We need a sugar tax in Scotland to save our children

The evidence is overwhelming. There is a clear body of scientific evidence that links consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) to obesity, cardiovascular diseases and other ailments like cancer and type 2 diabetes. Scotland has one of the highest obesity rates in the world. According to data provided by OECD and the Scottish Health Survey 2010, Scotland has the third greatest obesity rate of the 17 countries considered, only surpassed by US and Mexico. We know that diabetes has increased by 60 per cent in the UK in the past 10 years. Researchers from Cambridge University have said they believe there's a link between fizzy drinks and Type 2 diabetes, and the government’s own scientific advisory committee on nutrition has called for a cut in recommended added sugar intake from 10 per cent to 5 per cent of a person’s diet (average consumption is now 12-15 per cent). The Cambridge team wrote: “The current consumption of sugar sweetened beverages was estimated to cause approximately 2m excess events of type 2 diabetes in the USA and 80,000 in the UK over 10 years. This could cost nearly £12bn in the USA and £206m in the UK”.

A petition to Westminster calling for a sugar tax has the support of 150,000 people. It will be ignored. Rather than wail against the Westminster regime - who's corporate capture to the likes of Nestle, Mars, Coca Cola and all the major super markets is pretty clear - we should be asking our own government to act. The Scottish Government has the powers to enact a sugar drinks tax now. A 'hypothecated tax' - a fancy name for a ring-fenced tax that allocates the revenue back to a specific policy goal, could, like the smoking ban, the plastic bag tax, and the failed minimum-price for alcohol, prove both popular and effective.

Public Health England's report 'Sugar Reduction, the Evidence for Action' published earlier this month, argued that the prices of products such as full-sugar soft drinks should be increased by 10 to 20 per cent by means of a tax or levy. It was rejected by David Cameron the day it was published. But where are the Scottish health lobbies calling for action? Where is the Scottish Food Commission?

Jamie Oliver has called for a 20p per litre levy to be imposed on all fizzy drinks (about 7p a can). Two years ago Sustain published a report ‘A Children’s Future Fund – How food duties could provide the money to protect children’s health and the world they grow up in’. They argued for the introduction of a sugary drinks duty for the UK at 20p per litre which would raise around £1 billion a year; ring-fence the majority of money raised from a sugary drinks duty for a Children’s Future Fund, which could be spent on improving children’s health by, for example, providing free school meals, or sustainably produced fruit and vegetable snacks in schools; and give an independent body the responsibility to oversee how the sugary drinks duty is implemented. Some 61 health organisations supported the initiative which was ignored by the UK government.

Would it work? In Mexico, where a 4p per litre sugary drinks tax was introduced two years ago, there has been a 6 per cent fall in consumption. In France, a similar tax in 2012 has produced a drop in consumption. Successful precedent also can be found in Finland, Hungary and some states in the USA. In fact more than 30 state and city legislatures, from Hawaii to New York, have proposed curbs on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) ranging from bans in schools to cuts in portion sizes and a sales tax. They are doing it because they know it works.

It's not a silver bullet, nor should it be taken in isolation, but as one part of a holistic approach to changing our food culture. The revenue raised could be ploughed into grassroots community-run food projects, active playgrounds, cookery lessons and education.

The opposition comes in two forms. One stresses the power of the market and rails against the 'nanny state'. The other, much in the same vein as when John Reid famously argued against legislation on smoking being 'the working man's only pleasure', that a sugar drinks tax would be a 'tax on the poor'. One critic said to me this week: "My worry about sugar taxes is that they will weigh more heavily on the poor, and perhaps more substantially that they identify individual action as the problem with health." It wouldn't. It would send out the message that corporate food is the problem, and that profiteering from illness is morally wrong. The argument is an ideological red-herring.

How did we get here? Food writer Alex Renton has noted that: “Most rich nations saw their sugar consumption increase by 30-40% between 1970 and 2000. In Scotland it quadrupled in 60 years. A key moment was the introduction of “high fructose corn syrup” (HFCS) – a fantastically cheap sugar made from America’s surplus maize (in Europe we manufacture something similar from sugar beet). American government subsidy for the corn farmers – and high taxes on imported sugar – made the product cheap and attractive. Though there were issues around taste, in 1980 Coca-Cola successfully switched to using HFCS. After water, sugar is, of course, the major ingredient in its product. Profit margins improved, and Coke’s rivals soon jumped aboard.”

We cherish our 'other national drink'. But sugary drinks contain only ‘empty calories’ – a 330ml of sugary drink typically provides 35g, or 9 lumps of sugar, but no other nutritional value. Can you imagine spooning 9 to 13 lumps of sugar into a drink and giving it to your child? It's time to act and have a higher aspiration for our own and our children's health and wellbeing. It's time to stand up to Big Sugar.

Mike Small is a food activist and researcher. He's the author of 'Scotland's Local Food Revolution' and the 'Food Manifesto: 20 Ways to Change the Food System'. He is also editor of Bella Caledonia.