Case study: Sugar-coating a Tax

A can of cola contains a whopping seven teaspoons of sugar – more than a child’s daily upper limit. Yet securing meaningful regulation on sugar has
been an incredible challenge for health campaigners. Back in 2015, the demand for a sugary drinks tax was undeniably gathering momentum but Westminster wasn’t budging.

Following a government U-turn, the soft drinks levy was finally announced in 2016, but the battle was far from over. The big guns of the soft drinks industry launched a sustained and powerful effort to derail the policy. The situation was already highly charged, but the 2017 snap election raised tensions even further, raising doubt about whether the policy could become law before a potential change of government.

By March 2016 public support for the policy had risen to 56% (from 45%), increasing again to 60% by the end of the year. This proved invaluable in reassuring politicians that the tax had strong public support. By May 2017 64% of MPs agreed a levy is necessary to improve children’s health.

At the critical point, when the tax had to be included in a skeleton pre-election bill, the Shadow Health Secretary and Shadow Finance Secretary both supported the levy and helped ensure it was prioritised for inclusion in the Bill. In addition, in January 2018 Public Health Minister Steve Brine announced nearly 50% of the SSB market had reduced sugar from their products to avoid the levy, showing the policy had a positive effect on public health even before it came into force in Spring 2018.

Jamie Oliver MBE, chef and campaigner, said: “It was after the Winter Olympics and World Cup in 2014 that sugar began to feel like this huge elephant in the room. Both those events had massive, global partnerships and sponsorships from products packed with sugar. Then, in 2015, the SACN report showed that sugary drinks were the single largest source of sugar in our kids’ diets. For me, this marked the major trigger point for change. And we’ve come so far since then! Yes, childhood obesity is still an incredibly difficult challenge, but we’ve proved that by getting together across the industry we can start to shift the dial. We got the public to sit up and listen, we got the sugary drinks levy through, we’ve secured and ring-fenced levy funds for healthy initiatives such as breakfast clubs and sports facilities, and we’ve protected the tax from industry backlash. I’m not saying our work here is done, but I think we can allow ourselves a moment to reflect on and celebrate the achievements of the last three years.”

Mark Lloyd, Branch Head: Soft Drinks Levy & Gambling Taxes, Treasury, said: “The work that the OHA put into coordinating supportive messages around the SDIL and aligned, detailed consultation submissions was extremely valuable. At HMT we were pleased with how the SDIL debate played out – thanks in no small part to the output of the OHA and its members.”