Drinks with high content of sugar will be taxed 20-25 percent



BANGKOK: -- The National Reform Steering Assembly on Monday approved by 153 votes against two a proposal of its panel on health and environment affairs to increase taxes for non-alcoholic drinks with high content of sugar.

Under the proposal which is to be submitted to the cabinet for endorsement, there will be two tax rates: 20 percent tax for drinks which contain 6-10 grammes of sugar per 100 millilitre and 25 percent for drinks with over 10 grammes of sugar per 100 millilitre.

The proposed tax increase is aimed to cut Thai people’s consumption of sweetened drinks such as green tea, instant coffee, energy drinks, soybean milk and soft drinks.

Statistics show that Thais rank No 9 in the world as sugar consumers which put them at risk of being afflicted with obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and heart diseases.

According to the NRSA, almost all the non-alcoholic drinks available in the market have sugar content exceeding 6 grammes/100 millilitre. The proposed tax increase will earn the state an extra of 10 billion baht in taxes.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/161889


-- Thai PBS 2016-05-03

At last a source of income for ensuring people will have fresh clean water to use.

10 billion baht will help the drought crisis and allow for future planning to prevent such issues.

Good move!

Mexico’s Soda Tax Is Working.

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/mexicos-soda-tax-working-us-learn/

taxes solve every problem, right ? NOOOO !!!! Thailand don't be a <deleted> nannystate.........

Good move!

Mexico’s Soda Tax Is Working.

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/mexicos-soda-tax-working-us-learn/

don't belive anything you hear or read, but only half of what you see.

Its another tax , it will do nothing but leave the poor poorer

Manufacturers could care less. Like everything else, increased cost will be passed on to consumer.

Why just non-alcoholic drinks with high sugar content, surely the way around this is to add alcohol to an existing sugar laden drink?

Its another tax , it will do nothing but leave the poor poorer

Possibly, but it may leave the fat thinner, the unhealthy healthier and the kids with a mouthful of rotten teeth with a few less rotten teeth in their gobs. And that has to be a good thing.

I am not surprised by the proposal in itself, as fags have been heavily taxed for year, but am a bit surprised that they want to levy the tax at over 20 %, which is bold and could lead to a major drop off in consumption of sugary drinks. It might have been wiser just to tax sugar at 10 %, so all sugary products are included in the measure to try and reduce consumption.

Perhaps there will finally be some unsweetened alternatives on the shelves.

A test was done on Sprite samples (manufactured by Coke) from around the World for sugar content. Thailand had the highest sugar content (no surprise there). Over the 3 decades that I have known Thailand there is no doubt in my mind that the Thai people (especially children) are today much heavier than when I first came here. Reducing sugar intake can only be a good thing.

This link is from the Mail so it may be blocked, if so just Google Sprite-sugar content-Thailand. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3255034/Coca-Cola-Pepsi-brands-differ-sugar

Just tax sugar, that's the problem.

Or, you could spend some money and get the good general, I mean PM, to spend a few minutes per week to educate the people on health and diet. At least that would be productive instead of his endless drivel.

Education instead of taxes may be a better move,, since Thais consume an average of 26 spoonfuls of sugar per day in foods and drinks.

diet soft drinks will still sell at the same price as the drins with sugar in it.

In a 3rd world nation with the worlds highest road death rate and where many motorcycles have people and children riding without helmets, and the best they can come up with is a tax on sugar drinks. It's laughable. The corrupt rulers care a lot about your money and nothing about your life.

Just tax sugar, that's the problem.

Or, you could spend some money and get the good general, I mean PM, to spend a few minutes per week to educate the people on health and diet. At least that would be productive instead of his endless drivel.

Fruit has a lot of sugar in it

No problem with this, but copious amounts of sugar are found everywhere in the food chain/diet here.

Maybe better to analyze the entire food spectrum, then address behavior modification based on education and price?

Be interesting to see if the energy drink sector gets a pass?

Love the votes by this government: they always thtow in a few ''against'' votes to make the process seem legit

It's generally referred to as "fat tax" and has been happening around the world for some time with mixed opinions regarding its effectiveness. Some claim that it does reduce consumption of sugar and high-fat products, depending on its focus, and others claim that people will eat what they really want and will just buy cheaper (no-name) brands instead if money's an issue.

I couldn't care less as I never consume soda or other sugary drinks, but they should use the tax windfall completely for improving the health sector -- not for expanding military power or other similar causes.

...as opposed to reducing the sugar content....

...that would be to easy....and healthy....

...preying on the sugar addicts instead....

....shameful.....

I love the excuses politicians give for raising taxes. It seems if they were really concerned they'd just ban sugared drinks all together, or at the very least regulate the sugar levels. I guess that's why I'm not in politics.

Perfect. 10 billion extra baht. Surely this will mean more tanks, extra submarines and some new airplanes.

What does it matter that the NRSA approved the tax increase?

It's only an advisory group and not a legislative group. It can submit proposed legislation to the Cabinet and NLA for consideration.

Ultimately it is for the NCPO to decide what will become law.

EDIT: NRSA did recommend the tax

2016....'.the year of reform', as said by the man himself......but somehow i think there are far more important 'reforms' needed than this. Can we really believe these people are worried about the Nations health? Nice little tax earner seems to be the main motivation.

Now can the ''National Reform Steering Assembly'' do some real work on other more pressing 'Reforms'' !

Everyone seems to blame high sugar content on problems with kids health. How about looking at the lifestyle and society changes over the years. Growing up I was told many times, ‘Don’t think you are going to stay inside all day’ during summer vacation from school or even the weekends. I drank 1-2 daily, as did my friends. We didn’t have the internet, we didn’t have cell phones, we didn’t have social media, we didn’t have many electronic game choices. We weren’t fat, sluggish, slow moving couch potatoes. I would ride my bike 4 miles to a friends house.

Does sugar contribute to issues, yes it does. Taxing sugar drink is like saying ‘Let’s tax the air we breathe.’ Seriously?? Kids need to be moving, running around, playing with friends, being outside and exploring the dirt pile, burning ants with magnifying glasses, riding bikes, watching the little critters swimming in streams, just anything but staring at a cell phone or compute screen all day.

Far be it from me to be an expert…these are my observations.

I am just a small fish in a big pond.

Michael Bloomberg will soon become the Mayor of Thailand.

What about the Beer ? How much sugar content ? I know soft drink it's bad for you but Beer is good for you. From what I have read and my drinking buddies also agree beer makes you live longer and gives you sexual power as many women talk to me when I have a drink. I can't afford another 10 % + on my daily intake.

That means my Diet Pepsi will remain the same price NO TAX NO SUGAR

Perhaps there will finally be some unsweetened alternatives on the shelves.

The problem with all sweeteners (Sugar free) is that has a bigger health risk than sugar.

By Dr. Mercola

If you've added the artificial sweetener sucralose (brand name Splenda) to your diet because you think it's a healthy alternative to sugar, you're being dangerously misled. Research from the Ramazzini Institute has linked the popular sugar alternative to cancer, specifically leukemia.

The findings were first presented at a London cancer conference in 2012 and prompted The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) to downgrade Splenda from its "safe" category to one of "caution."

Now that the study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, CSPI has again downgraded Splenda, this time from "caution" to "avoid."

That means my Diet Pepsi will remain the same price NO TAX NO SUGAR

Sugar free (artificial sweetener) is even worse than sugar. This should be taxed at 50%

If you've added the artificial sweetener sucralose (brand name Splenda) to your diet because you think it's a healthy alternative to sugar, you're being dangerously misled. Research from the Ramazzini Institute has linked the popular sugar alternative to cancer, specifically leukemia.