WHILE sympathy for the soft drink industry may not have been to the fore when a “sugar tax” targeted its products, it was hard to argue with one of its objections.

Manufacturers said the focus purely on fizzy drinks was unfair and illogical.

Addressing sugar levels in the soft drink industry was worthwhile as part of efforts to improve the nation’s health and in particular to tackle obesity. Heavily sweetened carbonated drinks were singled out for good reason. But there is a case to be made that the broad low-level addition of sugar to everyday items from bread, cereals and puddings to soup, processed meats and ready meals, is also problematic.

The evidence of the Soft Drink Industry Levy is that such fiscal intervention works in a way that mere encouragement does not. The dire warnings that it would lead to job losses in the industry, tax shortfalls or higher prices for poorer families have not come to pass. Soft drinks firms appear to have been both able and willing to adapt recipes in the face of a little coercion.

Research commissioned by Food Standards Scotland shows retailers and manufacturers continue to promote processed and unhealthy food more heavily than better options. The logic of the “sugar tax” was always that if it worked, it made sense for it to be applied more widely. It is time to consider taking the next step.