**TL;DR: If children couldn’t legally buy high sugar fizzy drinks until the age of about 16, there would be less normalization of high sugar intake via these drinks in early childhood. This could potentially help children form healthier dietary habits that will last throughout their life and help reduce childhood obesity.** In 2018 the UK introduced a Soft Drinks Industry Levy, which meant that manufacturers and importers making drinks containing between 5-8 grams of sugar per 100ml faced a tax of around 18p per litre, and drinks with more than 8g of sugar per 100ml were taxed at around 24p per litre. Fruit juices and milk-based drinks are exempt from this tax. This levy, commonly referred to as the “sugar tax”, was implemented to tackle childhood obesity and lead to drinks containing lots of sugar, like Coca Cola, Fanta and Pepsi, being either priced as more expensive for consumers or changed by the manufacturers so that they contained less sugar and therefore less expensive to produce. However, I think a combined approach of an age-restriction and this tax would more effectively tackle the health issues many children face due to exposure from high levels of sugar consistently during their childhood. Consistently high dietary sugar intake increases the risk of dental caries, childhood obesity, and type 2 diabetes. If there was an age-restriction on these high-sugar fizzy drinks, for example until the age of 16, I think many children wouldn’t notice the lack of fizzy drinks full of sugar if they have never been introduced to them in the first place. Also, this could save parents money and would provide an extra incentive not to buy these sugary drinks for their kids: a monetary charge if they do buy them and a social norm not to buy them, as no younger kids will have them and their child will not be the odd one out.

**TL;DR Imposing restrictions leads to disobedience and rebellion.** To impose restrictions on the consumption of something so heavily marketed towards the younger generations, particularly children, would adversely affect those who come under the restrictions. It has been recognised that children begin to resist authority when it becomes overbearing, therefore, restricting a product so heavily consumed by children will only cause rebellion. Granted, its unlikely the behaviour of a child who didn’t get to drink a can of fizz will be of any significance, however, it is only potentially encouraging future behaviours surrounding restrictions, such as alcohol and cigarettes. For example, in a paper by Norman Alexander titled [‘Alcohol and Adolescent Rebellion’] (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2575904?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents), he notes how the heavy alcohol restrictions within Mormon culture are problematic. Among Mormons, the use of alcohol is not simply evidence of individual deviance but is instead recognised as a threat to group values. It is therefore, not a surprise to find that, while less likely to use alcohol, Mormons have an extremely high rate of problem drinking. And, just like teenagers under the age of 18 (UK) and 21 (US), drinking, in this manner, represents an ‘expression of hostility toward the normative authority of the total society’ and therefore an expression of aggression against this authority. Despite a somewhat exaggerated comparison, it is clear from example that restricting access to things has negative implications.

**Age restrictions on the sale of sugary drinks to children should be implemented alongside education on their health implications** Restrictions on the sale of sugary drinks to children are not unprecedented. In August 2020 the Mexican state of Oaxaca [implemented a ban as part of a bill](https://www.theguardian.com/food/2020/aug/06/mexico-oaxaca-sugary-drinks-junk-food-ban-children) to reform children and adolescents’ rights law. Though the Mexican ban on the sale of sugary drinks and junk food to children and adolescents was proposed more than a year ago; the comorbidity of obesity and diabetes with Covid 19 has highlighted the importance of actively addressing them. The benefits of limiting consumption of sugary drinks was outlined by a [recent peer reviewed study](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/well/eat/sugary-drink-soda-ban-health-medical-center.html) at the University of California. After the imposition of a ten month sale ban, university employees were found to have reduced body fat and improved insulin resistance. The latter is a risk factor for type two diabetes. An objection to a ban of the sale of sugary drinks might be that it would be ineffective in challenging people’s attitudes, and may even entrench resistance to changes in diet and lifestyle. Another important finding of the aforementioned study was that the groups who had the most marked improvements were those who also received continued support from a health educator. Knowing this, the most effective means of limiting sugar intake for sugary drinks might be a ban in conjunction with clear and consistent public education on the subject to establish an understanding of the impact on health to be sustained into adulthood.

**TL;DR: Age restrictions on fizzy drinks alone will not have a significant impact on the consumption of high sugar beverages** Sugar is on some level a drug. Although its effects are extremely mild on adults in small doses, its full effect can be seen in young children with little or no foresight for the consequences. Even with adults who do not maintain a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle consisting of frequent exercise the long-term abuse of sugar can have life-altering consequences. It is not only fizzy drinks that contain high sugar content. Ribena for example contains 10 grams of sugar per 100ml compared to coca cola’s 10.6 grams. Even “healthy” drinks like innocent smoothies contain high quantities of natural sugar averaging 11 grams per 100 ml. Imposing a tax and age restriction on only fizzy drinks will simply drive children to high sugar alternatives to satisfy their cravings. What would be better is clearer labelling on the contents of sugary drinks i.e. this bottle contains x amount of sugar. Not the “this bottle has 3 servings and each serving has 10 grams of sugar”, which only leads to further confusion. Education on the effects of sugar will also prove to be more useful as children will learn the negative effects of sugar abuse such as rotten teeth and diabetes.