please empty your brain below
To confuse the prices further, are the fizzy drinks not subject to VAT? So any increase should be sugar tax plus VAT?

dg writes: Updated, thanks.

Chris North | 07.04.18 - 7:10 a.m. | #

Yes, I think the new tax is 0.24+VAT per liter. So the Waitrose increase is correct - and the others give you a cut on the without tax price.

MK | 07.04.18 - 7:29 a.m. | #

Anyone care to explain why giving the government more money will make people healthier?

Max Roberts | 07.04.18 - 7:30 a.m. | #

Exactly. Taxing the consumer to change dietary habits = nanny state. Regulate the industry instead!

Never thought the tories would copy these terrible left wing policies that punish the poor.

Mark | 07.04.18 - 7:34 a.m. | #

Did the online grocery stores perhaps increase their prices in advance based on the likely delivery day?

martin | 07.04.18 - 7:59 a.m. | #

There is more than just brand obsession to avoiding artificial sweeteners. I am one of those people who find the taste of aspartame and similar sweeteners really unpleasant. I have to check the list of ingredients of squashes and other drinks carefully to avoid sweetness. The phrase "no added sugar" ought to be good news on things like baked beans but for me it is an alarm bell to announce the adding of aspartame. I wish when they decided to not add sugar that they were simply offering a less sweet product.

The post has reminded me that I've got lazy about comparing prices between supermarkets. Those differences are astonishing.

Tunnel Bore | 07.04.18 - 8:02 a.m. | #

The reason why I buy Coca Cola in some smaller containers and, hence, pay more than I would if I bought one large container, is that I drink it only occasionally and don’t want it to go flat.

Bryn Davies | 07.04.18 - 8:34 a.m. | #

mysupermarket.co.uk is a wonderful tool. It really does pay to shop around / stagger your shops between chains. These days commercial loyalty doesn't pay.

ap | 07.04.18 - 8:36 a.m. | #

@Tunnel Bore - for decades I couldn't tolerate the oversweet tinned baked beans recipes. Heinz had a deal on no added sugar variety which I tried and find tolerable even though they list stevia in the ingredients.
Grocery shopping is just a minefield these days!

B | 07.04.18 - 8:39 a.m. | #

It is astonishing how much extra people will pay for exactly the same liquid in different packaging.
Yeah well, stupid gets you ripped-off.
Doesn't apply only to drinks, either _ I always check price per volume or weight when buying.

As for the "colas" - you want to rot your teeth, that's your problem, until someone has to pay to get them fixed.

Meh | 07.04.18 - 8:54 a.m. | #

I very rarely buy fizzy pop but if I'm in a pub and beer isn't appropriate for whatever (rare) reason, I'll treat myself to a coke, but I wouldn't touch the low sugar version with a barge pole - firstly it tastes horrible, secondly it feels horrible, and thirdly I am of the view that artificial sweeteners screw up your metabolism in all sorts of ways. So as it's an occasional treat for me I'll stick with the full sugar version, and I'm glad Coke are still making it (I hope it'll still be available on post mix in pubs too...; I guess there's a fair chance it won't if demand falls considerably :-(
Might make asking for one in a round a bit awkward though 'no, the more expensive one please'

As for nanny staet, this seems to be a better compromise than just banning something, as regulating the industry would do - at least this way people still have a choice (of sorts, though that's been seriously reduced by the response of the manufacturers). My beef now is how hard it is to avoid artificial sweeteners and that this moves us further towards, rather than away from, highly processed stuff.

Sarah | Homepage | 07.04.18 - 8:55 a.m. | #

This is a decision by a government unconcerned about being labelled the nanny state (a cliche to attack caring).

All recent changes of direction in the Tories grow from the terror they feel in looking at the way people are just not voting for them any more in cities. Now, having pushed tuition fees, for example, they are in retreat on this subject, to try to win back student voters; they'll change almost any policy to win back votes. What they DON'T do, of course, is attack the market which tries endlessly to cheat the consumer by increasing his difficulty in making rational decisions about price and content, because they don't want you to think. In the end telling you what nasties something contains and how much the unit cost is will ALWAYS be in the smallest print a Tory can fit on the packaging.

