In Italy too , as in other countries that have already adopted it, a sugar tax is being proposed .
That is the famous “sugar tax” which should increase the price of all products containing added sugars by 20%, starting with drinks . The drinks could therefore cost from 5 to almost 30 cents more depending on the amount of sugar present per 100 ml of product.

The proposal, launched by the Minister of Health Giulia Grillo , was supported by the newspaper Il Fatto Alimentare , through an appeal to nutritionists, dieticians and medical associations to say Yes to the sugar tax.
The sugar tax has already been adopted by some European countries, following the example of Great Britain, but also in Mexico and in some American states.

And it actually led to a 20% reduction in the consumption of sugary drinks.
The basic idea, of course, is to raise prices as a deterrent for people to purchase products with added sugars . And apparently this idea works.

All happy then? I honestly am a little doubtful about some aspects of the sugar tax.

And in this article I list the reasons why the sugar tax is not in my opinion the adequate and sufficient answer to stem the growing phenomenon of childhood obesity (which then becomes or risks becoming adult obesity) and diabetes.

Let’s start with some clarifications.

Yes, it is true that obesity is on the rise, and it is true that diseases associated with metabolic syndrome such as diabetes are on the rise. However, that this is the fault of sugar has never been scientifically proven. I know, it is difficult to understand this concept, also because we are led to believe that it is always and only the fault of sugar.
But all the research in recent years has pointed out that sugar doesn’t “cause” diabetes.
The link between sugar and type 2 diabetes is indirect .

Since if I take in more sugar I take in more calories and if I take in more calories then I can gain weight , it is reasonable to think that weight gain corresponds to a greater risk not only of diabetes, but in general of metabolic syndrome.
That is: more visceral fat, higher blood sugar, higher cholesterol, higher triglycerides, higher risk of hypertension.

One thing that is well explained for example by the British Diabetes Association.
If I am based on a false myth, this will lead me to underestimate other aspects that can contribute to type 2 diabetes and obesity. For example an excess of fat. And here we come to point two.

What we consider sweet is not just foods or drinks with added sugars. While drinks with added sugar have no fat, all sweet snacks generally have a significant fat component

One thing that I have emphasized several times when talking about the so-called “sugar addiction”. If sugar addiction were scientifically true, people would eat table sugar by the spoonfuls.
Instead they eat biscuits, creams, packaged products of various types: yes, they contain sugar, but also fats and additives, as well as salt.

As author David Kessler, who wrote a very beautiful essay on obesity and food, pointed out, it is the combination of these substances that makes people overeat. 

The sugar tax would make sense if  all packaged foods such as snacks, chips, confectionery products which, as I explained to you are also full of fat, and the so-called junk food were taxed.

And that is all those products such as hamburgers, fries and rotisserie products that have a ridiculous price in the major fast food chains. It turns out that I pay for the cheeseburger at one and fifty euros but then I take the light coke to avoid the twenty cents surcharge .

And now let’s talk about sweeteners.

At the moment, scientifically speaking, the damages of the use of sweeteners, even natural ones such as stevia , on human health are not yet clearly known . However, this does not mean that studies have not already been done, although not yet demonstrative.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of a company. Is the sugar tax coming? I use sweetener, or make drinks with less sugar plus sweeteners. There is always a way to get around a tax , and the risk is that the market will be flooded with new products with sweeteners on which the effects on health have not yet been fully understood

Finally, let’s see two more data.
The consumption of simple sugars is one thing, the per capita consumption of added sugars is another . Per capita consumption of sugar such as table sugar has, for example, dropped by three percentage points in recent years.

In 2016 the Nutrition Foundation of Italy through the Liz study specified that Italy was in the average for the consumption of simple sugars, which however were not added sugars, but inclusive of sugars derived from fruit, milk, yogurt. There was also no correlation in Italy between the consumption of simple sugars and the increase in obesity.

A 2015 study revealed that, in the consumption of sugary drinks, Italy recorded a decline unlike other countries. In 2014, Italians consumed on average less than 50 daily calories of sugary drinks (think also of juices, not just Coca Cola): a certainly not alarming fact.

In 2016 various newspapers, including Il Fatto Quotidiano, published Euromonitor International data on the consumption of sugary drinks in 80 countries. Italy was in 49th place. 

It is true that Italy is among the European countries to import the most sugar: but this is because our sugar production has been decreasing for years, and indeed there is a national emergency that will contribute to the crisis of our companies and the loss of thousands of jobs.

Finally, it would be nice that the savings that would be obtained if Italy adhered to the Sugar Tax, it would be possible to make prevention for a correct diet , in order to give people finally free tools within everyone’s reach to learn how to eat better. , in general.