Thai authorities getting closer to deciding about sugary drink tax

[webfact]

Authorities getting closer to deciding about sugary drink tax
By Coconuts Bangkok


Sugary drinks.

BANGKOK: -- The Excise Department’s chief announced that they will make their decision within a month about whether or not to place a tax on high-sugar drinks.

As the National Reform Steering Assembly wants the tax on sweet drinks because of the drinks ill effects of health, a study panel was created by the the Finance Ministry to discover exactly how damaging sugary drinks are to the health of citizens.

Based on what they find, they will decide how to tax the drinks, whether on the amount of sugar contained or the type of drink. They also need to consider the related impact on sugarcane farmers, according to director-general Somchai Pulsawas.

Full story: http://bangkok.coconuts.co/2016/06/10/authorities-getting-closer-deciding-about-sugary-drink-tax


-- Coconuts Bangkok 2016-06-10

[ezzra]

What tax would that be? few baht on top of the current price will not deter people and kids from buying it

and the collected money will end up in some government coffers of redirected to some other use

unrelated to the issue, plus the heat and the pressure for the big manufacturers of the drinks and soon

all will be back to normal..... tax the manufacturers directly where it hurts, and they will make sure to comply.....

[Ceruhe]

And after they have decided, how many months will they need to implement AND enforce it? haha, I'm ready.

[edwinchester]

Given that some of the richest people in Thailand are involved with the sugar industry my money is on a zero or minimal tax.

[jaltsc]

"...a study panel was created by the the Finance Ministry to discover exactly how damaging sugary drinks are to the health of citizens."

Why don't they save their money and just read the research results from countries where valid research methods are used?

Do they think that sugary drinks affect Thais differently than they affect every other human being?

[Krataiboy]

My wife, who like many Thais has a very sweet tooth, used to take three heaped spoonfuls of sugar in her coffee. Nothing I said about the health consequences of over-indulging in the "white death" had the slightest effect - until I took over the coffee-making and surreptitiously and gradually began to reduce the amount of sugar in her cup.

Now she happily gulps down her morning brew with half the amount sugar, blissfully unaware of how she has been conned.

The moral of this little story is that instead of hitting consumers by raising the tax on overly-sweet drinks, the government should persuade manufacturers to cut back on their sugar content. Be honest - could any of us tell the difference if our can of soda pop contained five spoonfuls of sugar rather than ten?

The drinks companies would end up making bigger profits from having to use less sugar - and both they and the government would be making a contribution towards lowering the rate of sugar-related diseases across the Kingdom - everything from tooth decay to diabetes.

If the sugar cane industry were forced, as a result, to lay off some of the (largely immigrant) sweated labour used to harvest crops, so be it. Progressive can producers long ago switched from men to machines for this backbreaking, dangerous and arguably inhuman work.

[Bantex]

If the authorities do go ahead with the sugary drink tax maybe they'll reduce something else as a sweetener to soften the blow.

[SOTIRIOS]

....what a load of !@#$%^&*(.....

......it had been decided.......

....now we go back in time......

[Dumbastheycome]

The Thai population on average consume a staggering number of kilos of sugar per year. High sugar level drinks may be a health problem but probably not so significant as that which most foods contain. What is not sweet in Thailand? And even the dishes served in the most basic roadside places are immediately loaded with spoonfulls of extra sugar from the containers on every table. ( along with the obligatory chillie).

A tax applied to the consumer is unlikely to have any long term impact. And the sugar cartels will simply move product sales to other non food markets.

And if it resulted in a major move to synthetic sweetners about which health concerns are also constantly raised would it overcome ignorance anyway?

Perhaps considering the long term and balancing the increasing health costs of diabetics as opposed to the burgeoning population of the elderly who will ask for pensions would be a more practical approach. Let them die younger and untaxed, or not?

[swerver]

My wife, who like many Thais has a very sweet tooth, used to take three heaped spoonfuls of sugar in her coffee. Nothing I said about the health consequences of over-indulging in the "white death" had the slightest effect - until I took over the coffee-making and surreptitiously and gradually began to reduce the amount of sugar in her cup.

Now she happily gulps down her morning brew with half the amount sugar, blissfully unaware of how she has been conned.

The moral of this little story is that instead of hitting consumers by raising the tax on overly-sweet drinks, the government should persuade manufacturers to cut back on their sugar content. Be honest - could any of us tell the difference if our can of soda pop contained five spoonfuls of sugar rather than ten?

The drinks companies would end up making bigger profits from having to use less sugar - and both they and the government would be making a contribution towards lowering the rate of sugar-related diseases across the Kingdom - everything from tooth decay to diabetes.

If the sugar cane industry were forced, as a result, to lay off some of the (largely immigrant) sweated labour used to harvest crops, so be it. Progressive can producers long ago switched from men to machines for this backbreaking, dangerous and arguably inhuman work.

Impossible to have majority of people take care of their body, they do as they want.

A person must not use more than ten teaspoons of sugar per day.

Some manufacturers of consumer products are responsible and put their product on the shelf with half the amount of sugar as their regular product. Which one of the two people grab off the shelf when shopping??? Both are same price 30-Baht. I'm sure you guessed it - REGULAR. I ask them why, "It taste sweeter". This starts the day the baby is born, at the least of a murmur the person looking after the baby, in Thailand the grandmother pops a granule of sugar in the mouth of the baby in addition to adding sugar to the formula which must not have anything added to it besides the required liquid. But grandmother knows best.

[Pib]

It's purely to increase tax revenue in the disguise of wanting to improve health. Purely for increased tax revenue.

[thatguy]

[Lannig]

Isn't this really getting to what people define (and despise) as "nanny state"?