Brian | 07.04.18 - 9:25 a.m. | #

@Max Roberts - I believe the intent behind giving the government more money through the sugar tax, is that they will use it to fund the NHS and programmes to combat obesity. And if we believe they will actually do that then we deserve the government we've got!

How does the sugar tax work with, say, fast food outlets?
Presumably if they pour your drink for you, it'll only cost more if you ask for the non-diet options, but what about those that have 'serve yourself' drink machines?
Will the "meal deal" price go up too, regardless of whether you ultimately choose a sugar-free option, just in case someone wants that original Coke?
Or those lunch sandwich deals in supermarkets that just offer sandwich+drink+crisps for £x.xx

As I was having a glass of chocolate Alpro this morning I noticed it was 7.4g of sugar per 100ml which left me gobsmacked because not only is it considered a healthy alternative to animal-based chocolate milk, it was also their 33% Reduced sugar version too!!!
I read milk and juice drinks aren't included in the sugar tax though - which I think is wrong as juice in particular has long been touted for occasional drinking only!

Cornish Cockney | 07.04.18 - 10:17 a.m. | #

The "sugar tax" is levied when the drinks leave the producer so the shops which immediately increased their prices have made a nice extra profit by selling the stock they bought before the tax was imposed at inflated prices.

Cliffh | 07.04.18 - 10:29 a.m. | #

Fast forward a few years to the realisation by Officialdom that artificial sweeteners are actually very bad for your health... what then?

Stevia is a herb (plant). It is very very sweet, and tastes dreadful eaten as a fresh leaf. But, used as a sugar substitute (eg, I use it when cooking rhubarb and other tart fruits), it is very palatable.

For anyone wanting a future money-making opportunity - I'd suggest becoming a stevia farmer ;)

Blue Witch | Homepage | 07.04.18 - 11:24 a.m. | #

The natural/artificial distinction in foods has nothing to do with whether it's good for you. Some plants are poisonous. And nearly everything you eat has been through a factory of some kind, even if only to wrap it in plastic.

Another reason to buy drinks in smaller containers is that once opened it will either go flat (as mentioned), or get drunk even if you didn't want it. So instead of comparing price per litre you should perhaps compare price per opening.

I don't like coke alone, but it goes down well with a drop of rum.

Malcolm | 07.04.18 - 12:04 p.m. | #

It depends on your accounting conventions, but selling something at the price you will have to pay to replace it (rather than what you paid for it) is a pretty standard practice.

Malcolm | 07.04.18 - 12:09 p.m. | #

After (about 4 years ago) CocaCola made all their non-cola full-sugar drinks half-sugar half-sweetener, they put up a webpage explaining the change. On that page it said that it hasn't changed the taste.

Also on that page it explained why Red Coke was staying fully-sugar - because they didn't want to change the taste!

Sadly that page got edited after a week, so you couldn't see the difference.

Personally, I can't taste the difference between the half-sugar and full-sugar variants of Fanta, R Whites, etc (though diet/zero/max vs 'regular' I could). I can tell the difference though - the sweeteners leave me feeling rotten.

I'd rather have the situation with cola (pay more for a full-sugar variant vs less for a diet/max/zero alternative) with other drinks that I prefer than what we have where I have a choice between two different varieties of a drink that are the same price but I can't drink either of.

Si | 07.04.18 - 12:12 p.m. | #

Given that sugar is a No-No, and assuming that we're a bit averse to having everything sharp and unsweetened, the big question must be 'What Do We Use Instead ?'. What's safe, inexpensive and tastes good?

Apart from a sprinkling of Demerara on porridge, I've given up on sugar and used sucralose in tea and coffee for many years: one tablet does the trick and tastes OK. I don't take much notice of the hype that it's vaguely derived from sugar (and sugar's dodgy anyway) but sucralose seems to work for me.

Saccharin labels used to have cancer warnings in the USA so that's best avoided. Similarly, aspartame ('Sweet Poison') seems to have a poor reputation and is accompanied by all sorts of scary warnings, so that's out. Stevia sounds a better bet, but one tablet doesn't seem sweet enough, the taste is iffy compared to sucralose, the tablets sometimes crumble and jam the dispenser, and some brands are quite expensive. The price of all tablet sweeteners varies dramatically, with Aldi and Lidl unsurprisingly being by far the cheapest.

