars have chemical functions in foods that make them difficult to replace. Sugar solutions freeze at a lower temperature than pure water, for instance. In products like ice cream, this is critical to maintaining a soft texture at freezer temperatures. </p>
<p>Sugars play an important role in giving products like bread, cakes and even wine their darker colour, through what chemists call <a href="http://www.scienceofcooking.com/browning_of_foods.htm">non-enzymatic browning reactions</a>. Artificial
sweeteners are not good at reproducing either of these. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116781/original/image-20160330-28472-616nos.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116781/original/image-20160330-28472-616nos.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116781/original/image-20160330-28472-616nos.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116781/original/image-20160330-28472-616nos.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116781/original/image-20160330-28472-616nos.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116781/original/image-20160330-28472-616nos.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116781/original/image-20160330-28472-616nos.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116781/original/image-20160330-28472-616nos.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Mmmm aspartame.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12164185/stock-photo-man-checking-food-labelling-on-supermarket-products.html?src=csl_recent_image-1">Monkey Business Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Then there is aftertaste. This arises from the mechanism by which sweetness is detected in the taste buds. One problem is that the structural features of any sweet molecule that allow them to bind to the sweetness receptors on the tongue are <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867403000710">similar to</a> the ones that bind to our bitterness receptors. This is why some sweeteners leave a bitter aftertaste, which is of course undesirable to some consumers. </p>
<p>But looking at the previous table again, for sweeteners that don’t have a bitter aftertaste there is another issue. Artificial sweeteners bind more strongly to the sweetness receptors and have a different and longer-lasting taste profile to sugar, and so are perceived as tasting different by consumers. </p>
<p>All in all, although non-sugar sweeteners are a multi-billion-pound industry, these drawbacks help to explain why they are nowhere near eclipsing sugar. In 2014 sugar (sucrose) <a href="http://www.preparedfoods.com/articles/114720-alternative-sweeteners-gain-12-share-of-734-billion-market">accounted for</a> 78% of all sweetener sales. Artificial sweeteners made up 8%, with acesulfame k the market leader. Natural alternatives like stevia, which was <a href="https://www.acefitness.org/certifiednewsarticle/1644/the-truth-about-stevia-the-so-called-quot-healthy/">banned</a> in the US and EU until fairly recently, made up 1%. (The rest of the market comprises everything from glucose to syrups). </p>
<h2>Where sweeteners go from here</h2>
<p>The cancer evidence against non-sugar sweeteners has turned out to be thinner than feared. <a href="http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/food-controversies#food_controversies1">Cancer Research UK</a> and the US <a href="http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet">National Cancer Institute</a> both say there is no increased risk regarding artificial sweeteners. Stevia’s years in the wilderness were the result of an anonymous complaint about the cancer risks to the US authorities <a href="https://health.thefuntimesguide.com/2014/08/what-is-stevia.php">commonly thought</a> to have come from artificial-sweetener producers, but it has since been rehabilitated. As for type 2 diabetes, the <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html">evidence linking it</a> to artificial sweeteners is <a href="http://nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/7/433">inconclusive</a> and we need more research – so far it has all been done on animals. </p>
<p>On the physical issues, food scientists have had to think creatively. When it comes to texture, for instance, manufacturers add protein texturisers instead – <a href="http://www.clextral.com/food-feed-2/food/extured-protein/">soy</a>, for example. Or you can turn to other substances that have a similar effect as sugar on the freezing properties of water – the sugar alcohol erythritol is one option. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116779/original/image-20160330-28443-133low5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116779/original/image-20160330-28443-133low5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116779/original/image-20160330-28443-133low5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116779/original/image-20160330-28443-133low5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116779/original/image-20160330-28443-133low5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116779/original/image-20160330-28443-133low5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=995&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116779/original/image-20160330-28443-133low5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=995&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116779/original/image-20160330-28443-133low5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=995&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stevia wonder?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=stevia&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=99968267">Olivier le Moal</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Manufacturers seek to overcome the aftertaste issue by mixing sweeteners. We perceive the aftertaste of different sweeteners over differing timescales, so one sweetener can be used to mask the aftertaste of a second. It is common to use stevia in combination with acesulfame K, for instance. </p>
<p>Another increasingly common ploy is to mix sugar and other sweeteners together. This helps explain why the use of non-sugar sweeteners in new product launches <a href="http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/stevia-set-to-steal-intense-sweetener-market-share-by-2017-reports-mintel-and-leatherhead-food-research">rose from</a> 3.5% in 2009 to 5.5% in 2012. It also explains why stevia is rocketing. Food analysts Mintel and Leatherhead forecast it will have become the most widely used non-sugar sweetener by as early as next year. </p>
