Is the taste of YOUR favourite drink about to change? Sugar tax extension 'will force recipe tweaks' - with Pepsi and Irn Bru among those now in the firing line
The Treasury has confirmed plans to extend the soft drinks industry levy (SDIL) to milkshakes and other dairy-based drinks.
It has also proposed reducing the maximum amount of sugar allowed in drinks before they become subject to the levy from 5g to 4g per 100ml.
The toughened rules are set to impact a whole swathe of drinks on sale in supermarkets, including Pepsi, Ribena, Fanta and Starbucks caffe latte iced coffee.
The Government suggested the changes, which have been put out to consultation, would see manufacturers continue to further reduce sugar in their recipes.
But industry figures hit out at a 'muddled and damaging shifting of the goalposts' that would have 'questionable positive health outcomes'.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said in her Budget in October that Labour would consider broadening the tax, which was introduced by the Tories in 2018 as part of anti-obesity efforts.
In a consultation document published yesterday, the Treasury said the latest analysis showed there were 866 products with between 4g and 4.9g of total suger per 100ml.
There are 203 pre-packed milk-based drinks on the market, which make up 93 per cent of sales within the category, with a total sugar content of 5g or above per 100ml.
These are all likely to be hit with the tax under the new proposals unless their recipes are altered to reduce sugar content.
As a result of widespread reformulation after the initial announcement of the SDIL, 89 per cent of fizzy drinks sold in the UK do not pay the tax, the Treasury added.
The exemption for milk-based drinks was initiall=ly included because of concerns about calcium consumption, particularly among children.
But the Treasury said young people only get 3.5 per cent of their calcium intake from such drinks, meaning 'it is also likely that the health benefits do not justify the harms from excess sugar'.
'By bringing milk-based drinks and milk substitute drinks into the SDIL, the Government would introduce a tax incentive for manufacturers of these drinks to build on existing progress and further reduce sugar in their recipes,' it added.
Fizzy drinks such as Old Jamaica Ginger Beer, Lucozade Energy Original, Pepsi, Rubicon Sparkling Mango, and San Pellegrino Limonata all contain more than 4g of sugar per 100ml.
Meanwhile, Starbucks Caffe Latte Iced Coffee and Muller Frijj Chocolate Milkshake are also likely to fall foul of proposed new rules for dairy-based drinks.
These are set to take account of the average lactose content of semi-skimmed milk, which is 4.8g lactose per 100ml.
The Treasury set out how a drink containing 75 per cent milk will get an allowance of 4.8g x 75 per cent, which equals 3.6g per 100ml.
This lactose allowance would then be added to the SDIL threshold of 4g per 100ml, which gives a total of 7.6g of total sugar per 100ml.
Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs said: 'The sugar tax has been such a dramatic failure that it should be repealed, not expanded.
'It has been costing consumers £300million a year while childhood obesity rates have continued to rise.
'To claim it has been a success on the basis of a hypothetical reduction of one calorie a day is absurd.
'Sugar taxes have never worked anywhere. What happened to Sir Keir Starmer's promise to not raise taxes on working people?'
A spokesperson for the British Soft Drinks Association said: 'This decision is a muddled and damaging shifting of the goalposts which risks undermining years of reformulation investment with questionable positive health outcomes.
'More than seven out of every 10 soft drinks sold in the UK are low or no sugar and the total sugar removed from soft drinks between 2015 and 2024 is just under three quarters of a billion kilograms.
'Lowering the SDIL threshold to 4g – on top of the previously-announced, backdated 27 per cent increase to the levy – comes at a time of major and unprecedented financial headwinds for our members, from record-high inflation and NIC increases, to spiralling ingredient costs and incoming trade tariffs.
'Such cost increases have already impacted our members' ability to grow their businesses and boost employment, and the lowering of the SDIL threshold risks making this even more challenging.'
A spokesperson for the Food and Drink Federation said: 'We welcome the opportunity to input to the Government's consultation on the SDIL, to share our sector's views and technical expertise.
'Soft drink manufacturers have already made significant progress reducing the amount of sugar in their drinks, including milk-based drinks.
'Thanks to many years of investment in research and development, manufacturers have reduced sugar in drinks that are subject to the levy by 46 per cent in the last five years.
'Significant progress has also been seen in pre-packed milk-based drinks, which are not subject to the levy, with a 30 per cent sugar reduction in the last three years.
'Food and drink manufacturers are facing a series of inflationary pressures and government must continue to create the right conditions for businesses to innovate and also be clear about their long-term goals to promote business confidence.
'A predictable regulatory environment is vital to ensuring our sector can continue to invest in developing healthier options.'
Dr Hannah Brinsden, of The Food Foundation, said: 'SDIL has been a major public health success, removing tonnes of sugar from soft drinks and in turn our diets, while also raising money for children's health.
'It's only right that we keep ensuring it is working as well as possible; removing exemptions on milk-based drinks and changing the sugar thresholds where the tax is paid are two important improvements.
