Plastic and Sugar Taxes.

[Dunsignalling]

Articial sweetners are already claimed to be damaging to health.

Everything is damaging to health when carried out to excess..........

[Horsetan]

Everything is damaging to health when carried out to excess..........

Especially people.

[Nearholmer]

“ I strongly disagree with being punished for others lack of self control.”

 

The bad news is, that Even as a perfect model of self-control, you’ll get whopped either way, because if we less-disciplined mortals all continue to make ourselves fat, and chuck rubbish all over the place, you’ll have to pay more tax to prop-up the cost of medical care, and the combined effect of clearing-up after us and dealing with the troubles that flow from environmental damage.

 

And, by the way, the ‘punishments’ are all avoidable: buy a stout shopping bag and tin mug, perhaps using the money saved by not buying fizzy pop.

[Classsix T]

The bigger problem that it is micro plastic making its way into the food chain and not necessarily the (even responsible) discard of larger items, that is the underlying issue. I personally have had an ancient plastic bag literally disintegrate in my fingers, presumably because of the loss of elasticity of the chemical composition.

If NorthBrit had had the same geography syllabus as I, he'd be aware that this crap is gonna work its way into our dietary system one way or another.

 

I've never been convinced recent (150 years) global warming is undeniably attributable to the human race rather than a longer time cycle of a solar system led fluctuation, but it seems common sense not to deliberately pump less than beneficial garbage into the atmosphere and use resources that are finite.

 

5p on a shopping bag makes perfect sense to me. Charge £5 non returnable for parking too (concessions apply).

 

C6T.

[LBRJ]

Does the 5p per bag not go to charity? I thought it was supposed to do.

 

I also thought it was only large chains (over 200 or so outlets) that had to charge; not the local corner shop making a few pence extra

[melmerby]

buy a stout shopping bag and tin mug, perhaps using the money saved by not buying fizzy pop.

Starbucks give you 25p off a drink if you bring your own cup, any cup. I use variously a stainless steel or a plastic (not throwaway) cup.

I never see anyone else doing likewise.

Effectively it's a 25p tax on using one of the non recyclable ones for takeaway but it is having very little effect, although well publicised.

Most people are either just lazy or couldn't care less about the environment.

 

Keith

[jonny777]

Now the gardening season is here, check out the amount of unrecyclable plastic packaging used by your garden centres, DIY outlets etc with every pack of geraniums, tomatoes etc, no use at all is made of recyclable alternatives which could work just as well

such as waxed cardboard. Yet no proposals to tax it.

 

 

 

No, and the sugar tax appears only to be charged on certain drinks. Apparently, if they contain >70% milk they are exempt. 

 

Not such good news for kids teeth if they drink shakes, or other milk based products which can have more than the RDA in one small bottle. 

[Classsix T]

Of course, in a couple of years, we'll no doubt be deluged with tabloid claims that the artificial sweeteners are worse for us than sugar ever was and it's all the government's fault.......

 

John

I'll take sugar over Aspartame any day of the week John.

 

C6T.

[melmerby]

Does the 5p per bag not go to charity? I thought it was supposed to do.

 

I also thought it was only large chains (over 200 or so outlets) that had to charge; not the local corner shop making a few pence extra

It does go to the shop's named charity and it applies to companies where the total workforce is above a certain figure.

We have the anomaly that Ian Allan have to charge even though there are only two shops with maybe 20 staff, the company as a whole is much bigger and into lots of other things.

 

Keith

[Mike Storey]

On plastic bags, I believe almost all the major UK supermarkets donate their income from these to charity? In France, it is almost impossible to find a supermarket that actually has single use plastic bags anymore. If you need a bag, you have to buy a multi-use one, for upwards of a euro. Almost every shopper arrives festooned with their own shopping bags. (I have seen much the same in Italy and Switzerland lately). But many items are still sold here in single-use plastic containers. There is as much concern about it as there is in the UK. What is different is that we can put all our plastic, including plastic bags, polythene etc into the recycling. There have been campaigns over the past year or two to make sure we all know that. But what is also different is the, generally, much better attitude to civic pride, and you see much, much less rubbish in the countryside, at roadsides and at the seaside than you see in the UK. There are exceptions of course, and some cities leave much to be desired (like Marseille). It is not because there are more rubbish bins (other than on the toll motorways, where there are thousands of them), so it is more an attitude of mind.

