[ad_1]
While Cancer Research UK confirms that obesity is the leading cause of four common cancers in the UK, Boris Johnson questions the effectiveness of taxes on food and beverages and whether taxes unfairly strike low-income people (rival smokers). as a cause of several cancers, warns a charity, July 3).
Rather than being penalized, the poorest will benefit the most. Sugar drink consumption levels tend to be the highest among the most disadvantaged children, who are hardest hit by obesity and tooth decay. By suggesting that exercise can help solve the obesity crisis in the UK, which is not supported by evidence unlike the sugar tax and voluntary sugar and salt reduction programs , Mr. Johnson unfairly puts the burden on the individuals.
The non-alcoholic beverage tax, commonly known as the "sugar tax", has already helped more than 50% of manufacturers reduce the sugar content of beverages since its announcement in March 2016 – the equivalent of 45 million kg of sugar per year. In Mexico, a tax on sweetened drinks of 1 peso per liter (10% increase in price) resulted in a 12% drop in overall consumption and 17% in low-income households. In Hungary, a tax on sweet products has led 40% of manufacturers to reduce or eliminate sugar to avoid this tax.
High sugar intake contributes to the rapid increase in obesity rate, a major risk factor for many serious diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer – not to mention the huge costs for the NHS. The sugar tax could provide significant savings by tackling the root causes of obesity. We should consider extending the levies to other high-sugar, salt and fat products without stopping them.
Teacher Graham MacGregor
chair, Action on sugar / Action on salt
• When I saw that Boris Johnson had committed to examining "sin taxes" and declaring war on "the state of the nanny," I recalled the Stuart Maconie's observation in Jarrow's The Long Road: "From my experience … usually people who had nannies.
John Boaler
Calne, Wiltshire
• According to your article (mbadive charge of alcohol on NHS hospitals revealed on July 4th), the treatment of people who are very taken to the hospital reaches £ 3.5 billion a year. Is it before or after the £ 11.6 billion that the Office's forecasts for fiscal responsibility will be raised by the alcohol rights in 2018-2019? It seems to me that the treatment of people requiring medical care because of their consumption will be largely offset by the taxes paid by drinkers in general.
David Smyth
London
• Join the debate – email [email protected]
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you would like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to download it and we will post the best submissions in the letters of our print edition
Source link