'However, sugar in our diets comes from a range of food, not just soft drinks.
'If the Government is serious about improving diets, our health and the economy, they're going to need to be more ambitious and consider extending SDIL to food as the next step.'
The Government consultation on the plans will run from Monday until July 21.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Starmer is confronted with Labour demands for 'wealth taxes' to fill £30bn black hole and fund benefits splurge during end-of-term grilling by MPs
Keir Starmer was confronted with Labour demands for wealth taxes today as he faced an end-of-term grilling by MPs. The PM was pressed to target investment income and capital gains to fill an estimated £30billion hole in the public finances. Former minister Liam Byrne suggested hammering those incomes could bring in enough to balance the books and fund a 'big bold working class tax cut'. Sir Keir dodged the question without ruling the move out, insisting decisions will be taken at the Budget in the Autumn. The exchange at the cross-party Liaison Committee will fuel fears about looming tax pain, after the economy stallled and efforts to trim benefits spending were crushed by a Labour revolt. Mr Byrne asked: 'If we taxed investment income in the way that we do work, if we tweaked up capital gains tax so it was fairer there would be enough money to deal with the fiscal pressures that we forecast and deliver a big bold working class tax cut just as they delivered in Australia. 'Surely that should be an idea that remains on the table going into the Budget?' Sir Keir replied: 'I'm not going to be tempted to start speculating on what might or might not be in the Budget.' Sir Keir listed measures aimed at easing cost-of-living pressures, including the increase in the minimum wage levels, but added: 'The central focus has to be on creating more wealth and making sure that we have a growing and thriving economy. 'That's been the single biggest failure of the last 14 years, which is we haven't had an economy that has grown in any significant way.' Mr Byrne, chair of the Business and Trade Committee, quipped that he was pleased Sir Keir had not ruled out the tax hikes. Recent figures showed the economy shrinking for a second month in a row Labour's wealth tax war is raging amid claims Rachel Reeves is set to reject demands for a charge on assets - but could hit pension reliefs instead. The Chancellor is desperately hunting for options as she faces an estimated £30billion black hole in the public finances at the Autumn Budget. She has been carefully avoiding ruling out a 'wealth tax' - with backbenchers pushing for 2 per cent levy on assets worth more than £10million. However, she is thought to be privately opposed to the move, with tax experts and Cabinet ministers warning it would only drive away more wealth people from Britain. A raid on pensions is still said to be on the table, with fears that the Treasury is again looking at slashing reliefs. Currently higher-rate earners are spared 40 per cent tax on money that is put into retirement funds. However, reducing the relief to the 20 per cent basic rate could raise around £15billion for the government. The idea was rejected at the Budget last year, but Ms Reeves' situation has dramatically worsened. It would cause an outcry as cash in pension pots is already taxed when people draw incomes. The government is also facing mounting alarm that Brits are not saving enough into their pensions for comfortable retirement. She is widely expected to extend the long-running freeze on tax thresholds to bring in billions of pounds more. Capital gains could also be raided, as the Chancellor insists she will not hike rates of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT. She has also vowed a 'cast-iron' commitment to fiscal rules, with the UK's debt mounting at risk of spiralling out of control. A senior government source told The Times that a wealth tax on assets was 'not going to happen'. 'The problem is that if the Treasury start shooting down Kinnock's proposal, they end up being boxed in,' the source said. 'It's not going to happen, but they can't say that publicly.' The government's woes have been deepening with inflation unexpectedly rising and signs the economy is slowing down. Experts have warned that the stalling economy together with spending pressures could mean the Chancellor has a £31billion funding gap. The tax burden is already set to hit a new high as a proportion of GDP after the last Budget imposed a £41billion increase - the biggest on record for a single package. Many believe the Chancellor will opt to extend the long-running freeze on tax thresholds. The policy, in place since 2022, is due to end in 2028-29. By that point it will have dragged an extra 4.2million people into the tax system as wages rise.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Opinion: Labour's EV grant is an expensive mess
As chief executive of dedicated electric car website and a long-time advocate of electric vehicles, you'd be forgiven for thinking I've been celebrating this week's news that Labour is bringing back grants for EVs. The government press release that landed in my inbox on Monday proudly trumpeted discounts of up to £3,750 on electric cars - saying it was set to slash costs for thousands of UK drivers with an impressive £650million fund. It boasted that the scheme would be up and running within days, with manufacturers handling the paperwork. Taking the news at face value, I initially welcomed such a bold move. But having delved into the detail, this is nothing short of an ill-conceived policy that raises more questions than answers. Instead of encouraging electric car uptake, it will instead restrict consumer choice. Labour really needs to go back to the drawing board on this one... Despite a new EV being registered every 60 seconds in June, private buyer sales have stalled. They now make up just under 20 per cent of registrations, with the bulk going to company car drivers who enjoy generous tax breaks if they go electric. In our November 2024 survey with the AA - responded to by over 11,000 UK drivers - 76 per cent told us that the upfront cost was the biggest barrier to switching. I believed fresh incentives would reignite momentum and give more drivers the confidence to switch. My calculations suggested almost