 

On taxation of alcohol, cigarettes and now high-sugar content items, there is evidence of effectiveness, I agree, and education has not proved sufficient in the past. However, the key argument against any of these taxes is that they are regressive i.e. they punish the poor far more than the well-off. I would be far more in favour of restrictions on the strength of alcohol sold in supermarkets, and legal maximums for nicotine content (and some of the other more dangerous contents of tobacco) in cigarettes etc, and sugar content in food and drink, for example. That is fairer and probably more effective. The argument against that is freedom of choice, but if taxation is used, it is a freedom only for the wealthy. When I worked in New York, you could not buy very strong beer to take away (although you could of course buy spirits) but the beer of choice for takeaways was Miller Light, or Budweiser light. It was cheaper, and a tray of tins was very cheap, but even a tray would not get you legless. If you wanted to get absolutely rolling, you went to a bar, until they threw you out.

[melmerby]

I'll take sugar over Aspartame any day of the week John.

 

C6T.

I don't bother sweetening anything that doesn't already have a sugar content.

Also I don't drink fizzy pops, unless they contain hops, yeast and malt and come in measured pints with a head on.

 

Keith

[APOLLO]

Tax Tax Tax - straight to the Government to give / fritter away (or pay their pensions).

 

Time sort the plastic problem out once and for all.

 

1 BAN the use of all plastic in throw away type packaging of all types, especially food / drinks etc.. (such things as our Hornby /. Bachmann trains OK as the plastic packaging is used to store the product (in the main). Tax that if you must - or indeed source environmentally friendly alternatives (cardboard).

 

2 BAN micro plastics from cosmetics etc (that get into the sea via sewage etc).

 

3. Sugar - Either force reductions in foods & drinks, or tax it or both.The tax earned here should go straight to the NHS and we (the public) need to see some accountability.

 

Plastic is a valuable product made from oil - which won't last for ever.

 

Brit15

[jjb1970]

I think the two things are completely different.

 

Plastic waste is a menace to our shared environment, marine life and is related to our collective responsibility to act as good stewards for the world we live in (not that mankind has been good stewards, but that's another story). Personally I'd prefer a more aggressive set of policies to legislate against many of these plastics. Although it's also true that some maritime organisations see a good opportunity to make $$$$$'s out of cleaning the mess out of the seas so somebody will do well out of putting this mess right.

 

Sugary drinks are a matter for individuals and in principle I don't agree with government taking it upon themselves to decide how individuals will live. Freedom means freedom to make bad decisions, or to make decisions in the knowledge that something may be unhealthy but they enjoy it and accept what that means for them. What people do as individuals, whether that be faith belief, sexuality, who they sleep with, what they eat, drink etc is a matter for them. I agree with smoking bans in public places as that affects others, but if people want to smoke in their own homes then that's entirely for them. However, governments hate to let an opportunity to make decisions on our behalf go by.

[Sheffield]

Giving people the right to make bad decisions and, for example, eat too much sugar if they want is alright if we are prepared to really allow these people to suffer the consequences. But, in this "caring society", people who get ill because of their own bad decisions are treated, at a cost to all tax payers. The alternative is to refuse treatment to people who have made themselves too fat, or drink or smoke. We all therefore have a right to expect others to act sensibly, and to want action if they do not.

[beast66606]

Giving people the right to make bad decisions and, for example, eat too much sugar if they want is alright if we are prepared to really allow these people to suffer the consequences. But, in this "caring society", people who get ill because of their own bad decisions are treated, at a cost to all tax payers. The alternative is to refuse treatment to people who have made themselves too fat, or drink or smoke. We all therefore have a right to expect others to act sensibly, and to want action if they do not.

