this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
33 points (94.6% liked)
Australia
5136 readers
204 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not sure how they could implenent this without the companies just passing it on to consumers. They put sugar and corn syrup in everything, even things that don't need it.
The levy as outlined in the article, as @blind3rdeye@aussie.zone pointed out, is intended to be passed on to the consumer, with the price increase causing people to consume fewer sugary drinks. If they didn't pass it on, it would have no effect on dental health.
From the article:
However, there are ways you can design a policy like this to reduce the cost to consumers while still having an effect on dental health. In the UK, their levy is only applied to a drink "if it contains at least 5 grams (g) of sugar per 100 millilitres (ml) in its ready to drink or diluted form." As as result, the UK soft drink industry reformulated their drinks to fall below that amount (often by partially substituting non-sugar sweeteners) so that they wouldn't have to pay the tax at all and they wouldn't need to pass it on to consumers or absorb it.
From the article:
The study (https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/4/3/e002110) actually modelled the effect of reformulation, too:
Since the UK's policy has resulted in a 46% reformulation, we have a clear real-world template for bringing about a 50% reformulation and the health benefits that would accompany it.
We already had this in the UK. All the drinks got reformulated, often without alternative, with cheap artificial sweeteners. If you like an occasional sugary drink hit you’re shit out of luck (except for classic coke at least).
I think passing it on to consumers is an assumed part of the idea; discouraging people from consuming drinks with added sugar, and thus discouraging companies from making and marketing such drinks.
One would hope so, yes. I don't disagree. But personally I think it's gonna go the same way as cigarettes and alcohol. Sugar is in everything, so the price of everything wil go up.
You don't have to apply the levy to everything. The proposal the article is about is specifically "a levy applied to non-alcoholic drinks with added sugar, such as soft drinks and most juices".