Sugar tax could be extended to milkshakes and lattes to tackle obesity
Plans to end the exemption from the levy for dairy-based drinks, as well as non-dairy substitutes such as oats or rice, were put out for consultation on Monday.
The tax would be applied to pre-packaged drinks cans of latte, flavoured milkshake drinks and cartons of milk alternatives.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves had said in her autumn budget last year that the Government would consider broadening the tax to include such drinks.
The so-called Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) was introduced by the previous Tory government in April 2018 as part of its anti-obesity drive.
Government statistics released last September showed the tax has raised a total of £1.9bn since it first came into effect.
The SDIL proposal seeks to reduce the maximum amount of sugar allowed in drinks before they become subject to the levy, lowering the threshold from 5g to 4g per 100ml.
Under the new plans, milk-based drinks would receive a 'lactose allowance', accounting for the naturally occurring sugars in milk.
The government says this could reduce daily calorie intake by an average of 1.2kcal in 19-64 year olds and 2.1kcal in 11-18 year olds to achieve health and economic benefits of around £4.2bn over 25 years.
Some 203 pre-packed milk-based drinks on the market, which make up 93% of sales within the category, will be subject to the tax unless their sugar content is reduced under the new proposals, according to Government analysis.
Sugar content in soft drinks collapsed by 46% in the past five years as a result of the levy introduced by chancellor George Osborne in 2016, according to the Food and Drink Federation.
As a result of widespread reformulation by manufacturers after the initial announcement, 89% of fizzy drinks sold in the UK do not pay the tax.
The sugar tax is currently charged at £1.94 per ten litres on drinks with 5g to 7.9g sugar per 100ml and £2.59 per ten litres for drinks with 8g or more sugar per 100ml.
The exemption for milk-based drinks was included because of concerns about calcium consumption, particularly among children.
However, the Treasury said young people only get 3.5% of their calcium intake from such drinks, meaning 'it is also likely that the health benefits do not justify the harms from excess sugar'.
'By bringing milk-based drinks and milk substitute drinks into the SDIL, the Government would introduce a tax incentive for manufacturers of these drinks to build on existing progress and further reduce sugar in their recipes,' it said.
The Institute for Economic Affairs, a right-wing free-market think tank, expressed concerns about the cost to consumers of the proposed changes.
They also argue that it has done little to tackle obesity in children.
UK sugar intake remains about double the recommended level, according to government statistics.
The most recent data from the Scottish Health Survey 2022 shows that 18% of children aged two to 15 are now at risk of developing obesity – the Scottish Government's 2030 target is 7%.
Consumption of sugary soft drinks is also more than twice as high among the most deprived children compared to the least deprived – 29.1% compared to 13.1%.
'The sugar tax has been such a dramatic failure that it should be repealed, not expanded,' said Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the institute.
'Sugar taxes have never worked anywhere. What happened to Starmer's promise to not raise taxes on working people?'
The Government consultation on the plans will run from Monday until July 21.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
How the government plans to deliver 1.5 million new homes
The government has unveiled the locations for ten new construction technical excellence colleges across England. These colleges are part of a £100 million investment aimed at training 40,000 construction workers by 2029. The initiative seeks to support the delivery of 1.5 million new homes and reduce the UK's reliance on foreign labour. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson highlighted the importance of these colleges in providing skilled workers for essential infrastructure. Industry leaders have welcomed the investment, while the opposition has criticised the government's broader economic and employment strategies.
STV News
11 minutes ago
- STV News
Is the ferry connecting Fife to mainland Europe about to return?
