A decade after the soft drinks industry levy, the typical can on a British shelf is less sugary than its 2016 ancestor. Manufacturers reformulated rather than simply raising prices. That was the point, and it worked.
Children’s sugar intake from drinks has fallen. Dental teams in some cities report fewer extractions than feared. What the tax did not do was reverse obesity. No serious public health scientist promised that a single levy on fizzy drinks would.
The honest verdict is therefore split. As a reformulation policy, the levy is one of the more successful public health tools of the past 20 years. As a cure for the British diet, it was always underpowered. Biscuits, confectionery, puddings and energy drinks found other routes. Portion sizes elsewhere barely moved.
Industry groups still call it a nanny tax. Campaigners want it extended to sugary milk drinks and perhaps to a broader set of products. The political appetite for that is thinner than a diet cola.
“Judge it against its design, not against a fantasy of one tax to fix the food system,” said Tom Ridley. “Then ask what the next instrument is. Fibre and salt are still waiting.”