undefined | Better HN

0 pointsamiga3861mo ago0 comments

The trouble with sugar taxes is it does drive soda-company behaviour. A. G. Barr killed the real Irn Bru in 2018 to avoid the Scottish sugar tax.

It could've passed on the tax to the consumer, but it didn't. It has ceased making its iconic beverage and now only sells a variant that tastes crap. No amount of money can bring the good stuff back. The sugar tax killed it. The world is now a slightly worse place, thanks to government interference.

(I'm sure there's a way to extrapolate this anecdote back to tariffs)

0 comments

taeric1mo ago

The sibling point that talks about the goal of the tax hits the idea you are talking about, I think. And this is what I meant saying you can show they can impact the soda companies. But regardless of any downstream effects of the tax existing, the tax is paid by the consumer.

optionalsquid1mo ago

> It has ceased making its iconic beverage and now only sells a variant that tastes crap.

It looks like they reintroduced the original recipe in 2021 (and previously as a limited release in 2019), under the name Irn Bru 1901. Or does that version still differ from the version of Irn Bru the low-sugar Irn Bru replaced?

amiga386OP1mo ago

Yes. I want the 2017 recipe, not the 1901 recipe.

The 1901 recipe has 11g sugar per 100ml. Also it lacks caffeine.

The 2017 recipe had 35g sugar per 100ml.

The 2018 recipe has 4.5g sugar per 100ml.

The sugar tax is £0.18 per litre for 5-8g sugar per litre, and £0.24 per litre for >8g sugar per litre.

Irn-Bru has many price points depending on form factor and location, but a 2 litre bottle today typically costs £2.10. The sugar-free variant costs the same. If the full sugar tax applied, it'd cost £2.68 (22.8% higher price).

Coca-Cola is so expensive with the tax, they don't even sell it in 2 litre bottles anymore, just 1.75 litre bottles. Coca-Cola "Original Taste" is £2.55 for 1.75l (£1.46/l) while Coca-Cola Zero is £2.15 for 2l (£1.08/l), a difference of £0.38 per litre, of which £0.24 is sugar tax.

rlpb1mo ago

Destroying demand for sugary drinks was exactly the intent, though.

amiga386OP1mo ago

Yes, but if there's an axe murderer in my house, I don't care how much he intends to murder me. I don't want him to murder me.

The government has a variety of aims and objectives. Certainly, shooting for a more healthy population is good. Convincing those that drink a lot to drink less would be one way. Permanently making the drinks awful for the entire population, no matter how many or few they drink, and ensuring what was once good never ever comes back... is another way.

jemmyw1mo ago

But the government didn't make the drink awful. They only set the tax. Your position is that you'd have paid more anyway but now tis not an option. That seems like a business decision. Maybe the old version has so much sugar it was untenable with the tax... how sugary was it?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse