Impuesto sobre el plástico no reutilizable

Las firmas que empacan productos en plástico no reciclable serán golpeadas con costos masivos bajo los planes para hacer que su uso "desaparezca", The Independent puede revelar.

Los expertos de Whitehall creen que la propuesta -en realidad, un impuesto sobre el plástico no reutilizable- tendrá un mayor impacto en el impulso del gobierno para abolir todos los desechos de plástico para 2042 que cualquier otra medida.

Una fuente cercana a la propuesta le dijo a The Independent que haría que el costo de usar plásticos no reciclables fuera "tan exorbitantemente alto" que las empresas simplemente concluirían que ya no lo valen.

Al mismo tiempo, la medida creará un flujo de fondos lucrativo para impulsar la nueva capacidad de reciclaje en el Reino Unido para plásticos que puedan reutilizarse.

Sigue a una serie de anuncios del secretario de Medio Ambiente, Michael Gove, mientras replantea los temas ecológicos como territorio político conservador, y se alienta a los activistas a impulsar el progreso en otras áreas también.
The Independent está haciendo una campaña para un "impuesto sobre el café con leche" 25p en tazas de café desechables, por ejemplo, que son casi imposibles de reciclar de manera efectiva.

Pero los funcionarios creen que la ruta real hacia un cambio radical en los plásticos es el nuevo esquema que ahora se concibe en el departamento del Sr. Gove.

Desde 2005, las empresas que crean desechos de envases están obligadas a comprar una "nota de recuperación del embalaje" para compensar el costo de lidiar con ella, con el cargo como un pequeño incentivo para usar envases más ecológicos y dinero recaudado para ayudar a financiar el reciclaje.

Pero los expertos del gobierno ahora quieren mejorar el sistema, con los fabricantes que usan plástico no reciclable forzado a comprar PRN que cuestan cantidades extremas.

Una fuente del gobierno dijo: "El hecho de que haya muchos plásticos de baja calidad es un problema: estos son artículos de un solo uso, no tienen la calidad suficiente para reciclar.

"Entonces la pregunta es, ¿cómo cambias eso para avanzar hacia personas que usan plásticos de mejor calidad, que puedes reutilizar?

"Una forma clave sería hacer que el costo del plástico no reciclable, a través de PRN, sea tan exorbitantemente alto que lo expulse efectivamente de la existencia, significaría que con el costo del mismo no valdría la pena usarlo".

Un ejemplo de productos que podrían estar sujetos a un mayor costo de PRN son los alimentos como el tocino o las carnes frías, o cualquier cosa que se presente en envases de plástico muy finos.

El cambio está siendo impulsado por el creciente uso de plástico no reciclable desde que China prohibió las importaciones de desechos plásticos, lo que lleva a una necesidad desesperada de una nueva capacidad de reciclaje en el Reino Unido.

Pekín había importado unos 7.3 millones de toneladas de residuos plásticos al año de países desarrollados, incluido el Reino Unido. Su cierre como destino ha visto la acumulación de residuos en las plantas británicas.

La fuente de The Independent explicó: "Si aumenta el costo de PRN, también tendrá más dinero para reciclar capacidad, y puede usarlo como una forma de hacer crecer la industria del reciclaje en el Reino Unido.

Esa es esencialmente la gran área de cambio en términos de plástico: estas cosas tendrán el mayor impacto en la mejora de los problemas relacionados con los plásticos.

"No son fáciles de explicar, o son sexys en el sentido de las noticias, como el plan de devolución de depósitos en envases de bebidas de plástico, pero tendrán un gran impacto".

Los ministros quieren que el plan esté listo para fin de año cuando el gobierno publique su nueva estrategia de residuos y recursos.

Otros anuncios del gobierno incluyen prohibir las microperlas de plástico, una carga de bolsa de plástico de 5 peniques, lo que llevó a distribuir nueve mil millones de bolsas menos, el esquema de devolución de depósitos para envases de bebidas de un solo uso y la prohibición de pajitas de plástico y agitadores de bebidas.
El Sr. Gove ha dicho anteriormente que el éxito del cargo en las bolsas de plástico ha demostrado que las personas están dispuestas a recibir un golpe financiero siempre y cuando la política detrás de esto funcione para el medio ambiente.

