Boris is right to push back against bossy sin taxes

Boris Johnson is not even Prime Minister yet and already he is triggering people from various angles whether it be on Brexit or income tax. This week it was his suggestion that he may cancel plans for a milkshake tax and review existing sin taxes. Cue outrage and hysteria from the public health brigade. Even Carole Cadwalladr piped up with a fresh conspiracy, Boris is in hock to big sugar. Of course! Wake up, join the dots! Incidentally, if “big sugar” would like to make a donation, please contact me.

When I tweeted about this, I was hounded with replies about “big sugar” and the power of “corporations”, but mostly about how poor people need government intervention to control their behaviour. They didn’t say “poor people”, of course, but the implication was clear. It is always other people that need controlling, and there were several observations made on social media about these “people” leaving supermarkets in droves with junk food. It’s easy to support a policy that doesn’t infringe on you in any way.

Sin taxes specifically target low income groups and inevitably they are disproportionately impacted by them. The middle class will, of course, simply pay the bit extra when they want to treat themselves. Classic paternalism.

The response to this row shows how heightened the hysteria over the obesity crisis has become, even though the prevalence of obesity has changed little in the past fifteen years and sugar consumption has been falling in the UK since the 1960s. Even when obesity was on the rise in the 1990’s sugar consumption was fairly static.

No matter, sugar is the new devil. After the governmental and public health failure in giving decades of bad advice about fat, without catching a breath they have moved on to bossing us around about something else. The Conservative party is just as nannying as Labour so Boris is going to face some serious internal opposition to his liberal instincts. He certainly won’t be able to follow them unless he gets himself a majority.

A Conservative party that claims to believe in personal responsibility shouldn’t be championing a policy that penalises all consumers because of a minority that indulge to excess. It would be difficult to get overly concerned about a small tax on fizzy drinks if it wasn’t obvious that this was just the beginning.

Last month, Health Secretary Matt Hancock asked the chief medical officer and “Nanny-in-Chief” Dame Sally Davies to consider the viability of new taxes on pizza and cakes and extending the sugar tax to milkshakes. This is the direction of travel. First fizzy drinks, then milkshakes, then all chocolate and sweets, pizzas, you name it. Once all foods nanny disapproves of are covered, the tax will escalate year on year.

There seems to be some nostalgia in play here, as if 20-40 years ago everyone was eating super healthy all the time, rather than consuming oodles of butter, lard, frozen crap and Findus pancakes. What has changed? Lifestyles, of course. We now have cheaper and more abundant food, but also greater choice in entertainment. TV, gaming, mobile phones, tablets, a thousand ways to enjoy our leisure time without moving a muscle. Then we go to work where a great many of us are totally sedentary. We drive everywhere because it’s convenient. Our lives have changed but we haven’t fully adapted to ensure keep fit and healthy.

This is a problem, for sure, and government intervention is necessary, but sin taxes are a classic case of responding to a clamour suggesting “something must be done”, with “this is something, let’s do that!” Sin taxes are regressive, heavy handed and have very little impact on obesity rates. Worst of all, they are unimaginative.

Government intervention should focus on empowering people to improve their lifestyles through education, access to information and means of getting active. Intervention by schools and doctors mustn’t be hampered by worrying about hurting people’s feelings. This is a health issue so let’s treat it as such, take the kid gloves off.

Look to Amsterdam, where the city’s healthy-weight programme has seen a 12% drop in overweight and obese children. Children in Amsterdam are regularly weighed and tested for agility and balance. An overweight child will receive early intervention and they and their parents will be told they are overweight and referred to a nurse. They will then be offered a package of help including access to gym classes, health centres, home visits by volunteers and dietary advice.

There is a volunteer network helping families adjust their lifestyles, even taking the family to the supermarket to educate them on healthier food choices and introducing the children to after-school activities. The city has also introduced curbs on advertising of “junk foods”, including banning them from sponsoring sporting events.

All in all, this is package of quite extensive government intervention and would require funding, but the key difference is that it is targeted and proven to be effective. It’s also far less illiberal than the hectoring public health officials and meddling ministers deciding which foods to blacklist and make more expensive.

There is no reason we cannot introduce similar policies in the UK. There will certainly be early resistance by people who don’t want to be judged, but if the programme shows results then acceptance will follow.

We must take a whole systems approach, combining public services with voluntary networks to tackle this crisis head on. Early intervention in schools, funding access to health services, activities and gyms, improving PE and health education in schools, working with shops and supermarkets to promote fresh food, perhaps even using tax incentives to encourage retailers to up sales of healthy food.

Sin taxes are illiberal, yes, but also ultimately an inadequate response to changes in the workplace, technology and the way we live.

Let us know your view. Send a letter for publication to letters@reaction.life