Say no to nanny taxes

The new year is traditionally a time for an outbreak of abstemiousness that is rarely sustained save by the most self-disciplined. Diets abound and a dry January is encouraged, even though scientists say it is of little or no benefit to moderate drinkers.

This month, many are proposing to go vegan, which is a lifestyle they are entitled to adopt, provided they do not seek to impose it on the rest of us. But these are matters of individual choice and always have been, until now.

The Government thinks it has a direct role to play in forcing us to make the “correct” culinary choices. Public Health England (PHE) has a fiveyear target to cut sugar by 20 per cent in a range of products, from cakes and confectionery to yogurts and cereals. Last week, The Daily Telegraph revealed new calorie caps drawn up by PHE, which would control the content in thousands of meals sold by restaurants and supermarkets.

That there is too much sugar and salt in many shop-bought products is undeniable and the quantities should indeed be reduced – but PHE want to go beyond exhortation and advice towards instituting higher taxes on such goods. It will shortly provide an update on how the industry is doing in reducing sugar under a voluntary scheme and, as we report today, it is expected to say that progress is too slow. Dame Sally Davies, chief medical officer for England, has already indicated that, in that case, she wants taxes raised on food high in salt and sugar.

We do not doubt that too many people are obese, but evidence from other countries where such taxes have been tried suggests they don’t work. Their effect on calorie consumption and obesity is minimal and they are highly regressive, economically inefficient and unpopular. The Government should steer well clear.