Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

The position on alcohol and tobacco is almost self-evident and it is hard to argue against it. One problem is that increasing taxes on cigarettes and alcohol hits poorer people harder; that is a fact. I am very interested in the concept of the sugar tax. On the face of it, the argument about sugar also seems self-evident, except for the fact that, as acknowledged, a tax on sugar would be regressive because it would have a greater impact on the poor. While there is a link between reducing sugar consumption and better health, the imposition of a tax appears like an effort to control people's lives through financially disincentivising their purchase of products they wish to consume.

I heard a interesting debate recently on sugar as opposed to fat, salt and various other substances in respect of the obesity epidemic. One eminent commentator argued sugar is a factor in the epidemic and another argued there is no link whatsoever between sugar and obesity and that the problem has more to do with overall activity levels. It was argued that there is a much broader range of issues concerning the consumption of fat, salt and processed foods to be addressed. Is there international evidence to suggest sugar is the issue? Given the reality that cheap food tends to be high in sugar, salt and fat, can the delegation explain how, if money is to be taken from people's pockets, it will be put back? Could I have more information on the fruit and vegetable subsidy?