En ese momento, el gobierno acababa de publicar su plan de 25 años sobre política ambiental, que incluía consultas sobre si se podrían utilizar impuestos y gravámenes adicionales para frenar el uso de plásticos.

Pero el nuevo impulso de usar PRN para eliminar el uso de plásticos no reciclables está destinado a enfrentar el retroceso de algunos sectores industriales, mientras que también existen peligros políticos dado que el costo del nuevo sistema podría pasarse a los consumidores.

La fuente de The Independent dijo: "Si hablas con compañías, las personas se están moviendo en esta dirección de todos modos. La tendencia general de las grandes empresas es hacia un mejor empaque, embalaje reciclable.

"La gente sabe que sus consumidores están preocupados por eso. Por lo tanto, puede haber algunos problemas con algunas empresas, pero en términos generales, aquellos en el negocio del envasado sienten que tienen que ser más verdes y más amigables con el medio ambiente ".

Mientras tanto, quienes respaldan el plan dentro del Partido Conservador creen que los riesgos políticos pueden mitigarse siempre que el público y el mundo empresarial entiendan correctamente el propósito del nuevo sistema.

En 2012, el entonces canciller George Osborne fue objeto de críticas después de que un plan para simplificar el IVA sobre comida para llevar caliente provocó el furor por el "impuesto pastoso" y la eliminación de su presupuesto.

Pero la fuente dijo: "Se puede meter en dificultades cuando hay una falta de claridad sobre por qué el gobierno realmente está haciendo algo, pero nadie conocerá a mucha gente que no cree que haya un problema con los plásticos.

"Es algo importante en este momento, la gente entiende por qué lo estamos haciendo".

El impuesto al azucar en las bebidas a base de agua y jugo (Irlanda)

Se ha hablado durante años, y ahora el impuesto sobre el azúcar finalmente está aquí.

Las bebidas a base de agua y jugo que contienen más de 5 gramos de azúcar por 100 mililitros ahora son responsables del impuesto sobre las bebidas azucaradas.

Las bebidas que contienen entre 5 y 8 g de azúcar tendrán un costo adicional de 20 centavos por litro.

Si hay más de 8 g, el impuesto será de 30 c por litro.

Las bebidas que se verán afectadas incluyen aguas saborizadas, aguas carbonatadas, bebidas energéticas y deportivas y bebidas a base de jugo.

Algunos productos concentrados que requieren la adición de agua antes del consumo, tales como los cordiales, las calabazas envasadas y los jarabes con sabor también son responsables del impuesto.

Los jugos de fruta puros no costarán más, a menos que se agregue azúcar, empujando todo el contenido de azúcar por encima del umbral.

Marcas como Coca-Cola Classic, Pepsi, Club Orange, Red Bull y Monster costarán más, aunque la dieta y las versiones con bajo contenido de azúcar no se verán afectadas.

Los productos lácteos están fuera del alcance del impuesto sobre la base del valor nutricional que ofrecen, como el calcio y la proteína, que son necesarios para una buena salud.

La Irish Heart Foundation, que hizo campaña para el nuevo impuesto, dijo que hoy era el día más significativo en la lucha contra la obesidad infantil en Irlanda.

El jefe de la defensoría, Chris Macey, dijo que la medida era la primera señal de que el Gobierno estaba preparado para tomar medidas drásticas para enfrentar la crisis y que la decisión ya había dado resultado debido a un importante programa de reformulación de los fabricantes para reducir los niveles de azúcar por debajo de los umbrales elegidos. el impuesto.

Si bien el objetivo principal del nuevo impuesto es ayudar a abordar los niveles de obesidad en toda la sociedad, también aumentará algunos ingresos para el Estado.

Sin embargo, cuánto será eso seguirá siendo tema de debate.

El Departamento de Finanzas, Gasto Público y Reforma estima que recaudará € 40 millones en un año completo, pero a medida que los fabricantes de bebidas trabajan para reducir el contenido de azúcar, la cifra caerá.

El Irish Beverage Council, que representa a las compañías de refrescos, se opuso a la introducción del impuesto, pero aceptó que ahora es una realidad.

El Consejo afirma que el 76% de los refrescos vendidos en Irlanda no serán responsables del impuesto ya que las empresas han estado trabajando para reducir el azúcar durante más de 30 años.

