Readers in a froth over new ‘sugar tax’

THE government’s new “sugar tax” on beverages elicited a big response from Talk of the Town Facebook readers.

Talk of the Town’s Facebook question this week, was: “South Africa has a new ‘sin’ tax on sugar, which can be expected to automatically rise every year by 6% to 10%. Do you think people will consume fewer sugary products, like sweets and carbonated beverages, as prices rise? Will you?”

Urshi Behrens Wiblin said:“I try and consume less sugar for my health. Too much sugar makes your body acidic, prone to more diseases and bone problems. I think that’s the real reason for our diabetic-prevalent country too.” Scesh Xhasa said he fully agreed.

Roy Smith wrote: “We unfortunately live in a world where healthy foods are costly and mass-produced processed foods are cheap.

“I don’t see this tax doing anything beneficial to society.

“I can only presume the products containing artificial (and toxic) sweeteners will be more widely consumed. It’s a double-edged sword and will impact on health care.

“Would it not be better to implement guidelines and educational programmes regarding nutrition, starting at pre-school level?”

He received agreement

from Carol-Ann Stiekema who said: “Way better to educate people on healthy lifestyles and ban sugary foods at schools.”

Jacobus Grove wrote: “This tax has nothing to do with health. The size of the beverage [industry] is billions and a very easy way to collect additional tax. It is so ridiculous that the tax even applies to 100% pure juice which contains only natural fructose and no cane sugar.”

Smith said it was a brave move by Woolworths to remove their sweets from til lpoint queues and replace them with nuts and healthier snacks. Stiekema again agreed, but said a lot of “healthy” snacks also contained sugar.

Jenni Nicholabest said: “Most tinned products have sugar added too, nobody will be exempt from this additional con!”

Penny Elliott said she had cut sugar from her diet some time ago and didn’t miss it.

“I don’t eat processed food or anything out of a can. Eating healthy does not have to be costly.”

Ann Sutton said it would have no effect on the number of people with diabetes.

“But someone will be cashing in on this increase.”

Joc Guest said: “We are taxed enough, so educate about the dangers of excess sugar and focus on getting our taxes back where they should be spent. This is just another tax to please the corrupt. All naturally produced food is needed by the body. Eating or drinking any one in excess is unhealthy. Too much water is deadly!”

James Rodden felt it was similar to the tax on liquor and cigarettes, and that lifestyles would not change but government coffers would get heavier and be misused.

Gavin Came stressed that it was “not a tax on sugar. It’s a tax targeted at the poor whose only source of energy is from carbonated drinks. The wealthy will switch to sugar-free drinks. It’s just a cynical way to get more tax. Nothing to do with health. If it was about health we could just ban sugary drinks.

Elliott then said sugar should be banned, but Came said he would rather not have government say what is good and bad for people. Besides that, he said the sugar industry employed 350000 people – “11% of the agricultural workforce”. Margaret Norton Weller said if people wanted sugar, sweets and sugary drinks, they would continue to buy them. “I must say I was horrified to see the price of 2.5kg sugar today.”

Samantha Tucker

Leighton wrote: “There’s some form of sugar in everything. Even in things such as processed meats and instant coffee. Perhaps manufacturers who process foods containing sugar should be taxed.”