 

Totally agree - and all who play sports and injure themselves can buy some plaster at the builders merchants - and ban them from A&E as it's self inflicted - I'm not paying my taxes to support Sunday footballers who break legs or mountaineers who get lost or injured in falls or any of the multitude of injuries people suffer while being/getting "fit" *

 

BTW - there's plenty of fit, (once) healthy people, pushing up daisies, death is not reserved for those who eat too much sugary stuff or are drinkers or smokers.

 

 

* tongue in cheek of course....

[jjb1970]

Once you accept the principle that government has a right to make decisions on what people can and can't do with their own life then where does it end? The idea that government knows best about how people should be allowed to live led to persecution of homosexuals, religious persecution, eugenics, political oppression etc.

[Nearholmer]

“Government” doesn’t exist except to the extent that we collectively require or permit it to. It’s not some alien force from another planet, neither do we live under a dictatorship or the divine right of kings.

 

I would argue that unfettered libertarianism is a far greater threat to individual freedom than democratic government, simply because it very rapidly descends into bullying and exploitation of the greater part of the populace by whichever elite emerges.

 

Part of the ‘social compact’ that we all, probably unknowingly, make with one another, logically ought to be a reasonable degree of self-care.

 

I don’t mean that we ought to all nag one another into living like a bunch of puritanical fanatics, but it probably wouldn’t be a bad thing if it became an accepted social norm to eat, exercise, and generally conduct ourselves so as to maintain reasonable physical and mental health, as well as chipping-in to fund the collective ‘illness repair service’. That way, we might actually be said to be operating a national health arrangement, whereas now the most obvious feature of most health care is that it cares almost exclusively for illness.

 

It is a very, very, very complicated topic, though, because it could probably be plausible argued that a lot of avoidable chronic illness is the product of low-grade mental unwellness, linked to lack of a self-esteem. It’s noticable that, taken as a group, it’s the well-off who tend to take the most preventative care of themselves (bit of a blind-spot around booze though, putting away a fair amount of wine), because they have generally high self-esteem, and rather like being alive in comfort.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Nearholmer

[jjb1970]

“Government” doesn’t exist except to the extent that we collectively require or permit it to. It’s not some alien force from another planet, neither do we live under a dictatorship or the divine right of kings.

 

I would argue that unfettered libertarianism is a far greater threat to individual freedom than democratic government, simply because it very rapidly descends into bullying and exploitation of the greater part of the populace by whichever elite emerges.

 

 

 

At a certain level democracy is just another form of tyranny that can lead to heinous crimes. If a majority of people support a government that persecutes a section of society does the fact that a majority have supported it make it right? Was the holocaust and everything associated with it right because it was a policy of the lawfully elected government (and one with immense popular support)? Does that mean I'm against democracy? No, because it is the least bad form of government mankind has tried, but I certainly don't see it as justifying handing over power to a collective to make decisions on personal lifestyle choices of individuals.

 

I think people have a right not to be bullied by others, whether that be government or individuals.

[Ozexpatriate]

It's funny how things come back full circle.

Indeed it is.

 

The notion of a "sugar tax" makes me smile. 

 

It's been done before with some unintended consequences. See Molasses Act of 1733 and Sugar Act of 1764.

 

(And yes, I know these new efforts have different intents, but the notion of taxing non-essentials for an unrelated purpose goes back a long way.)  Instead of a tax, New York City has banned large (32oz) soft drink cups with the intent to curb the consumption of too many sugary calories.

[brack]

There is always a conflict between someone's right or desire to do as they please and the rest of those who suffer the consequences of their choices. In such case it is fair enough that our democratically elected representatives make efforts to curtail said freedom a little in order to reduce the blight on everyone else's lives. I'm not saying it's an easy balancing act, but it is necessary. This is regardless of whether said freedom is to become overly intoxicated, fill the air of every room they go into with carcinogens, collect military grade firearms and ammunition in their house, chuck dozens of plastic bags in the bin when they get home from their weekly shop or drink 6 litres of irn bru a day then expect the remainder of society to pay for their medical treatment. I'd rather live in a society that tries things like a sugar tax or minimum alcohol pricing than one where we tell people to go find their own insulin or refuse to treat their lung diseases because they're recorded as having been caught lighting up behind the bike sheds at school.