Colm Jordan, del Consejo, dijo que se han eliminado 10 mil millones de calorías anualmente entre 2005 y 2012 a través de la reducción voluntaria de azúcar en refrescos.

Dijo que eso equivale a una reducción del 10% en siete años, y que los refrescos representan menos del 3% de la ingesta calórica de Irlanda.

El impuesto operará en el estilo del impuesto especial y los "primeros proveedores" de bebidas imponibles serán responsables de cobrar y pagar el impuesto a los Comisionados de Ingresos.

Los primeros proveedores se definen como aquellos que importan o fabrican tales bebidas y las venden a mayoristas, minoristas o consumidores.

La primera indicación de la cantidad real que recaudará el impuesto sobre el azúcar llegará a fines de julio, la fecha límite para que los proveedores devuelvan los primeros dos meses del impuesto recaudado sobre el azúcar.

SAINSBURY'S has sparked outrage after ditching regular Coke bottles from its meal deals.

SAINSBURY'S has sparked outrage after ditching regular Coke bottles from its meal deals.

The decision to drop the drink from the £3 deals has been blamed on price rises following the new sugar tax.

Supermarket bosses said 500ml bottles of Diet Coke and Coke Zero Sugar would still be included in meal deals.

Shopped have since argued Sainsbury's should have put the price of meal deals up instead of taking the drink out of the deal.

Some said it inconvenienced people who don't want to drink Coke made with sweeteners instead of sugar.

On Twitter, Gary Waites said: "The issue is that I don't want Coke Zero not diet, due to the chemical artificial sweeteners, there is no freedom of choice because of the #sugartax which means lost revenue to @sainsburys as I will go elsewhere for my lunch."

Customer Nynaeve2k tweeted: "I'm allergic to sweeteners. They cause me horrendous, debilitating migraines. I wouldn't mind paying 50p more for the meal deal for a full fat Coke but as it stands, the same food costs around £2 more."

A spokesman for the retailer tweeted that, following the introduction of the sugar tax, the price of Coca-Cola had risen.

The spokesman told The Grocer magazine it was "unable to offer it as part of our meal deal."

She said customers could still buy a 250ml can of Classic Coke, sandwich and snack for under £3, less than the price of a meal deal.

Similar anger was aimed at Tesco's move to offer 375ml bottles of Classic Coke with its £3 meal deals earlier this month.

The UK's biggest supermarket swapped the usual 500ml bottles of Coca-Cola and Pepsi for smaller 375ml ones.

It downsized from the 500ml bottles it had previously offered without changing the promotion price.

The supermarket has made the swap due to the new sugar tax, which means drink firms must pay a tax to the government depending on how sugary their drinks are.

As a result some manufactures have changed their recipes to include less sugar.

More than half of all soft drinks have been changed to lower their sugar content, as the government introduces a new sugar tax to help tackle the UK’s growing obesity crisis.

Under the new rules which come in today, drinks with at least 8g of sugar per 100ml will cost 24p a litre more, falling to 18p for those with 5g to 8g per 100ml.

A spokesman for Coca-Cola Enterprises said pricing was at the discretion of retailers.

He said: "The government, policymakers and health experts have made it clear that they expect to see a price difference between products that contain sugar and those that have a low or zero sugar content."

Sugar tax: There's more to come in the war on obesity

It's not the end, there's more to come. That was the message from ministers with the launch of the soft drinks sugar tax.

There was a clear hint that further anti-obesity policies are not far off. The government seems emboldened to press on with strategies aimed at persuading companies to cut calorie content and to wean consumers off their fast-food habit.

First of all, policymakers may well consider extending the scope of the sugar tax to flavoured milk drinks. They were left out of the scope of the levy when it was first announced in 2016.

But the instigator of the policy, George Osborne, when he was chancellor, now says he wishes he had gone further at the outset and included sugary milk drinks in the tax net. He hinted that current cabinet members should move more rapidly.

Speaking to the BBC's Newsnight, Mr Osborne said: "I was already, before I left office, looking at whether you could extend it to sugar added to milk products like sugary milkshakes. I think it'll be for others to take further steps forward and I would predict those steps will be taken."

