AS I understand it, the aim of the so-called Sugar Tax was to make sugary drinks less attractive by increasing their price. Why then in supermarkets today are both versions of Coke, Pepsi and Irn Bru the same price? When taxing the manufacturers they pay the tax but keep the prices the same. Presumably the reality is that the cost of the tax is being passed on to both sugar and non-sugar consumers as an overall production cost. There is therefore no health benefit at all.

If the tax had been applied at the point of sale then people would choose the low/no-sugar version. As it stands at present there is no encouragement to the consumer to choose the more healthy variety. Of course the tax does encourage (one hopes) manufacturers to reduce the sugar content in the sugared version (as Irn Bru has done) but not all have followed this example.

Alan A Ford,

14 Corsankell Wynd, Saltcoats.