web analytics

Let them drink beer

Written By: - Date published: 1:16 pm, October 25th, 2015 - 30 comments
Categories: health, national, science - Tags: , , ,

The Nats are so desperate to avoid taking action on sugar’s role in the demographics of obesity that they’ve taken to talking pure drivel.

Here’s the transcript:

Political editor Patrick Gower sat down with Dr Coleman and began by asking him what actually happens once a child is identified as obese at a pre-school check.

Jonathan Coleman: They will then get referred to appropriate professional advice …

You’ve justified not contemplating any form of junk-food tax by saying there isn’t enough evidence.

Well, you’re saying a junk-food tax. You mean a sugar tax.

Sugar tax.

Yeah, okay. Soft-drink tax.

Looking at a soft-drink tax –why not?

Because, actually, there’s not the conclusive evidence, right? There might be a correlation in those Mexican studies, so they put a 9% tax on soft drinks.

And consumption dropped. That’s evidence, isn’t it?

Sales decreased, but it’s not clear if that’s a correlation or a causative effect, so there were other things going on – a tanking Mexican economy, $30 billion drinking-water programme. It’s also not clear if there’s substitution to other beverages. So we’re saying, look, you know, there’s some evidence that’s being assessed – it’s going to be reported on in 2017 at Waikato University as well as the University of North Carolina – but there isn’t any direct evidence of causation that anyone can point to.

Well, the World Health Organization, which put out that major report recently, led by our own Sir Peter Gluckman, you know, that has said, and I will quote it for you, ‘The rationale and effectiveness of taxation measures to influence consumption are well supported by available evidence.’

Well, they might be talking about a decrease in sales. But what we want to know about is – is there a link to obesity directly? So, for instance, there might be a decrease in consumption of soft drinks, but are people drinking more flavoured milk? Are they drinking beer as a substitution? What is says in that report is that, actually, there isn’t clear evidence. On balance, they recommend it, but, look, that’s the WHO, you know? You would expect that they would take a very purist view. … [emphasis added]

Coleman is obviously prepared to go through any contortion to try and avoid the bleeding obvious. Because science rarely deals in certainty, any remaining shred of uncertainty is used as an excuse. I guess he’s just following in Key’s fine traditions (“He’s one academic, and like lawyers, I can provide you with another one that will give you a counterview”). But as with the data on polluted water, or the evidence for climate change, we can only go on ignoring reality for so long before things fall apart.

30 comments on “Let them drink beer ”

  1. Bill 1

    You know the same argument is being had, and the same positions are ebing adopted by the same people in the UK?

    Anyway, I kinda liked this from a Graham MacGregor, a professor of cardiovascular medicine and chairman of Action on Sugar, calling for …

    a ban on marketing of all unhealthy foods, just like cigarettes. There is no rationale for banning cigarette advertisements when unhealthy food is now a much bigger cause of death in the UK. We need also to stop price promotions in supermarkets, which are almost entirely on the most unhealthy foods and encourage greater consumption. We also need to limit availability and portion size. If all of these actions were put into place, we could prevent the development of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/24/sugar-tax-poll-obesity-cameron-oliver

  2. Nic the NZer 2

    “Because science rarely deals in certainty, any remaining shred of uncertainty is used as an excuse.”

    You may be discussing the wrong area of research. Dr Coleman is arguing that people may substitute other unhealthy drinks offsetting the effects of a sugar tax. Supposedly people have certain fixed preferences which they will substitute towards negating the price effects introduced by regulation. Effectively this would mean that government can do nothing to combat unhealthy eating. Given the lack of empirical evidence for government impotence in this area I don’t think we should elevate this assumption to the level of ‘science’. Its clearly just a made up belief which some economists have assumed to be true.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1

      What a load of drek.

      A sugar tax will apply across all that have sugar in it and that includes beer.

      Effectively this would mean that government can do nothing to combat unhealthy eating.

      Actually, the government can do a hell of a lot by putting in regulations that prevent unhealthy food even being on the market.

      Really, what we’re seeing here is the usual RWNJ BS that works to ensures that nothing will be done so that a few people can continue to make a profit from the suffering of others.

