
Sugar reduction: from evidence into action - DanBC
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sugar-reduction-from-evidence-into-action
======
gabemart

      > The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN)
      > has concluded that the recommended average population
      > maximum intake of sugar should be halved: it should 
      > not exceed 5% of total dietary energy.
    

If we say that an average man has nutritional requirements of 2500kcal per
day, then these recommendations imply he should not consume more than 125kcal
of sugar per day, which is 31.25 grams of sugar.

A ~350ml can of Coke contains 39 grams of sugar [1]. A ~600ml 'Vitamin water'
drink has 31 grams of sugar. A single McDonalds 'McFlurry' dessert has 64
grams of sugar [2].

Even something 'healthy' like a 250ml 'pomegranates, blueberries & acai'
smoothie from 'innocent drinks' has 35 grams of sugar [4].

I guess my point is that we want people to reduce their sugar intake to
recommended levels, there needs to be a sea change in what's seen as a normal
diet. No one thinks that a 'McFlurry' is a health food, but in my experience
they're not seen as a huge indulgence, despite being more than two-days worth
of sugar-allowance for an average man, and more for an average woman.

    
    
      [1] http://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/coca-cola-products/coca-cola/
    
      [2] http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/product_nutrition.dessertsshakes.3832.mcflurry-with-oreo-cookies-12-fl-oz-cup.html
    
      [3] http://vitaminwater.com/files/vitaminwater_2014_NutritionFacts.pdf
    
      [4] https://www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/things-we-make/our-smoothies/smoothies/pomegranates-blueberries-acai

~~~
louhike
Why do you consider the smoothies from Innocent Drinks as healthy? I've always
considered those as something bad for the health and I'm not sure they are
marketing it as healthy.

~~~
slagfart
Is this sarcastic? Look at the name of the brand, fer chrissakes

~~~
louhike
I'm a non-english speaker so it was not so obvious for me.

------
awjr
"Actions to take" section:

1\. Reduce and rebalance the number and type of price promotions in all retail
outlets including supermarkets and convenience stores and the out of home
sector (including restaurants, cafes and takeaways)

2\. Significantly reduce opportunities to market and advertise high sugar food
and drink products to children and adults across all media including digital
platforms and through sponsorship

3\. The setting of a clear definition for high sugar foods to aid with actions
1 and 2 above. Currently the only regulatory framework for doing this is via
the Ofcom nutrient profiling model, which would benefit from being reviewed
and strengthened

4\. Introduction of a broad, structured and transparently monitored programme
of gradual sugar reduction in everyday food and drink products, combined with
reductions in portion size

5\. Introduction of a price increase of a minimum of 10-20% on high sugar
products through the use of a tax or levy such as on full sugar soft drinks,
based on the emerging evidence of the impact of such measures in other
countries

6\. Adopt, implement and monitor the government buying standards for food and
catering services (GBSF) across the public sector, including national and
local government and the NHS to ensure provision and sale of healthier food
and drinks in hospitals, leisure centres etc

7\. Ensure that accredited training in diet and health is routinely delivered
to all of those who have opportunities to influence food choices in the
catering, fitness and leisure sectors and others within local authorities

8\. Continue to raise awareness of concerns around sugar levels in the diet to
the public as well as health professionals, employers, the food industry etc,
encourage action to reduce intakes and provide practical steps to help people
lower their own and their families sugar intake

~~~
awjr
A "sugar tax" is not a bad idea if it is ringfenced to creating a healthier
environment and funding NHS obesity-related treatments.

The problem is that this type of tax will be subsumed within general taxation.

~~~
puttyaccount
what about a "healthy food tax" ringfenced for funding the costs of end of
life care for people with longer life expectancy??

~~~
belorn
Yes, Minister made a similar joke that people who died from smoking tobacco
are doing society a favor by limiting the need to spend money on elderly care
and pensions.

~~~
stevetrewick
Except it's not a joke, it's probably true [0] :

 _Research by the Institute of Economic Affairs argues that a tax on fatty
food could actually increase the burden on the health system and unfairly
penalise the poor._

 _Dr Barrie Craven from the Department for Education at the University of
Newcastle, who co-wrote the IEA report, said: "It is commonly assumed that
obese people are a disproportionate burden on the NHS.

"By 56, the obese are the most expensive but not over their lifetime.

"We have to remember that the obese and smokers tend to die earlier and the
healthy incur very expensive 24 hour care later in life for diseases such as
dementia."_

[0] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9359212/Obese-
an...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9359212/Obese-and-smokers-
less-of-a-burden-on-the-NHS-than-the-healthy-who-live-longer-report.html)

------
ectoplasm
We stopped buying raw sugar as well as things with added sugar at the grocery
store. We also stopped buying juice and obvious junk food like potato chips.
We still buy whole milk and bacon and cheese and pasta.

It was hard at first, but we still have sugar in various forms around the home
to use on occasion. We're buying more fruit now too, but eat less than it
takes to make the juice we eliminated.

We're losing about one pound per week, with no change in activity levels. So
that's crudely about 500 calories per day, each. We have sweet things for
social reasons, or to celebrate. The trick is just to avoid buying them so you
can't eat them when you get hungry. Once we get down to our target weights I
imagine we'll buy more.

It's really quite shocking when you stop buying sugar, just how many of your
usual purchases you end up putting back on the shelf.

