We don't need no nanny state. We just need more healthy drinks.

Tesco's recent announcement regarding the removal of added-sugar juice drinks targeted at kids resulted in a noisy backlash by the public on various social media sites. It's a pity on two fronts.

Tesco's initiative helps deliver healthier lunch boxes

Firstly, I applaud wholeheartedly Tesco's initiative to help ensure school kids have healthier drinks in their lunch boxes. David Beardmore, Tesco's Category Buying Manager for Soft Drinks and Juices, has long been at the forefront calling on manufacturers to reformulate and deliver healthier drinks to Tesco stores. His move was rightly lauded by many parents up and down the country as well as key health lobby groups e.g. Action on Sugar's Kawther Hashem who said “This is great news from Tesco; it shows they are taking the issue of sugar in soft drinks seriously."

.....but we don't need no nanny state, says the consumer!

The social media backlash over "#Ribenagate", whilst nothing close to the "pasty tax" reception, highlights in my view two issues which Tesco's ban on No Added Sugar kids' drinks didn't anticipate, namely consumer reaction to "no added sugar" drinks and the impact the removal of select Ribena, Rubicon and Capri-Sun drinks has on the minds of consumers given what's still available on soft drinks shelves in-store.     

"No Added sugar" doesn't necessarily mean healthier

We have all started reading more closely the packaging labels on our everyday food & drink choices. Most of what we have read shocked us. We thought it was just the occasional bottle of Coca-Cola that was sugar-laden [500ml, 210cal, 54g sugar]. We didn’t imagine just how much sugar was in a small bottle of Tropicana juice [300ml, 144cal, 30g sugar] or an Innocent smoothie [250ml, 133cal, 28g sugar]. There are many other examples which suggests its right for campaigners and parents to demand that soft drinks produced by big brands or retailers reduce sugar levels.

However, a common response by folks in retailer / manufacturer organisations reformulating existing soft drinks has been to essentially replace natural sugarwith artificial sweeteners, hide sugar behind "juice" and add new ingredients, resulting in many beverages being labelled "no added sugar" but now containing some unnatural sounding ingredients e.g.

• Concentrate - 26g sugar per 250ml diluted. [Ingredients: Water, Sugar, Blackcurrant Juice from Concentrate (23%), Acid (Citric Acid), Vitamin C, Preservatives (Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Bisulphite), Colour (Anthocyanins)]
• Same brand "No Added Sugar" concentrate - 1.3g sugar per 250ml diluted. [Ingredients: Water, Blackcurrant Juice from Concentrate (35%), Acids (Malic Acid, Citric Acid), Acidity Regulators (Calcium Hydroxide, Calcium Carbonate), Sweeteners (Aspartame, Acesulfame K), Vitamin C, Stabiliser (Xanthan Gum), Flavouring, Preservatives (Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Bisulphite), Colour (Anthocyanins)]

Given our increased desire for products containing ingredients with more natural and recognisable - in nature - origins (see related article here), it's hardly surprising that people reject many "no added sugar" variations because of concerns over what's now in their favourite drinks.

More naturally healthy drink development is not rocket science!

Many will rightly argue "no added sugar" reformulating seems to be a lazy solution! Why not instead develop great tasting drinks with a lot less sugar AND without having to put in (more) weird ingredients? It's not rocket science folks. A little tea beverage startup that my partner - Dr Hua He - and I run has proved that a soft drink can be developed - within a small budget - that tastes great, is low in sugar ("green" on traffic lights), is reasonably priced and contain no artificial (sounding) ingredients. [Check out how Tg Green Teas was developed on drinktg.com.]

In my view, we need  essentially to change our focus from the somewhat arbitrary "no added sugar" goalpost to a "total sugar" one. It helps to reduce the level of "ingredient fiddling" and might just result in the "tipping point" that we - consumers, lobby groups, interested parties like me - all crave i.e. a meaningful reduction in daily sugar consumption! 

.....and give "carrots", not just more "stick"  

Like Nathan Gray opined in a recent Food Navigator article, I don't believe that sugar taxes will have a significant effect on people's soft drink consumption habits. A "sugar tax" really only works in my view when there are viable substitutes available to buy. There are in reality very few naturally healthy drinks available on store shelves driven mainly by the "no added sugar" mantra and by mainstream retailers dragging their feet on making bigger changes to their soft drink shelves. [see my observations here on this particular issue - article]. 

Retailers are understandably nervous about the short term sales effect from re-fitting their shelves with healthier drinks as the consumer trial & adoption process does take time. Perhaps retailers could receive a corporate tax rebate or a taxable revenue reduction to cover the short-term sales hit. If this is not palatable nor workable, perhaps government could reduce VAT to 0% on food & drink that are "green" on nutritional traffic lights - even for a period of time - so making healthier choices cheaper and more appealing to trial (and hopefully adopt). These are only two examples of positive actions that could remove the "nanny state" tag from some important changes to our drinks' choices that are needed now if we are to solve the obesity crisis.

 We don't need no nanny state. We just need more healthy drinks......