[Nearholmer]

JJB

 

I get the ‘tyranny of the majority’ point, and I get that a good eye needs to be kept on ‘where the line is drawn’ between what is deemed ‘personal business’, and what is deemed ‘collective business’, but when something manifestly has a broad societal impact, which I think it is widely agreed that bad outcomes from consuming junk food and junk drink do, then surely it becomes ‘collective business’, legitimatelya a subject for collective action, democratically elected government action.

 

We seem to have accepted seat-belt laws, and motorcycle-helmet laws, on much the same basis, to the degree where a person going around deliberately flouting them now would be thought of as either an irresponsible fool, or an immature attention seeking fool, rather than a stout defender of liberty.

 

My perception is that many people would actually welcome a collective helping hand in tackling a problem that is as much the product of corporate greed for profit as it is individual lack of self control ........ compare the amount of space given over to selling junk-food/drink in any petrol station, corner shop, large supermarket even with the space devoted to selling even half-healthy things, and notice how the same brands crop-up over and over again. That is for reasons of profit, and that huge unbalance in favour of junk food/drink won’t be resolved by individual acts of will-power, it needs governmental action.

 

Kevin

Edited April 9, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Dava]

I'm off for a pint of home brew, 1kg sugar per 40 pints, brewed & stored in 20 year old  foodgrade plastic bin & barrel, indestructable.

[beast66606]

I don’t mean that we ought to all nag one another into living like a bunch of puritanical fanatics, but it probably wouldn’t be a bad thing if it became an accepted social norm to eat, exercise, and generally conduct ourselves so as to maintain reasonable physical and mental health, as well as chipping-in to fund the collective ‘illness repair service’. That way, we might actually be said to be operating a national health arrangement, whereas now the most obvious feature of most health care is that it cares almost exclusively for illness.

 

 

Because mental health is simply down to conducting ourselves - how ? in a good way ? - seriously, you really think it's that easy ?

[jjb1970]

JJB

 

I get the ‘tyranny of the majority’ point, and I get that a good eye needs to be kept on ‘where the line is drawn’ between what is deemed ‘personal business’, and what is deemed ‘collective business’, but when something manifestly has a broad societal impact, which I think it is widely agreed that bad outcomes from consuming junk food and junk drink do, then surely it becomes ‘collective business’, legitimatelya a subject for collective action, democratically elected government action.

 

We seem to have accepted seat-belt laws, and motorcycle-helmet laws, on much the same basis, to the degree where a person going around deliberately flouting them now would be thought of as either an irresponsible fool, or an immature attention seeking fool, rather than a stout defender of liberty.

 

My perception is that many people would actually welcome a collective helping hand in tackling a problem that is as much the product of corporate greed for profit as it is individual lack of self control ........ compare the amount of space given over to selling junk-food/drink in any petrol station, corner shop, large supermarket even with the space devoted to selling even half-healthy things, and notice how the same brands crop-up over and over again. That is for reasons of profit, and that huge unbalance in favour of junk food/drink won’t be resolved by individual acts of will-power, it needs governmental action.

 

Kevin

 

I think freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. I believe in free choice within the bounds of not impinging on the rights of others to lead their lives, I also believe that we are responsible for our own choices and actions. Does that mean I don't have sympathy for people who make bad choices and end up in poor circumstances? No, but on the whole I find the idea of making decisions for others to be worse than allowing people to make mistakes. I'm not into a complete free for all, for example in the case of smoking I agree with a smoking ban in public places as secondary smoke damages the health of others, but I think if people want to smoke themselves then that is their choice. Do I think it sensible to harm oneself? No, it's stupid, but people have a right to be stupid. And how many of us don't make stupid decisions or inflict self harm? And this isn't just about poor lifestyle choices in the conventional sense, I'm now of an age where I have friends with some pretty serious health issues as a result of their passion for sports, should they be denied knee replacement surgery because the reason they need it is because they were sporting types?