~~~
awjr
Sugar is an odd substance. It's made up of glucose and fructose. Glucose tells
your body to store fat and "use me" while your liver is converting the
fructose to fat.

~~~
david-given
At least where I come from, domestic use sugar is almost entirely sucrose.
Glucose and fructose are available but they're very much specialist products
(for baking, jam-making, etc). They're certainly not something you put into
tea.

~~~
awjr
Sucrose breaks down into glucose and fructose.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose)

------
yummyfajitas
They should probably just copy whatever we've been doing in the US. Our sugar
consumption has been falling since the late 90's.

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUsIUgdVAAA-
pu3.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUsIUgdVAAA-pu3.jpg)

(Obesity has continually increased, however.)

~~~
xentronium
Does that chart include the corn syrup and other substitutes?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Yes. Jozan also just posted a link to a more detailed breakdown:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/US_Sweet...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/US_Sweetener_consumption%2C_1966_to_2013.svg)

------
puttyaccount
Note that sugar consumption has been falling since the 1970s in the UK.
Strangely this "evidence" is not mentioned.

~~~
awjr
Note that our environment has changed significantly since the 1970s, with a
propensity for many people to go from A to B by car and generally exercise
less.

I see a sugar tax as a way of creating a fund to enable councils to implement
healthy travel options (protected cycle to school networks, discounted public
transport, public transport networks) and mitigate the cost of obesity-related
diseases to the NHS.

~~~
mseebach
Public transport isn't a "healthy travel option". This just goes to support
the worry of another commenter that this will just go into the general
taxation pool to support various programs that may or may not have anything to
do with sugar and/or health.

~~~
arvidj
While what you say is true, taking public transport makes people move around
more: going to/from the bus-stop, changing at connections, standing up in the
metro instead of sitting etc.

Here is a study on this subject:
[http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4887](http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4887)
Its conclusion: "Men and women who commuted to work by active and public modes
of transport had significantly lower BMI and percentage body fat than their
counterparts who used private transport."

------
Shivetya
Still not convinced reducing sugar is going to stop childhood or adult
obesity. The large part of it is simply because food is too convenient. With
many foods having no preparation requirements it becomes easy for food to fill
idle time.

The easiest route to reducing over eating of foods that don't complement a
sedentary diet would be to restrict food assistance programs. Instead of just
saying "No" to certain purchases it should instead reward specific food type
purchases. You could put a punitive value on some allowed but not good for you
foods in necessary but rewarding good choices is better than punishing bad.

Still their 25g is less than one ounce... how do you do that on a normal day?

------
duncan_bayne
What a surprise: a Government-appointed committee recommends increasing taxes.

~~~
kspaans
It's a specific consumption tax. It's not like they are proposing a 2% hike on
income tax.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Even worse - in addition to it being more tax, it's in a form that
disproportionately harms poor people.

~~~
Legogris
If making more nutritionally balanced foods cheaper relatively to foods with a
lot of associated health problems is taken as "harm", then yes.

~~~
rustynails
If a family is struggling financially, a sugar tax could easily push them over
the edge. This strikes me as an increase in taxes for the poor as the impact
relative to their income (as a %) would be significantly higher. So, the
financial strain and stress would likely offset any benefit from reduced sugar
for the poor. There were good posts about people on the poverty line on HN
yesterday as a case in point.

~~~
kspaans
If the tax is restricted to "high sugar soft drinks"[0] do you still think
that there wouldn't be alternatives for a struggling family to purchase?

0 -
[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470173/Annexe_2._Fiscal_evidence_review.pdf)

~~~
duncan_bayne
So you _really_ think it's ethical to use taxation and the threat of
bankruptcy to coerce people to change their sugar habits? _Honestly_?

------
baldfat
I don't drink, smoke nor do any type drugs (caffeine exempted). I am addicted
to soda! I have gotten better but for a good 12 years I bet I drank 1.5
gallons of soda a day. I am down to 1 gallon a week or less. Hard to beat this
consumption of sugar.

~~~
sjwright
One idea is to unceremoniously slam down a glass of water before you drink the
sugary drink. Don't use sugar water to quench a thirst.

~~~
baldfat
I drink 32 oz of water in the morning and 40 oz of tea before lunch.

------
vamur
More bureaucracy. If they really wanted to decrease sugar usage, they could
require poison labels on fruits, and any product with more than 5 grams of
sugar, as well as any ads for these products.

------
d_theorist
Why can't they just leave us alone?

