Is it really such great news or does 2 years to implement a Sugar Tax simply give big business the time to fight it and win?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK) has definitely taken a step in a direction that all before have baulked at and has expressed his government’s reasons in an admirably personal and believable way.
But from where we sit the focus has been pretty much on Jamie Oliver, his reaction to it and ‘encouragement’ of other governments to get on board, not least Australia.
A really glaring problem strikes us up front - Does 2 years to implement a Sugar Tax simply give big business the time to fight it and win? And what of the continued damage that’s being caused during that time?
We’re a small company, Melbourne based, but I’m just as passionate and driven to do what I can and to make a difference, with somewhat less influence than Jamie (& that’s this year’s understatement!) - but SURELY we can start making the difference, long before those taxes come in.
The biggest issues with the whole debate on diet, sugar, fat - the lot – are vested interests and conflicts of interest.
The One Line Rule – is a strategy that could be implemented immediately, targeted purely at assisting and educating consumers about sugar - not just in soft drinks that may or may not be in their supermarket trolley, but in the numerous other ‘staples’ that are in that trolley.
Consider, The One Line Rule.
Every packaged food item must carry a Nutrition Information Panel or NIP – it’s the law.
Calculated scientifically – unlike much of the other information on food packaging – the figures in the NIP must tell the TRUTH.
The message is very simple: Keep Sugar in Check!
Read one line on a nutrition panel - Sugars - and keep it below 5g/100g (5%) .
Things are completely out of hand and it certainly can’t harm - we have to start somewhere.
And by the way, there are no changes needed to packaging, profits to be made, taxes to be levied - that is - there's not a vested or conflict of interest in sight!