Supportive of this, but concerned that the claim "proven to work" is vulnerable. Proven to reduce sales, yes. Beyond that?
...to infer proof of efficacy. Also, a primary aim is simply to cover obesity costs, which is certainly proven
-
-
I'm happy with that, but a radio shock jock will ask: where has a sugar tax resulted in a measured reduction in obesity?
-
This is same as tobacco (+ accepted there) - one measure doesn't reduce prevalence e.g. labels about reducing appeal
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.