    • John Shears 2.2

      @ Nic
      “Given the lack of empirical evidence for government impotence in this area I don’t think we should elevate this assumption to the level of ‘science’. Its clearly just a made up belief which some economists have assumed to be true.”

      What a lot of bollocks. Tax on products reduces their use because the cost becomes higher than the user is prepared to pay.

      Fats & Sugars are flavour enhancers and at the same time cause obesity if the extra calories are not needed by the individual eating and drinking the product.

      Just why this thread is only about carbonated drinks and Coke in particular, is beyond me. It should be about sugar levels in all food & drink products.

      The tax on sugar could be simply collected at source either from the only NZ Refinery or at the border for imported refined sugars.

      If the initial tax level does not have the desired effect then it would need to be increased until it does.

      The Tax rather than being placed in the consolidated fund should be used to help combat the effects of obesity as a result of dietary intakes from high sugar and other food ingredients.

      This was how the original Social Security Tax was set up, I think 1/6d in the pound and held in a separate account.

      Not likely to happen with the current Minister & Government sadly.

      • Nic the NZer 2.2.1

        You may need to look up the definition of the word impotence.

      • Psycho Milt 2.2.2

        This comment highlights several reasons why the proposed tax is a bad idea.

        1. Scope creep 1. Why just tax “sugary drinks?” Shouldn’t we tax all sugar? And does that mean just sucrose, all the ones ending in “ose” or all carbohydrates?

        2. Scope creep 2. Fats are also bad, right? “Scientists” say so. They believe sugar and fat both cause obesity – so if we’re going to tax sugars, why wouldn’t we tax fat?

        3. Scope creep 3. “If the initial tax level does not have the desired effect then it would need to be increased until it does.” This reads like a Kiwiblog-commenter’s caricature of left-wing thinking.

        4. Ignorance-based approaches to problems are never a good idea. Unfortunately, the whole “sugar-tax” idea is based on this premise: “Fats & Sugars … cause obesity if the extra calories are not needed by the individual…” The premise is untrue. It’s based on the fallacy that obesity is caused by some black-box event in which the calories you take in exceed the amount you expend and the difference is turned into fat. That’s wrong even at first glance (if were true, your weight would fluctuate wildly because those two amounts never match, except by unlikely accident). It’s even more wrong on closer examination, and yet it’s the foundation of the “expertise” of the people demanding the government introduce sugar taxes. I know little about nutrition, but apparently nutritionists know even less than I do. If you don’t know how something works, don’t mess with it – applies to more fields that just IT. Nutritionists don’t know how nutrition works, but they’ve been messing with it for 40 years now and the development of a population of lard-arses is closely correlated with that messing. We should stop listening until they develop some genuine knowledge about their field.

  3. Draco T Bastard 3

    Because, actually, there’s not the conclusive evidence, right? There might be a correlation in those Mexican studies, so they put a 9% tax on soft drinks.

    Which is a load of bollocks.

    The reason why we keep raising taxes on cigarettes is because it reduces the number of people who smoke. This has been known for some time so for him to say that is him outright lying.

    It’s one of those things that applies across the board. Raise taxes on something thus increasing it’s price and it will be bought less. Just as economics actually hypothesises.

  4. Lanthanide 4

    The impact of a sugar tax on soft drink sales and consumption would be very obvious.

    Say right now, a bottle of coke costs $2, whether it is full-strength coke, diet coke, zoke zero or coke life.

    After a sugar tax is put into place, it could be the case that a bottle of regular coke costs $2.50, a bottle of coke life costs $2.30, and diet and coke zero would both still cost $2, on account of them not actually having sugar.

    When faced with those prices on the shelves, do you think people are going to buy regular coke at the same rate as they used to, and not substitute it for one of the cheaper variants?

    Coca cola could even be re-formulated to reduce the amount of sugar, so that it comes down to $2.40 in price instead of $2.50. That in itself would mean people are consuming less sugar.

    • RJL 4.1

      …it could be the case that a bottle of regular coke costs $2.50, a bottle of coke life costs $2.30, and diet and coke zero would both still cost $2…

      Maybe not. Coca Cola could choose to set the price to be the same nonetheless. Maybe it would just make regular coke less profitable for Coca Cola (which is, of course, their main concern).

