Sugar tax ‘would hit poor homes hardest’

CALLS for a tax on sugar are “misguided” and would hit hardest people from low income households, who pay a higher proportion of their income on food and drink.

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) report said scant evidence exists to justify Government interference in the UK’s food supply and Britons consume less sugar per head today than in 1900.

The report’s authors argue the idea that sugar is addictive is a myth and insist that an “extensive choice of healthy alternatives exists for all consumers”.

They said initiatives such as traffic lighting foods is unhelpful and ignores the important fact that it is diet, not a particular ingredient, that matters.

They argued that restricting advertising of certain foods is “foolish” as it would “deprive consumers of valuable product information and act as a form of censorship”.

Competition would also suffer and prevent supply from meeting demand, which would result in more expensive food that is poorer in quality, they said.

They added that, despite a sharp rise in diabetes and obesity in the UK in recent decades, sugar consumption per capita has been on the decline since the 1970s, with Britons now consuming one-fifth less sugar.

It comes just days after the British Medical Association said a 20p levy on sugary drinks would be a “useful first step” towards the longterm goal of reducing obesity.

But Rob Lyons, co-author of the Institute of Economic Affairs report, said: “The justification for excessive Government intervention in the sugar market simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

“The link between sugar consumption and health issues such as obesity and diabetes [is] weak.

“Health campaigners should focus their efforts on what matters – providing individuals with the best available information... and allowing people to decide for themselves what food to eat.”