Plans to reinstate a ferry link between Fife and mainland Europe have moved a step closer with a solution to a key border control obstacle now in sight. Danish operator DFDS is aiming to launch a service between Rosyth and Dunkirk as early as spring 2026, carrying both passengers and freight. The route could handle around 51,000 passengers a year initially, rising to 79,000, and bring an estimated £11.5m annual boost to the Scottish economy. One of the main barriers has been the need for a Border Control Post (BCP) at Rosyth to process certain goods, particularly agrifood products. Building a new facility was deemed prohibitively expensive and unnecessary, with DFDS instead proposing to use the existing BCP at Grangemouth. The UK–EU deal agreed earlier this year will eventually remove the requirement for BCPs altogether, but an interim arrangement is needed if the ferry is to start before the rules change. In England, similar 'remote BCP' arrangements already allow sanitary and phytosanitary goods arriving at Dover to be checked over 20 miles away at Sevington. Scotland secretary Ian Murray has written to Steve Reed, the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs along with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales outlining how a ferry service between Rosyth and Dunkirk could proceed without a specific Border Control Point at Rosyth. In his letter, Murray said: 'I would like to propose that we urgently seek to agree that an amendment to the BTOM is made, as a transitional measure to allow the use of remote BCPs, within a short radius of the port of arrival…' While it is the Scottish Government who must amend the regulation to allow the use of a remote BCP at Grangemouth, this can only be exercised with a cross-GB consensus. Dunfermline and Dollar MP Graeme Downie, who has been working to resolve the issue, said: 'A regular passenger and freight ferry service from Rosyth to Dunkirk would be an incredible boon for the Dunfermline and Scottish economy, making trade easier as well as making it simpler for people from Europe to visit the Kingdom of Fife. 'These matters can be complex but we have taken a huge stride towards making this ferry service a reality. 'I want to thank the secretary of state for Scotland and his officials for their work and assistance in finding a way to ensure a BCP is not required at Rosyth. Their efforts make it more likely a passenger and freight ferry to Dunkirk could begin as soon as next year. 'We are not quite there yet and, in particular, a small amount of infrastructure is needed at the Port of Rosyth. However, as the ferry is one of the projects in the strategy of the Forth Green Freeport I am hopeful we can overcome this problem as well. 'I have spoken to both Forth Ports and the Green Freeport about this issue in the past and hope to meet with them very soon to discuss how speedy progress could be made in time for the ferry to begin next year.' The project also has the backing of major Fife employers, including Amazon and seafood company Mowi, and could remove 8.2 million kilometres of freight traffic from UK roads each year, cutting carbon emissions. The link would replace the previous service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge in Belgium. The passenger service ended in 2010 before becoming freight-only, and was ultimately axed in 2018 after a fire aboard one vessel made the route uneconomical. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour has learned absolutely nothing from the Nordic miracle of the 1990s
We know how to save a modern social democracy from runaway budget deficits and the disease of ever-expanding state subsidies. Scandinavian nations did exactly that in the early 1990s when they were facing the imminent collapse of the Nordic welfare model and were in even worse economic shape than Britain today. Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves seem to have learnt little from that great lesson. The Parliamentary Labour Party has learnt absolutely nothing. Sweden had a fiscal deficit of 11pc of GDP in 1993 after decades of complacent drifting ended in an almighty crisis. It had a surplus of 3pc in 2000, by which time growth was running near 6pc and the world was talking of the Nordic miracle. It was achieved by deep cuts to cash handouts with the lowest economic multiplier, but also by the sort of political grit and discipline that is completely missing in Westminster. Göran Persson, Sweden's prime minister through most of these years, has some tart advice for leaders trying to grasp the nettle. 'You have two years. If you are not in command of the process by then, you will lose momentum and soon face the next election – where you will be replaced,' he said. 'Almost every area of the public sector has its own vested interests. Any sign that you might waver will doom the programme. 'If there is the slightest dissension between your ministers, if you cannot keep your team together, you will find yourself on a very slippery slope,' he told management gurus at McKinsey. 'You have to make it absolutely clear that you are putting your office at stake; that you are prepared to call new elections or resign if your parliamentary group is not behind you,' he said. Well, indeed. If you duck a fight, investors will write you off, something that Margaret Thatcher well understood. 