half of all new electric models on sale would fall below the £37,000 price cap. Crucially, this support appeared to be aimed where it was needed most: from school-run staples to budget-friendly runarounds. How wrong I was. As they say, the devil is in the details - and as the week has unfolded, the details behind those upbeat headlines have painted a very different picture. Instead of a straightforward grant on all EVs under £37,000 - designed to help hard-working people make a sustainable choice - the rigid rules and baffling conditions surrounding which cars qualify (and by how much) have left even the carmakers scratching their heads. At the heart of this complexity is something called a Science Based Target (SBT), which requires manufacturers to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with limiting global warming to 1.5C or below 2C, as set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change. You'd assume the government would have a simple list of eligible manufacturers. Apparently not. Instead, car makers - with customers in dealerships already asking about discounts - are left wading through bureaucracy to figure it all out. Even if a company has signed up to an SBT - like Renault or Ford - the scheme may still reject cars assembled in countries with poor overall sustainability records or high emissions. And, surprise surprise, even that isn't as simple as it sounds. The emissions calculations are split between where the battery is made and where the car itself is built. This means a car assembled in the UK or Europe may score well for manufacturing and earn the minimum £1,500 grant, but fail to reach the additional 70 per cent score needed for the full £3,750 if its battery is sourced from a country with a lower environmental score. Transport Minister Lilian Greenwood told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday: 'We don't expect any cars that are assembled in China to be eligible for this scheme.' This rules out cars like the Volvo EX30, the Mini electric (which incidentally, is built in factories powered by renewable energy), the MG4 and the Dacia Spring - family favourites which it seems won't qualify for a penny. Making matters worse, many manufacturers striving to make EVs cheaper have switched to LFP batteries, which are predominantly made in China. So much for my celebrations that the grant was focused on more affordable models. The reality is that car making is a global business. Even if your car doesn't bear a Chinese badge, the chances are part of it was manufactured there. And it's not just Chinese-made cars at risk of ending up with nothing - brands from other nations like Korea which make some of the UK's most popular cars could also end up with many models being excluded. The government is effectively limiting consumer choice at the very moment they should be encouraging it. Far from being the shot in the arm that private buyers need, this ill-conceived grant scheme has only created questions and confusion. I'm now telling anyone in the market for a new EV to pause before making a decision - especially since, bizarrely, it appears that if the entry-level model of a car costs under £37,000, the more expensive versions and trims in the same range might still be eligible for discounts. This scheme encapsulates everything that's wrong with government policymaking: good intentions, badly thought through and buried under layers of bureaucracy. It simply seems half-baked, with an announcement which was made too early. If Labour truly wants to accelerate EV adoption, they need to go back to the drawing board and design something that actually works for the people it's supposed to help and gives everyone some clarity. My advice? Start with the used market.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Treasury Secretary Bessent calls for a review of 'the entire' Federal Reserve
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday suggested a review of the Federal Reserve that would go beyond the current controversy over building renovations and look at its overall function. 'What we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful,' Bessent said during an interview on CNBC's ' Squawk Box.' 'Has the organization succeeded in its mission? If this were the [Federal Aviation Administration] and we were having this many mistakes, we would go back and look at why has this happened.' The comments come amid an intensifying conflict between the White House and the central bank. Last week saw conflicting reports over whether President Donald Trump was preparing to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Reports from the White House indicated a move was forthcoming, but Trump soon after denied he is readying what would be a legally questionable maneuver. Bessent has been at the center of the controversy, both as a potential successor at the Fed as well as reports pointing to the Treasury chief as a mediator looking to discourage Trump from ousting Powell. 'President Trump solicits a whole range of opinions and then makes a decision,' Bessent said when asked about a Wall Street Journal report that he had helped convince Trump to stay his hand on Powell. 'So he takes a lot of inputs, and at the end of the day it's his decision.' Trump has demanded the Fed dramatically lower its benchmark overnight borrowing rate, something that appears unlikely regardless of the chair. In addition, the administration in recent days has criticized the Fed for cost overruns at the $2.5 billion renovation it has undertaken for two of its buildings in Washington. Administration officials reportedly are planning soon to view the project in person. On the question of interest rates, Bessent backed the idea that the Fed probably should be easing with inflation mostly moderating. 'They were fear mongering over tariffs, and thus far we have seen very little if any inflation,' Bessent said. 'We've had great inflation numbers. So, you know, I think this idea [is] of them not being able to break out of a certain mindset. All these PhDs over there, I don't know what they do.' The Fed last cut rates in December, which completed a brief easing cycle that brought the fed funds rate down a full percentage point. However, as the Fed eased both mortgage rates and Treasury yields moved higher. Market pricing indicates the Fed probably will cut again in September.