 

I have no doubt most of these policies to protect us from ourselves are well intentioned, the problem is most of the greatest evils in history seem to have originated in a genuine desire to improve mankind. Burning heretics at the stake originated in a concern to save souls. Villains like Stalin, Hitler and Mao were motivated by ideals which in their own minds were intended to improve humanity. They were extreme examples, but you don't have to delve that far back in time to find some of the treatments clever and high minded people thought would cure homosexuals, crack pot theories about race etc. I do think that there are limits on behaviour and choice simply because people have rights not to be bullied and pushed around, to avoid passive smoking etc etc but I also think that so far as is possible the default position should be that people are allowed to make their own decisions free of state interference.

[Andy Hayter]

I have never thrown a plastic bag in the sea, but I know that the bags I have used have ended up in the sea - and despite my careful placing them in the bin.

 

If you have ever driven by a waste site you will have noted the plastic in the trees and the fences fluttering in the wind like Tibetan prayer flags.  When these break away, as they will in high winds, the pieces end up in ditches and streams and then get washed into rivers and the sea.

 

So please let's not have I am holy enough not to be  culprit.

 

So for all of you now thinking that the plastic bag restrictions was a worthwhile exercise that has improved the environment, I think I may be about to disappoint.

 

One of the first countries in Europe to introduce a ban on carrier bags was Ireland.  Ireland has no indigenous plastics industry to it is easy to track the consumption of plastics and in particular Polyethylene (PE) by virtue of its import records.

 

Clearly stopping giving away billions of PE plastic bags every year would lead to a reduction in usage.

 

Wrong.  Consumption of PE went up.

 

The reasons are simple.  Giving away bags meant that the supermarkets ensured that these bags were optimised to within a micron.  Who hasn't in the past put a box into a bag and seen the corner score down the bag opening up a big split?  Bags were typically 10 microns thick, with some down to 5 microns.

 

So with the ban, came bags we had to pay for - but these could not afford to be so optimised that they might split between the cashier and the car boot.  So instead of 5 -10 micron bags we were sold 30-50 micron bags - so we stopped getting free bags but bought bags that were typically 5 times thicker using 5 times more material.  Then of course there was the bag-for-life.  Construction of these varies a lot but some come in at a whopping 600 micron thickness (60 times the thickness of the old freebie).  So does one of these bags last 60 trips before a hole gets punched into the bottom or a handle breaks off and the bag has to be replaced?

 

 

And worse; it seems that as many as 60% of the old freebies were given a second life - usually lining out waste bins in the kitchen and bathroom.  So when the supply of free bags dried up, people were forced to go out and buy new bin liners.  Just like the new carrier bags, those making and selling these bags could not afford for the bags to fail, so again instead of a 10 micron free sack, you have a 30 micron sack costing a few pence.  Again an increase in use of plastic rather than a reduction.

 

 

When the Irish ban was being proposed, the plastics manufacturers were a bit concerned and lobbied against the ban.  Since then their silence speaks volumes.  For them it is a double win; we consume more of their materials and because many of the free bags were imported in bulk from China because of their light weight, they would now be replaced by local production of heavier and more voluminous products that cannot be shipped around the world so cost effectively.

 

 

[For anyone interested in more information, I recommend a book called "The Plastic Bag Wars" Hugo Verlome pub: 2006.  He is a marine biologist and concluded the battle was worth it despite the contrary result.  I strongly disagree.]

 

If we really want to have things different we need recycle systems that take plastic films.  We need waste disposal systems that do not demand that all non recyclable waste is bagged in a plastic bag.

 

But if you are really worried by micro-plastics in the ocean then consider your acrylic, nylon and other plastics based clothing.  Every time you put them through the wash, fibres break off and go straight into the drains*  these will be too fine to be captured in the sewage treatment plants and are likely to be washed straight into the rivers.

 

* If you have a tumble drier you will see the quantity of these broken fibres that did not get washed out.