When the World Health Organisation recommends no more than six teaspoons of added sugar a day but the average Australian consumes 14 to 16 teaspoons a day and teenagers consuming more than 20 teaspoons, we clearly have a problem of damaging excess. The impact is simple; we consume too much energy and burn off too little of it. The result is body fat and the “bigger picture”; two thirds of adult Australians are overweight or obese and over a quarter of our children.  The number of people living with diabetes mostly type 2 in Australia has almost reached two million.

Despite the reasonably tempered approach of the campaign - not to do away with sugar altogether but to aim for a reduction - it is easy to predict the ferocious opposition from the sugar and food processing industry. Reducing consumption is not a good business model for profits.

If you think the industry has no impact, recall the 1960s when the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists in the US to carry out research that reached a predetermined conclusion: that fat, and not sugar, was responsible for heart disease. At the time, the journal where it was published did not require authors to declare conflicts of interests, and they didn’t. The rest is history.  Look at how many low-fat products you see in the supermarket and you will see the resonating success of how poor science can instil a confusion of messages.  

The bigger question now is; can education like the Sugar by Half campaign do enough to change behaviour and reduce consumption. Research from the UK shows that it is not enough alone and taxation and what are termed nudges (changing cues to behaviour) must be a part of the mix. These include restrictions on size, placement and even advertising. This assault on choice ignites an even more shrill opposition. But much as we may hate it, the more efficacious the battle is in preventing a far larger problem the more we will accept the cost.