For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Head of Communications Kate Andrews: email@example.com | 07476 915072. Commenting on the Health Committee's report, Head of Communications and Research Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute, Kate Andrews, said:
Despite sugar consumption falling over the last two decades, the government still insists on involving itself in every nook and cranny of our day-to-day lives. It’s not consumers, but the Nanny State, that needs a set of rules to rein in its excessive behavior.
A “centrally led reformulation programme to reduce sugar in food and drink” will put the government at the helm of what we consume daily. The Department of Health’s bureaucrats lack the qualifications to determine the sugar measurements that belong in each kind of food; and they are one step away from being given the authority to ban outright products they deem too unhealthy for consumption.
Furthermore, taxing sugar is regressive, and the poor will be most painfully affected by the price hike. There is little evidence that taxing sugary food cuts down on consumption rates; it simply forces the low-paid to shove out more at the supermarket, further distorting their cost of living.
The government is meddling in decisions that are best left to parents and families.
Notes to Editors:
The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, libertarian think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.