'It wasn't until we cut unemployment benefits and got into open conflict with the trade unions that market interest rates started coming down,' Persson said. Some say Labour's rot began when it choked on fuel duty, the lowest of low-hanging fruit. If a new government with a green agenda and the largest majority since 1832 cannot muster the courage to take that baby step, what can it ever do? From there it has been a carnival of capitulations, from the about-turn on the winter fuel allowance for middle-class pensioners to the fatal retreat over the exploding cost of disability benefits. Persson said the Swedish cure was one third higher taxes and two thirds spending cuts. Academics say it was nearer half and half. Fiscal retrenchment was 8pc of GDP over four years. Pensions were cut by 2pc. Inflation-indexing ended. Access to early retirement was restricted. There was a big push to make people work longer. Parental leave fell from 90pc to 75pc of former salaries. State-paid sick leave was cut from 90pc to 65pc for short absences, and employers were made responsible for policing it. Average sick leave plummeted from 25 to 11 days a year. Unemployment pay and social housing was cut. The net was tightened on disability payments. You had to start paying for prescriptions. And so on. It took guts because unemployment was over 10pc, the banks were bust and house prices were crashing. A fiscal squeeze risked an economic heart attack. 'We had no choice,' Persson said. Overnight interest rates had reached 500pc in the currency crisis of 1992, though the krona was soon blown out of the exchange-rate system anyway. The Swedish debt ratio was double European levels and spiralling higher. 'Big money' thought Sweden had lost control. It was shock austerity but not a chainsaw rampage in the manner of Argentina's Javier Milei. He has flattered the books by cutting investment, starving education and running down infrastructure. That is a dead-end. Persson increased spending on education, job retraining and all things digital, as the only route out of crisis. He freed up private schools and even helped fund them, the exact opposite of Labour's anti-education, class-war assault on private schools. Persson said you have to start by telling the truth on the campaign trail otherwise you have no mandate. 'My party was elected in 1994 because we promised to carry out the harshest programme with the deepest budget cuts and the sharpest tax increases … The electorate must understand that drastic measures are required,' he said. Labour did no such thing. It disguised the full cost of its spending plans. It shunned a necessary rise in income tax to cover those plans, instead smuggling through more destructive taxes on business and small firms that have further damaged the supply-side of the economy. Persson said the cardinal political rule is that everybody must suffer pain together, otherwise the reforms will fall apart in parliament. Why didn't Labour tear up the script once Reeves had blown through her 'fiscal space'? The Government should have declared a fiscal emergency, and then pushed through income tax rises for everybody to make it easier to sell disability cuts to Labour rebels. Persson said you are doomed from the start if you try to muddle through with 'ad-hoc hodgepodge' measures. You must go big early and take your punishment upfront to win over the markets and earn the swift reward of lower borrowing costs. Only then does a distressed debtor state move from a vicious circle to the sunlit uplands of a virtuous circle, where Sweden has been ever since. Its public debt is today 33pc of GDP. It is one of the last AAA states, with bond yields below German Bunds. Ditto for Denmark which has gone through a similar story. Both have had faster economic growth than the rest of Europe over the last 30 years. Their capita income is in the top league. Britain's woes are not as serious as those facing the Nordics in 1993. It has the second-lowest debt ratio in the G7. Its fiscal deficit is bad but not as bad as in the US or France. Yet markets are still demanding a penalty premium on UK debt, beyond what can be explained by inflation differentials. The 30-year yield is trading at 5.4pc, far above peers. Could it be that Britain's festering pathologies are in some respects worse than Sweden's problems 30 years ago? The insanity of the UK welfare system is not my area but I have seen enough of the Motability scheme to know that the British state has been hijacked by political lunatics. Leaving aside such cases as the woman caught scuba-diving in the Maldives after faking her way to £65,000 of car subsidies, why are taxpayers having to fund cars and insurance for people with such conditions as ADHD and anxiety in the first place? Why has the cost of the scheme jumped another 40pc to £2.8bn in five years? Why have ADHD cases receiving car help risen 1400pc since 2016, and autism numbers by 700pc? Why are taxpayers who cannot afford to buy a new car subsidising the purchase of new BMWs, Audis or Mercedes, up to a cost of £54,000, for those in the benefits system? Sweden had some advantages. It devalued the krona by 23pc and launched its export drive during the white heat of Germany's reunification boom and just as globalisation was gathering pace. The Cold War had ended. The peace dividend made everything easier. Sweden had hit psychological rock-bottom. The country knew that drastic cuts were needed. Cross-party consent was the glue that held it all together. The UK has none of these tailwinds. The world trading order is disintegrating. Rearmament costs are soaring. The political class are at each other's throats. Too many Britons still seem to think they can have it all, and that Telegraph readers will pay for it. Yet if the Swedes can cut state spending by 8pc of GDP in four years and march on to prosperity, surely Britain can cut 2pc without becoming a howling wasteland. I think the grievance industry doth protest too much.