In train already is a sugar reformulation plan. This is aimed at products not covered by the soft drinks levy, such as cakes, biscuits and cereals. Manufacturers and retailers have reached agreement with health officials to cut sugar content of these food items by 20% over four years with a 5% reduction in the first year. They can do it either by introducing new recipes or cutting portion sizes.

Public Health England says the results from the first year of this sugar reduction plan are due to be published in May. A stack of market sales data has been assembled and officials are analysing it to work out whether companies in each category are cutting sugar content in line with the target.

It's understood that the sugar content removed by the food and restaurant industries in the first year has fallen short of the required 5%. Better progress has been made apparently by cereal manufacturers than biscuit and chocolate producers. It's a voluntary plan and critics will point out that there are no sanctions for companies which don't hit their targets.

Officials will argue that it's a fair start and the first year was always going to be difficult as the industry changed its production processes to remove sugar. There is optimism that the four-year 20% sugar reduction plan will be successful.

Its going to be a busy year for Public Health England as it has recently launched a calorie-cutting strategy, again involving companies signing up to voluntary targets. This covers pizzas, pies, processed foods and a range of savoury items. The detail has not been worked out and that could yet be a more challenging task than for the sugar plan.

Whitehall is gearing up for a wider child obesity strategy this summer. Theresa May seems to have noted that opposition to the sugar tax has been muted and decided that she can go further than the plan she unveiled in 2016 which was widely criticised as too weak. Back on the agenda are curbs on food advertising during prime time television programmes and restrictions on promotions of high calorie food in supermarkets.

Shoppers, meanwhile, will be getting used to the new sugar tax world. Companies making high sugar drinks will be watching closely to see if their customers are deterred from paying 48p more for a two-litre bottle. Those who have reduced sugar content to come in below the tax threshold will want to find out whether consumers are happy with the new recipes.

Irn-Bru has encountered resistance after moving to a lower sugar version. There have been mutterings on social media that the new version of Ribena does not taste as good as the traditional one.

What will take time is gathering evidence on the impact of these policies. Will they bring down obesity? Will there be unintended consequences? Might any changes in people's health have happened anyway? The debate will continue even though there may not be much data for a while yet.

Sugar tax on soft drinks could prevent tens of thousands from becoming obese, says new study

A sugar tax on soft drinks could result in thousands fewer British adults and children becoming obese, research suggests.

Experts said the proposed levy, due to be introduced in April 2018, was likely to have a “significant” impact on health and obesity rates.

The industry tax relates to the sugar content of drinks, with a higher amount charged for the most sugary beverages.

Researchers modelled three ways that the soft drinks industry might respond to the levy - reducing the sugar content of drinks, raising the price of sugary drinks, and encouraging customers to switch to drinks containing less sugar.

For each scenario they estimated the likely effect on rates of obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.

The study found that a 30 per cent reduction in the sugar content of all high-sugar drinks - a step already taken by some manufacturers - and a 15 per cent reduction for moderately sugary drinks could result in 144,000 fewer adults and children being obese.

Such a step would also lead to 19,000 fewer new cases of Type 2 diabetes each year, and a yearly reduction of 269,000 teeth affected by decay.

Passing on half of the cost of the levy to consumers, leading to a 20 per cent increase in the price of high and mid-sugar drinks, was predicted to reduce the number of obese adults and children by 81,600, cases of diabetes by 10,800, and decaying teeth by 149,000.

Dr Adam Briggs, from Oxford University, who led the research published in The Lancet Public Health journal, said: “Our study provides the first estimates of the likely health impact of the UK soft drinks levy.

“The good news is that our study suggests that all of the most likely industry responses to the tax including reducing sugar content of soft drinks, raising prices of high-sugar drinks and increasing the market share of low-sugar drinks have the potential to improve health by reducing rates of obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.

“The extent of the health benefits of the tax will depend on industry's response.

“We must therefore be vigilant to ensure the food industry acts to remove sugar from soft drinks, and that where the tax is passed on to consumers it increases the price of targeted products only - drinks with high levels of sugar.”

Oxford colleague and co-author Professor Susan Jebb said: “In spite of the uncertainties, the direction of the effect is clear; this levy will have a positive impact, especially on children's health.

