Millionaire Jamie Oliver demands new tax on sugary foods

[dutchman]

Jamie Oliver is demanding that UK prime minister David Cameron "be brave" by instituting a 7p sugar tax.



The television chef was speaking before the Commons Health Select Committee today (October 19), when he said that prior governments had done the public an "incredible disservice" by leaving unhealthy foods untaxed.

"The discussions that I've had haven't implied that that is written off. I think the discussions that I've had have been robust," Oliver told the committee.

"Mr Cameron is reviewing everything and seems to be interrogating it really well… Parents in Britain and people involved in public health need to hold Mr Cameron to be brave and strong and support him."

Oliver went on to say: "We've normalised the consumption of fizzy drinks at home… it's completely inappropriate."

He also challenged opponents of a sugar tax by questioning which interests are actually "running the country".

"Is it the businesses who are profiting in ill health in our children or is it us? Industry must be kept in line and it mustn't run this country," Oliver insisted.

The chef previously amassed almost 150,000 signatures on a petition demanding a Commons debate on the issue of taxing sodas and other unhealthy food.

He famously advocated for healthier food in schools on his hit series Jamie's School Dinners, and also challenged the government's policy with the Feed Me Better campaign.

[rebbonk]

I really wish the mockney fool would curl up and die!

[dutchman]

Chancellor George Osborne says a levy will be introduced in two years' time, with higher rates for the most sugary drinks.

A sugar tax on soft drinks will be levied on fizzy drinks companies will raise £520m for primary school sports, Mr Osborne said.

However juices are to be exempt from the tax which be applied directly on manufacturers.

The new tax, which campaigners including Jamie Oliver have been pushing hard for in recent years, will come into effect in two years' time, giving manufacturers time to reduce sugar in their products.

There will be two bands – one for total sugar content above five grams per 100 millilitres and a second, higher band for the most sugary drinks with more than 8 grams per 100 millilitres.

Pure fruit juices and milk-based drinks will be excluded, and the smallest producers will have an exemption from the scheme.

Mr Oliver welcomed the news: "A profound move that will ripple around the world ....business can not come between our Kids health !! Our kids health comes first."

But Ian Wright, director general of the Food and Drink Federation, said: "We are extremely disappointed by today's announcement of a new tax on some of the UK's most successful and innovative companies. For nearly a year we have waited for an holistic strategy to tackle obesity. What we've got today instead is a piece of political theatre.

"The imposition of this tax will, sadly, result in less innovation and product reformulation, and for some manufacturers is certain to cost jobs."

Many sugary natural juices contain more sugar, gram for gram, than fizzy drinks such as Coca Cola or Iron Bru. Coca Cola contains 10.6g per 100ml, Iron Bru contains 10.3g, and both will come under the sugar tax.

Juices and smoothies, which are often lunchbox favourites and can contain up to 14g of sugar per 100ml, will not.

Experts have previously said that a tax that differentiates between naturally occurring sugar and refined sugar could skew the market towards fruit juices without tackling the obesity crisis.

Action On Sugar (AOS) found more than a quarter of the juices, smoothies and fruit drinks they looked at had the same amount of sugar or more than Coca-Cola's 10.6g for every 100ml.

The survey of 200 drinks looked specifically at juices that were aimed at children or marketed as lunchbox-friendly.

Tax-dodgers Starbucks will no doubt be pleased to learn they've also escaped having to pay any tax on their extremely sugary coffee!

[Melisandre]

Of course they will
With each cup of their coffee containing 25 spoonfulls of sugar recently reported look at the tax we are loosing and the kids will love this adult sugary drinks verses childrens sugary drinks.

[dutchman]

Taxpayers' Alliance: Sugar tax will hit poorest hardest

The planned sugar tax will "hit poorest families hardest" and has nothing to do with the sugar content of products, the Taxpayers' Alliance says.

The group, which wants the levy to be axed, tested 49 drinks and found that some coffee shop drinks had more sugar than Coca Cola, but would not be taxed.

The Taxpayers' Alliance (TPA) survey found that Coca-Cola, with 10.6g of sugar per 100ml, will be subject to the levy, but a Starbucks signature hot chocolate with whipped cream and coconut milk, which has 11g of sugar per 100ml, will not.

The study also noted energy drinks such as Monster Origin, 11g/100ml, will be taxed, but Tesco chocolate flavoured milk, 12.4g/100ml, will not be.

Overall, the 10 most sugary drinks analysed by the group which campaigns for lower taxes will not be subject to the levy.

The recommended maximum intake of added sugar per day for those aged 11 and over is about 30g or seven teaspoons, the NHS says.

TPA chief executive Jonathan Isaby said it was "deeply concerning" that the government was "pushing ahead with this regressive tax which will hit the poorest families hardest".

"The evidence shows that the sugar tax has nothing to do with the sugar content of products, so it is farcical to suggest that this will have any positive impact on people's diet or lifestyle choices," he said.

"This is yet another example of irresponsible meddling from the high priests of the nanny state, introducing entirely unnecessary complications into an already complicated tax system and pushing up the cost of everyday products for hard-pressed families."