      • Lanthanide 4.1.1

        “Maybe not. Coca Cola could choose to set the price to be the same nonetheless.”

        Good point. Thankfully, the government can legislate to prevent that happening.

        • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1

          Well, it can try. As with most do-gooder proposals, the proposal gets more and more complicated in pursuit of a goal that was of dubious value to start with.

        • RJL 4.1.1.2

          Good point. Thankfully, the government can legislate to prevent that happening.

          How? I don’t think that it would be very easy to legislate (or audit) at that level of commercial detail.

          • Lanthanide 4.1.1.2.1

            For all products currently on sale, the government can mandate that after the sugar tax is brought in, manufacturers must pass on the sugar tax to customers in full on a product-by-product basis, proportional to the sugar content of said product. So product A by the manufacturer that has no sugar would naturally have no sugar tax to apply, and product B which has a lot of sugar would have its price increased as a result of the tax.

            This type of legislation wouldn’t get future products, but it would hammer all of the existing sugary drinks, which are the prime culprits that need hammering anyway.

  5. whateva next? 5

    I was laughing by the end of the interview, so utterly absurd that he thinks we will believe his tripe

    • Lloyd 5.1

      Who says he believes it?
      Con men often tell complete porkies in a manner which appears that they believe what they are saying.
      It is called lying.

      • Grindlebottom 5.1.1

        Whatever you want to call it, it’s an ability most successful politicians develop early and never lose.

    • Kevin 5.2

      I am amazed that Gower didn’t reach over and pat his leg and say ‘there, there, it’s over now’.

      So many opportunities to nail the minister on the rubbish he spouts.

      No mention of the thousands kicked off the elective surgery waiting lists.

      Once again Gower’s interview technique with government ministers is almost the complete opposite of how he conducts interviews with politicians on the left.

  6. mary_a 6

    If NatzKEY wants to address the issue of (childhood) obesity, it might do well to begin with its own front bench! Plenty of blubber to be forfeited there!

    Nothing like leading from the top and setting an example to be followed!

  7. Much as it pains me to agree with a pillock like Coleman, he’s on very good ground with this:

    Sales decreased, but it’s not clear if that’s a correlation or a causative effect, so there were other things going on – a tanking Mexican economy, $30 billion drinking-water programme.

    There’s no good reason to assign causality to the tax rather than either or both of those things, or all three. The word “science” shouldn’t be applied to this bullshit – it’s social science, which isn’t the same thing at all.

    Likewise, this also is bullshit:

    ‘The rationale and effectiveness of taxation measures to influence consumption are well supported by available evidence.’

    The quote itself isn’t bullshit – we’ve seen pretty conclusively that it works, via the tax on cigarettes. However, there are two factors applicable in the case of cigarettes that aren’t obviously applicable in the case of sugary drinks:

    1. The level of tax on cigarettes required to influence consumption is enormous. What politician is seriously going to legislate to make a 500-ml coke $10 or upwards?

    2. As Coleman asks, “is there a link to obesity directly?” With cigarettes, there’s a clearly-demonstrated and indisputable link to heart disease and lung cancer. The same can’t be said of sugary drinks and obesity. Personally, I’d say there has to be such a link, because lipogenesis is a matter of insulin response and sugary drinks prompt a high insulin response. But so do a lot of other things, much of which is declared by “experts” to be something called “healthy food” that we should eat in large quantities. Unless there’s proven causality for obesity involving sugary drinks that doesn’t equally apply to all other carbohydrates, drinks manufacturers have every reason to dispute the justification for a tax on their products.

    • Crashcart 7.1

      Sorry for necroing this thread a bit but I had to respond to this.

      You point out the obvious link between smoking and heart disease and lung cancer like it was always accepted. Ignoring the fact that tobacco companies spent millions of doallars delaying a consensus by funding bollox research that countered what real researchers were saying. Sort of like Coke spending huge sums of money to produce research that counters research by actual scientists that links the increase in sugar intake and the increase in obesity rates.

      So far every thing I have read from you on here is feeding into the whole idea of “we can’t do anything cause we don’t know enough” mantra. Well bollox to that. The obesity epidemic isn’t going to go away while we sit on our asses waiting for scientists to tell us definitively what needs to be done. Governments with courage need to take action and attempt to work with the best available data to improve the situation now.