<p>In the absence of a Holy Grail for sugar replacement, this could be as good as it gets any time soon. No wonder the authorities are beginning to intervene to save us from our sweet tooth instead.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57003/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Euston has received research funding from BBSRC, EPSRC, Innovate UK and EC Horizon2020, though the views in this piece are entirely his own. He is also a committee member of the Agri-Food group of the Society of Chemical Industry. </span></em></p>If only it were as simple as sweetness.Stephen Euston, Professor, Heriot-Watt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565232016-03-21T12:37:17Z2016-03-21T12:37:17ZFizzy drinks tax alone won’t solve childhood obesity nightmare<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115599/original/image-20160318-4432-19epx22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hola cola</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/child+soda/search.html?page=2&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=296920880">Monkey Business Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>George Osborne’s <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1660913/osborne-defends-credibility-after-budget">sugar levy</a> on soft drinks seems to acknowledge, at long last, that the food industry should be regulated to help consumers adopt healthier diets. A substantial body of evidence strongly supports a “soda tax”. Regularly consuming sugary drinks is associated with growing rates of <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600040411">obesity</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938410000600">diabetes</a> and <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1631/jzus.B0820245">tooth decay</a>, particularly among children. Since <a href="http://www.oecd.org/health/Obesity-Update-2014.pdf">price influences consumption</a>, the tax aims to help steer consumers towards healthier options. </p>
<p>The soft-drinks industry has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/the-soda-tax-wars_b_544898.html">loudly objected</a> to the tax on the grounds that it is an intrusion of the “nanny state” on individual choice. But this ignores the fact that consumer choice is shaped to a large extent by the marketing efforts of the soft-drinks manufacturers. In truth this is the health-motivated state taking back some ability to influence consumers from the profit-motivated corporations, finally living up to its responsibility to protect public health and do something about childhood obesity. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115601/original/image-20160318-4456-vy5bby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115601/original/image-20160318-4456-vy5bby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115601/original/image-20160318-4456-vy5bby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115601/original/image-20160318-4456-vy5bby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115601/original/image-20160318-4456-vy5bby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115601/original/image-20160318-4456-vy5bby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115601/original/image-20160318-4456-vy5bby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115601/original/image-20160318-4456-vy5bby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Breathe in …</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-281904083/stock-photo--childhood-obesity.html?src=csl_recent_image-1">Oleg Malyshev</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Soft-drinks manufacturers also argue that food taxes disproportionately affect poor people, since they spend a larger share of their income on food, particularly unhealthy food. The move will therefore exacerbate inequality, they claim. Yet this is a short-term view of inequality: while poorer consumers may spend proportionately more of their income on unhealthy drinks, they <a href="https://nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/suppl_1/S36">are more likely</a> to be overweight. They may therefore see the greatest health benefits in the longer term. </p>
<h2>Complex problem</h2>
<p>Public support for the soda tax will be higher if the tax is framed as a health-promotion tool, and if the revenues are specifically allocated to obesity-prevention programmes. We should therefore welcome the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35824071">chancellor’s announcement</a> that the £520m he expects to raise in year one will be spent on increasing sports funding in primary schools. </p>
<p>Yet the success of this tax will ultimately depend on how effectively it has been designed. Here Osborne still has a lot of thinking to do. His decision to exclude milk-based drinks and pure fruit juices, even though they can be high in sugar, may work against the tax’s health objectives. This is particularly the case if it results in sweetened drinks being substituted for milk-based drinks. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673614617451">literature</a> suggests these kinds of interventions are most effective when they target the problem precisely and don’t allow consumers unhealthy alternatives. At present the government’s message also appears confused: is the tax designed to discourage consumers from buying so many soft drinks or encourage the manufacturers to reduce their sugar content – or both? The bottom line is that if the soda tax is going to work, it must incentivise consumers to shift from sugary soft drinks to less sugary ones. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115600/original/image-20160318-4417-1s3p8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115600/original/image-20160318-4417-1s3p8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115600/original/image-20160318-4417-1s3p8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115600/original/image-20160318-4417-1s3p8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115600/original/image-20160318-4417-1s3p8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115600/original/image-20160318-4417-1s3p8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115600/original/image-20160318-4417-1s3p8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115600/original/image-20160318-4417-1s3p8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Milky pleasures.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-248233210/stock-photo-raspberry-smoothie.html?src=csl_recent_image-1">magdanatka</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The debate surrounding this soda tax highlights that developing effective obesity-prevention strategies is complex. If the government genuinely wants to tackle the problem, it needs to comprehensively address the multiple aspects of childhood obesity. Sugary drinks are an important part of that, but still only a part. The government’s long-awaited and much delayed <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/26/childhood-obesity-strategy-delayed-sugar-tax-unlikely">strategy on</a> childhood obesity, promised for this summer, may well build on the soda-tax announcement. Certainly the government still needs to do far more than it has proven willing to do so far to reverse obesity trends.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56523/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amandine Garde often advises governments, international organisations and NGOs on the role that legal instruments can play in promoting healthier lifestyles. She currently acts as a consultant to the World Health Organization and UNICEF on the regulation of food and alcohol marketing, particularly to children, on the plain packaging of tobacco products and on other policies on the prevention of non-communicable diseases. She does not accept any funding from the food, the tobacco or the alcohol industries.
She received some research funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for a project on the marketing of food and non-alcoholic beverages to children in 2013.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirsten Ward and Oliver Bartlett do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>George’s medicine for health crisis is welcome, but not marvellous.Oliver Bartlett, Lecturer in Law, University of LiverpoolAmandine Garde, Professor of Law, University of LiverpoolKirsten Ward, Pre-doctoral researcher, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.