“Of course, on its own a soft drinks levy cannot solve the obesity crisis, but we should not underestimate the importance of this step, both for the UK and as a case study for other parts of the world.”

Professor Richard Tiffin, another member of the team from the University of Reading, said it was significant that children would benefit most.

He added: “Childhood obesity is a ticking time bomb and we must now turn our attention to other measures that will bring about the step change in diet that is necessary to truly tackle this issue.

“We need a much better understanding of the diverse and complex reasons people choose a poor diet.”

Nutrition expert Professor Tom Sanders, from King's College London, said he found some of the claims made by researchers “hard to swallow”.

He pointed out that according to the study findings, the proposed tax would reduce energy intake by five calories per person per day, or a third of a teaspoonful of sugar.

“This is a very small reduction in energy intake - equivalent to the amount of energy expended by one minute of brisk walking,” he said.

Other experts called the research “important” and “encouraging”.

Professor Neena Modi, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), said: “Children stand to benefit the most, so this study is a clarion call to industry to fulfil their moral obligations to promote child wellbeing.

“We also reiterate the importance of evaluating the true impact of the sugar tax, once it is introduced, so that the UK can provide much needed evidence to other countries that are considering emulating this potentially powerful public health intervention.”

A Government spokesman said: “This is independent confirmation that the soft drinks industry levy, a key part of our world-leading Childhood Obesity Plan, will be a potent tool in the fight against childhood obesity.

“Not only that, it will help save our children's teeth and cut rates of type 2 diabetes.”

San Francisco passes soda tax, other cities on track to approve

San Francisco passes soda tax, other cities on track to approve

City buses travel down a city street in San Francisco, California

Voters in San Francisco, California passed a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages on Tuesday, unofficial results showed, as the push by local governments to target soda to stem obesity and diabetes gathered speed.

San Francisco Bay Area neighbor Albany, California passed a similar measure, preliminary figures showed and measures in Oakland, California and Boulder, Colorado, were on track to pass as well, with votes still being counted early on Wednesday.

The levies on sugar-sweetened beverages arrive a month after the World Health Organization recommended that governments introduce these types of taxes in a bid to battle obesity, diabetes and other diet-related diseases.

ADVERTISEMENT

Opponents of such taxes say they hit lower income populations hardest, and that it is unfair to single out soda in the battle to fight obesity and diabetes.

Coca-Cola Co, PepsiCo Inc and other companies in the roughly $100 billion U.S. soft drink industry are fighting the taxes at a time when soda consumption is falling.

The San Francisco measure passed 62 percent to 38 percent and the Albany measure passed 71 percent to 29 percent. With 85 percent of precincts reporting, the Oakland measure had 62 percent support to 38 percent opposed, and in Boulder the soda tax was passing 54 percent to 46 percent, with the percent of votes counted unclear.

Philadelphia and Berkeley, California, are the only U.S. cities that have a so-called "soda tax" on the books.

Philadelphia and Berkeley, California, are the only U.S. cities that have a so-called "soda tax" on the books.

But on Election Day, four more cities will decide whether they want one.

Residents of Boulder, Colorado, and Californians who live in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany will vote on ballot measures calling for a new tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The Boulder measure calls for a two-cents-per-ounce tax, while the three California cities are calling for a tax of one cent per ounce.

The proposed soda taxes would target not only sodas but sweetened teas, fountain drinks, energy drinks and beverages with sugar added. Some sweet drinks, though, would be exempt. For instance, the tax would not apply to 100% juice products, infant formula, milk products, diet soda and in most cases, alcohol.

Soda tax proponents cite the need to reduce the incidence - especially in children - of diabetes, obesity and other harmful health effects of sugar.

The proposed ordinance in Albany, California, for instance, notes that "a single 20-ounce bottle of soda ... typically contains the equivalent of approximately 16 teaspoons of sugar." Proponents of the measure in Boulder say it contains "22 packets of sugar." In either case, it's a lot.

In addition to reducing sugar-related health problems, a soda tax is also promoted as a way to help bring down the public cost of treating those health problems.

The new soda tax revenue is typically directed into a city's general fund, but at least in Boulder there's a call for it to be used specifically for health initiatives.