      [lprent: We leave the comments open for 30 days after the post goes up. ]

  8. gsays 8

    Once again we are dancing to the Tory tune.

    The questions to ask are to enquire about who has been lobbying the government t and the nature of the lobbyists desires.

    Time and time again we end up singing the Tory tune.

    If the journalists will not ask, perhaps the opposition needs to start.

    • Kevin 8.1

      What would be the point?

      Government ministers now just refuse to answer the hard question in the house and the speakers washes his hands of it.

  9. Detrie 9

    I think Jamie Oliver has the right idea in the UK. Use a tax on sugary drinks to fund other initiatives. http://www.jamieoliver.com/sugar-rush/

  10. Treetop 10

    Were sugar to be reduced in products, the cost of the product would go up as it would cost the manufacturer more in healthy ingredients.

    Too much sugar, fat and artificial colour in isles at the supermarket. Carbohydrates turn into sugar in the body, thats why carbohydrates need to be restricted. I would like to know how much sugar carbohydrates produce.

    Removing sugar is the best solution because sugar adds kgs to body weight.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Public Housing Plan announced
    The Government has released its Public Housing Plan 2021-2024 which outlines the intention of where 8,000 additional public and transitional housing places announced in Budget 2020, will go. “The Government is committed to continuing its public house build programme at pace and scale. The extra 8,000 homes – 6000 public ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    10 hours ago
  • Prime Minister congratulates President Joe Biden on his inauguration
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has congratulated President Joe Biden on his inauguration as the 46th President of the United States of America. “I look forward to building a close relationship with President Biden and working with him on issues that matter to both our countries,” Jacinda Ardern said. “New Zealand ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • Jobs for Nature funding will create training and employment opportunities
    A major investment to tackle wilding pines in Mt Richmond will create jobs and help protect the area’s unique ecosystems, Biosecurity Minister Damien O’Connor says. The Mt Richmond Forest Park has unique ecosystems developed on mineral-rich geology, including taonga plant species found nowhere else in the country. “These special plant ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Pre-departure testing extended to all passengers to New Zealand
    To further protect New Zealand from COVID-19, the Government is extending pre-departure testing to all passengers to New Zealand except from Australia, Antarctica and most Pacific Islands, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “The change will come into force for all flights arriving in New Zealand after 11:59pm (NZT) on Monday ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Bay Cadets learn skills to protect environment
    Bay Conservation Cadets launched with first intake Supported with $3.5 million grant Part of $1.245b Jobs for Nature programme to accelerate recover from Covid Cadets will learn skills to protect and enhance environment Environment Minister David Parker today welcomed the first intake of cadets at the launch of the Bay ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Cook Islanders to resume travel to New Zealand
    The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Supporting communities and landowners to grow employment opportunities
    Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Border exception for some returning international tertiary students
    The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Tiwai deal gives time for managed transition
    Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New member for APEC Business Advisory Council
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Govt’s careful economic management recognised
    The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Additional actions to keep COVID-19 out of NZ
    The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • 19 projects will clean up and protect waterways
    $36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Zealand Government acknowledges 175th anniversary of Battle of Ruapekapeka
    The commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the Battle of Ruapekapeka represents an opportunity for all New Zealanders to reflect on the role these conflicts have had in creating our modern nation, says Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Kiri Allan. “The Battle at Te Ruapekapeka Pā, which took ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Better care for babies with tongue-tie
    Babies born with tongue-tie will be assessed and treated consistently under new guidelines released by the Ministry of Health, Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall announced today. Around 5% to 10% of babies are born with a tongue-tie, or ankyloglossia, in New Zealand each year. At least half can ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison over
    The prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison is over, with all remaining prisoners now safely and securely detained, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis says. The majority of those involved in the event are members of the Mongols and Comancheros. Five of the men are deportees from Australia, with three subject to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Pre-departure COVID-19 test for travellers from the UK and the US from 15 January
    Travellers from the United Kingdom or the United States bound for New Zealand will be required to get a negative test result for COVID-19 before departing, and work is underway to extend the requirement to other long haul flights to New Zealand, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed today. “The new PCR test requirement, foreshadowed last ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago