It’s like taking Kim Jong-un’s swords

Good morning.

So if we cut the sugary drink intake, maybe the weight gain will be less, but it will still be

In this case, we might reduce sugar intake, but there’s still going to be calories going in and a lack of energy going out.

This isn’t like smoking, where if you stopped people from smoking, the problem is solved.

More overtly, it’s an energy surplus from excess food intake and/or lack of activity.

It’s the whole lifestyle.

This is where I believe the mistake is being made: sugar, let alone sugary drinks in isolation, is not the leading cause of obesity and type-2 diabetes.

“According to the WHO, a sugary drinks tax would work the same way as tobacco excises have - as a price signal to discourage a behaviour that the WHO says is a leading cause of obesity and type-2 diabetes.”

.ABCFrom our friends at the

The sugar tax - it’s a waste of time.a gain.

Sugar isn’t the enemy, it’s just one of the weapons. The sugar tax is like taking Kim Jong-un’s sword - it helps, but it doesn’t neutralise the threat.

There’s also the question of whether increasing the price of sugary drinks will actually decrease consumption.

With food and drink, habitual consumption is the hardest to change. It’s much harder to cut out the 9:30 am coffee than it is to not eat pizza for the month.

If sugary drinks are part of someone’s routine, then a slight increase in price will be unlikely to make a difference.

To be clear: I detest soft drinks and it’s one of the first things I want to remove from a diet. But I work with people who are motivated to change, and open to this recommendation.

Trying to enact change on habitual intake by making something more expensive is unlikely to work.

The only way to prevent obesity and overweight by using a tax, is to put a tax on being obese and overweight.

Anything else is clutching at straws.

A better idea would be an integrated health system, where professionals either have an understanding of training and nutrition, or referred to those who complemented themselves. 

But that’s not on the agenda, so it's everyone for themselves!

Tom Fitzgerald