Opponents of the soda tax make several arguments. Among them, specialized taxes raise the accounting and administrative burdens on business owners. And even though the soda tax is technically levied on beverage distributors, it is likely to be passed on to consumers by way of higher prices. Plus, low-income consumers, who buy the taxed product more than other groups, are least able to afford higher prices.

The jury is still out on the efficacy of taxing one type of beverage or food to reduce the incidence of diabetes or obesity.

Studies in Mexico, which imposed a soda tax nationwide in 2014, found consumption is down, as has early research in Berkeley, where the soda tax went into effect last year, said Donald Marron, director of economic policy initiatives at the Urban Institute. That alone isn't surprising. "Prices go up, people buy less," Marron said.

The potential health effects of the tax, however, aren't clear yet, he noted. What if consumers choose to substitute sugary beverages that are taxed for high-sugar beverages that are untaxed, such as 100% juice?

There's still debate among health experts as to whether naturally occurring and additive sugars are equally harmful or if additive sugars are worse in causing diabetes and obesity, Marron said.

These Cities Are About to Reach a Verdict on the Soda Tax

These Cities Are About to Reach a Verdict on the Soda Tax

Tim Boyle—Getty Images

They’ve become the latest battleground in a so-called “War on Sugar.”

As Americans vote for a new president on Tuesday, hundreds of thousands of voters in California’s Bay Area and Boulder, Colorado, will also decide whether they want levies on sugary drinks, another step toward making soda taxes a norm.

Three cities in California – San Francisco, Berkeley and Albany – and Boulder, Colorado, have become the latest battleground in a so-called “War on Sugar” that centers on sweetened drinks. Over 800,00 voters will decide on ballot measures to introduce taxes of 1 or 2 cents per ounce on soft drinks on Nov. 9, just weeks after the World Health Organization (WHO) advocated that governments should impose these types of levies.

The push for taxes on sugar and sodas has gathered momentum this year, as officials and health advocates seek ways to stem health epidemics of diabetes and obesity. On most ballots, the tax would not apply to diet sodas but does affect some juices, sports drinks and other beverages with added sugar.

Reducing consumption of sugary drinks is seen as a relatively easy way for people to cut down on added sugars, recommended by groups including the WHO, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Heart Association.

The trend has prompted worry and millions of dollars in advertising and lobbying campaigns from beverage industry giants like PepsiCo  PEP -0.15%  and Coca-Cola  KO -0.36%  that are facing declining sales of their flagship products in markets including the United States.

So far this year, Britain and Philadelphia decided to introduce levies on soft drinks and countries including South Africa have proposed similar measures. This follows a decision by Mexico to introduce such a tax in 2014. The broadening of these efforts raises the prospect of establishing them as the norm after numerous previous attempts failed, advocates say.

“The more these taxes pass, the more they will be considered in other jurisdictions,” said Jim O’Hara, health promotion policy director with the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington.

SODA ON THE DEFENSIVE

Both Pepsi and Coke are increasing options for less sugary drinks, responding to changing consumer tastes. Consumption of carbonated soft drinks hit a 30-year low in the United States last year, as water sales continued their climb, according to Beverage Digest.

The majority of California voters support government measure to reduce consumption of sugary beverages, according to a Field Poll released in February. In San Francisco, a 2014 vote for a similar tax failed to pass a two-thirds vote, but is expected by many to succeed this time around, as only a simple majority is required. The votes in the other cities are expected by both advocates and opponents alike to be tighter.

Fighting for survival, Big Soda has been outspending advocates of the measure, but not by much. Industry spending to oppose the taxes this year in the Bay Area alone has swelled to around $27 million to $28 million, versus around some $19 million by advocates, according to estimates from both sides.

Billionaires including Michael Bloomberg have joined the fray, contributing $15 million to pro-tax campaigns in the Bay Area. The former mayor of New York waged an unsuccessful campaign in the city to cut soda sizes in 2014.

Opponents say the tax, which would be levied on distributors, is unfairly targeted at drinks makers and could raise food costs beyond just soda.

“In effect, this is a grocery tax. It could be spread out on many items” by distributors, said Joe Arellano, spokesman for the “No Grocery Tax” campaigns in California’s Bay area.

In the California cities, the measures would introduce a penny-per-ounce tax. In Boulder, it would be 2 cents.