Why the sugar tax is a good idea

A favourite form of far-left argument is to quote one capitalist against another, and conclude that the whole system is rotten. If you wish to persuade voters that, say, our banks are no good, far better to cite the problems a successful business leader has in raising cash than to recycle the allegations of a left-wing economist.

The same applies to the current controversy over whether the Government should take steps to curb our consumption of sugar. Personally, I believe the long line of doctors queuing to argue the case for tough measure, such as a tax on soft drinks with a high sugar content. But, in the real world where we have a right-of-centre government that fears voters faced with a tax rise rather than doctors with whom Conservative governments generally have an awkward relationship, the medical establishment carries less weight than perhaps it should.

So, let’s try the old Left trick of setting capitalist against capitalist. Here’s something I came across recently, discussing a report by McKinsey, a consultancy whose pro-market credentials are beyond doubt:

“Thirty per cent of the world’s population is overweight or obese, according to a new study. The implications are, well, massive. Flab is costing us as much as smoking or war, because of an explosion of ill health. Today’s children could be the first generation to die earlier than their parents, from diseases such as type 2 diabetes.

“This is dynamite. A respected consulting firm with multinational clients is saying that we consumers are incapable of resisting Big Food, just as we got trapped by Big Tobacco. And that the only way to beat Big Food, as with Big Tobacco, is to legislate.

“Governments have a duty to protect people, and this problem is now overwhelming. The food industry has tried to assuage health concerns by offering “low-fat” options, rather as tobacco firms offered “low-tar” cigarettes.

“But “low-fat” processed foods are a con. Most contain refined carbohydrates and sugar, which create spikes in blood sugar levels and addictive cravings. Doctors and researchers such as the endocrinologist Robert Lustig are now arguing that sugar switches on the same hormonal pathways as nicotine. That is probably why people can’t wean themselves off it. So Big Food wins again; and we need protection from ourselves.”

Now I can imagine ministers brushing this off as an ideological rant from someone who thinks consumers can’t be trusted to decide for themselves what to do. Here are three reasons why ministers should refrain from this kind of slick response, and take seriously the case for tough government action.

First, those words appeared first not in Socialist Worker, or even the Guardian, but last November in the Sunday Times.

Second, the author was not a left-wing guest contributor, but Camilla Cavendish, a regular columnist who had previously railed against “nanny state” interventions in the free market.

Third, Ms Cavendish now works in Downing Street. She is the head of David Cameron’s policy unit. I hope she hasn’t changed her mind.