Unfortunately many squashes etc seem to be moving away from sucralose: acesulfame seems to be creeping in and I haven't a clue about that one. Life's never simple, is it !

However, not buying sugar and switching to sweeteners and No Added Sugar drinks failed to prevent my BMI rising to a fat 30 after I stopped working, and my HbA1c blood sugar level was a pre-diabetic 44, so the Sugar Tax isn't a panacea. Lots of walking (I now average >50,000 steps per week) seems to be the answer: my HbA1c is down to a safe 38, I've lost over 10lb and dropped a jeans size. Perhaps the Sugar Tax revenue should be used to send everyone a free pedometer?

Gerry | 07.04.18 - 1:16 p.m. | #

I wonder why there is such a fuss about sugar alternatives. I stopped buying sugar 3 years ago and do not add anything in its place.

John | 07.04.18 - 1:20 p.m. | #

One very effective way to combat the nation's obesity would be to reduce the tax on cigarettes.

Temp | 07.04.18 - 2:57 p.m. | #

Well I've answered my question about fast food outlets above!

On returning a son to university this afternoon we stopped for lunch in a motorway services Burger King - 3 meal deals, 2 with Coke Zero and one with regular Coke.
I asked what happens with the sugar tax and she pointed out that the receipt had a 13p tax levied on it for the regular Coke.

I then asked what happens in those outlets where you fill your own drinks and she said the tax would be levied at the point of payment - no matter which drink you ultimately chose!

Cornish Cockney | 07.04.18 - 4:33 p.m. | #

It was way back in school that it was explained that protein and starch foods deliver their energy to the body over time, whereas the intake of sugar products is quickly converted to blood-sugar for a fast supply of energy.
That was and has always been a good enough code for me.
I'm slim and don't over-eat and - dammit - if I feel like a quick refresher, I've never seen anything wrong in reaching for something with a sugar content (eg. a can of soft drink with a heck of a lot in it).
I've gotta say I thoroughly resent being 'penalised' for not doing anything I can construe as "wrong
Sure, there are people who are obese from over-indulgence of too many bad things. Don't try to blame me for how they made themselves :O

RogerW | 07.04.18 - 8:49 p.m. | #

Er, shouldn't that be "top rate of increase is 29p, not 24p" (not "29%", "24%")?

Andrew | 07.04.18 - 9:18 p.m. | #

(Per litre, that is.)

Andrew | 07.04.18 - 9:20 p.m. | #

Have you not changed that percentage yet?

Andrew | 07.04.18 - 10:34 p.m. | #

Gosh, I wonder why that other "Andrew" would say something in such a pre-emptory tone. If DG wants to change it he can; and if he doesn't, well, it is his blog.

Andrew | 08.04.18 - 3:09 p.m. | #

Another empty Tory scam designed to take more money without offering any attempt at solving the problem at source; very cynical...

Darren | 08.04.18 - 5:18 p.m. | #

To clarify, I was correct about the maths and DG is still wrong, but if he wants to leave his error unaltered, that's absolutely his prerogative.

Andrew | 08.04.18 - 9:04 p.m. | #

Fantastic news for those of us allergic to artificial sweetners...

Robert | 09.04.18 - 10:45 a.m. | #

it's dg's prerogative to write what he wishes and ignore any suggested improvements. So I've decided not to point out on here the correct and only possible way to spell Coca-Cola.

amber | 09.04.18 - 6:17 p.m. | #

I gave up on Lucozade a while back after they changed their formula. The entire concept to the drink is to fill you with energy giving sugars to assist recovery. I usually drink Diet Coke and other diet drinks except Irn-Bru which is particularly disgusting in its diet form. I bought a discounted 6 pack of the new full on Irn-Bru last week and decided last week that that's the last time I will buy it. As an adult why cant I make my own decisions about which sugary drinks to buy and pay the extra tax.

Andrew Jarman | Homepage | 09.04.18 - 6:20 p.m. | #

Interestingly, the real impact is not on government revenues but on what drinks companies are putting into the drinks: http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/health/sugaring-the-bill-why-lower-revenue-from-the-sugar-tax-is-probably-a-good-thing/ This suggests that - irrespective of consumer habits - the tax has already had a significant positive impact.

Harry | 19.04.18 - 10:22 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy