UNITED KINGDOM – Implementing a sugar tax would be a “bitter pill to swallow,” writes MP Alan Duncan in the Rutland Times.

The politician opines that there is no question Britain is facing an obesity crisis, but the latest proposal from celebrity chef Jamie Oliver and others, who argue that a sugar tax will fix the problem, is flawed and won’t fix the problem.

A sugar tax, says Duncan, “assumes that behavior can easily be changed by increasing prices and it accepts that doing so would punish everyone because of the habits and health risks of a few. It also assumes that the money it raises can demonstrably improve outcomes.”

He calls an additional levy on sugar “a blunt instrument that holds no guarantee of success. Indeed, ‘sin taxes’ often defy conventional wisdom and create perverse outcomes that hit the poor hardest.” For example, taxes on tobacco in the U.K. have had little impact on the poorest residents, and smoking rates among the poor “have barely budged, while the middle classes have quit in huge numbers. You can never guarantee, therefore, that you will achieve what you want or that you won’t also create unintended consequences.”

Duncan says that personal responsibility is what’s missing from discussions on obesity: “What is irresponsible is for someone to choose to allow their children to consume excessive amounts of sugar, knowing the health risks. What is irresponsible is to think that the state should charge everyone else more for a product because someone is making a poor choice about how they balance their diet.”

Recognizing that change is necessary, Duncan says that it is not one that should come from the government.

“A sugar tax is unlikely to change behavior because the causes are more complex than the price of a bag of sweets. We should be educating people more about the long-term dangers of taking in too much sugar and not exercising enough, rather than taking more money from them and claiming it’s for their own good.”