On What Legal Basis Could The Sugar Tax Be Challenged?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35889587
The government make the rules and can tax things so I'm struggling over why the soft drinks companies think they have a challenge. As the chancellor says use the time til 2018 to create better products sans sugar!

[Gromit]

Put a lot of tooth fairies out of work?

[Gromit]

It isn't really a tax on sugar, it is a tax on soft fizzy drinks.

Other drinks and foods have the same or more sugar in them and are somehow exempt from the sugar tax.

I do agree with taxing sugar, just that it should be across the board and fairer.

[Gromit]

// found that 98% of the 131 hot flavoured drinks found in the big high street chains would carry a “red” warning for excessive levels of sugar if the coffee shops were forced to label them.

The campaign group named Starbucks’s Hot Mulled Fruit (grape with chai, orange and cinnamon venti) as the worst offender. At 25 teaspoons of sugar it contains more than three times the recommended maximum adult daily intake.

Costa’s largest chai latte was found to contain 20 teaspoons of sugar, while an extra large Signature hot chocolate from Starbucks contained 15 teaspoons, double the daily adult maximum. //

[ToraToraTora]

so are those starbucks drinks exempt then gromit?

[Mamyalynne]

They aren't included from what I have read and perhaps they should be.

[Gromit]

No Tora,

The tax only applies to fizzy soft drinks to Starbuck woyld not pay the Sugar Tax.

Also not covered by the tax are fruit drinks and smoothies, often specifically marketed at children.

// Researchers analysed 203 fruit juices, fruit drinks and smoothies stocked by seven major supermarkets – Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Marks and Spencer, Waitrose, the Co-op and Morrisons. They found almost half contained a child’s entire recommended daily intake of sugar, which is a maximum of 19g or nearly five teaspoons. Almost 60% of the drinks would get a red traffic light label on the basis of their sugar content. //

So even though I agree with the tax, it seems very unfair the way it is being applied.

[Old_Geezer]

My guess would be something to do with unfair trade restrictions. Other rival drinks with low sugar getting an unfair advantage ?

Any excuse to tax folk more anyway. It's an abominable move. If they rewlly thought they needed to do something they'd not impose more tax but apply limits across the board. (I guess bags of sugar should be exempt.)

[ToraToraTora]

Ok then it's a screw up gromit. I can see why the fizzy drinks mob are having a go.