We don't need no nanny state. We just need more healthy drinks.

Tesco's announcement earlier last week regarding the removal of added-sugar juice drinks targeted at kids resulted in a noisy backlash by the public on various social media sites. It's a pity on two fronts.

Tesco's initiative helps deliver healthier lunch boxes

Firstly, I applaud wholeheartedly Tesco's initiative to help ensure school kids have healthier drinks in their lunch boxes. David Beardmore, Tesco's Category Buying Manager for Soft Drinks and Juices, has long been at the forefront calling on manufacturers to reformulate and deliver healthier drinks to Tesco stores. His move was rightly lauded by many parents up and down the country as well as key health lobby groups e.g. Action on Sugar's Kawther Hashem who said “This is great news from Tesco; it shows they are taking the issue of sugar in soft drinks seriously."

.....but we don't need no nanny state, says the consumer!

The social media backlash over "#Ribenagate", whilst nothing close to the "pasty tax" reception, highlights in my view two issues which Tesco's ban on No Added Sugar kids' drinks didn't anticipate, namely consumer reaction to "no added sugar" drinks and the impact the removal of select Ribena, Rubicon and Capri-Sun drinks has on the minds of consumers given what's still available on soft drinks shelves in-store.   

"No Added sugar" doesn't necessarily mean healthier

We have all started reading more closely the packaging labels on our everyday food & drink choices. Most of what we have read shocked us. We thought it was just the occasional bottle of Coca-Cola that was sugar-laden [500ml, 210cal, 54g sugar]. We didn’t imagine just how much sugar was in a small bottle of Tropicana juice [300ml, 144cal, 30g sugar] or an Innocent smoothie [250ml, 133cal, 28g sugar]. There are many other examples which suggests its right for campaigners and parents to demand that soft drinks produced by big brands or retailers reduce sugar levels.

However, a common response by folks in retailer / manufacturer organisations reformulating drinks has been to essentially replace natural sugar with artificial sweeteners and/or hide some of the former "added sugar" within "juice", resulting in many beverages being labelled "no added sugar" but now containing some unnatural sounding ingredients e.g.

• Concentrate - 26g sugar per 250ml diluted. [Ingredients: Water, Sugar, Blackcurrant Juice from Concentrate (23%), Acid (Citric Acid), Vitamin C, Preservatives (Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Bisulphite), Colour (Anthocyanins)]
• Same brand "No Added Sugar" concentrate - 1.3g sugar per 250ml diluted. [Ingredients: Water, Blackcurrant Juice from Concentrate (35%), Acids (Malic Acid, Citric Acid), Acidity Regulators (Calcium Hydroxide, Calcium Carbonate), Sweeteners (Aspartame, Acesulfame K), Vitamin C, Stabiliser (Xanthan Gum), Flavouring, Preservatives (Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Bisulphite), Colour (Anthocyanins)]

Given our increased desire for products containing ingredients with more natural and recognisable - in nature - origins (see related article here), it's hardly surprising that people reject many "no added sugar" variations because of concerns over what's now in their favourite drinks. I would argue that if manufacturers were not "shackled" by having to deliver "no added sugar" drinks, they could offer better tasting drinks with a lot less sugar than original AND without having to put in (more) weird ingredients! It's not rocket science as my little tea beverage startup (Tg Green Teas) has shown that an iced tea can taste great, be low in sugar ("green" on traffic lights) and all without carrying unnatural sounding ingredients.

We need to change our focus on the somewhat arbitrary "no added sugar" goalpost to a "total sugar" one which is what's captured already in our traffic lights' nutritional panel. It helps to reduce the level of "ingredient fiddling" and might just result in the "tipping point" that we - consumers, lobby groups, interested parties like me - all crave i.e. a meaningful reduction in daily sugar consumption! 

Give more "carrot", not just more "stick"  

Like Nathan Gray opined in a recent Food Navigator article, I don't believe that sugar taxes will have the significant effect on people's soft drink consumption habits imagined by well-meaning lobby groups. A "sugar" tax really only works when there are viable substitutes available. There are in reality very few naturally healthy drinks available on store shelves driven mainly by the "no added sugar" mantra and by mainstream retailers dragging their feet on making bigger changes to their soft drink shelves.

Retailers are understandably nervous about the short term sales effect from re-fitting their shelves with healthier drinks as the consumer trial & adoption process does take time. Perhaps retailers could receive a corporate tax rebate or a taxable revenue reduction to cover the short-term sales hit. If this is not palatable nor workable, perhaps government could reduce VAT to 0% on food & drink that are "green" on nutritional traffic lights - even for a period of time - so making healthier choices cheaper and more appealing to trial (and hopefully adopt). These are only two examples of positive alternatives to "sugar taxes" that could remove the "nanny state" tag from some important changes to our drinks' choices that are needed now if we are to solve the obesity crisis.

We don't need no nanny state. We just need more healthy drinks......