Quick poll: Should Council develop a Sugar-sweetened Beverages Policy?

Last year at a meeting of council delegates from across New Zealand, 61% of delegates supported councils investigating the implications of having an SSB policy. The meeting reported that councils were well positioned to influence the health behaviour of staff, elected representatives and visitors.

Studies have shown a relationship between the consumption of SSBs (drinks with added sugar including non-diet soft drinks/fizzies and energy drinks) and poor health outcomes such as weight gain, obesity, type 2 diabetes, gout, hypertension and tooth decay. Equally, substituting SSBs with water or low-energy beverages can result in improved health outcomes.

The Council will also consider a Healthy Food Policy as an alternative option.

You can view the three options below (NB: If these policies were developed and adopted they would only apply to listed Council-owned premises, and to events with which the Council is involved. These policies would not apply district-wide).

Options SSB

The Council will agree whether to begin drafting an SSB or Healthy Food policy at their Strategy and Finance meeting on 1 May 2018.

This engagement closed on 5 April 2018.


QUick poll results: Should Council develop a Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Policy?
Quick poll results: Should Council develop a Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Policy?


At their meeting held on Tuesday, 26 June 2018, the Strategy and Finance Committee resolved that management develop a Healthy Food and Beverages Guideline for use in Council-owned facilities, and that it comes back to the Council for noting.


WDC Administrator

9 thoughts on “Quick poll: Should Council develop a Sugar-sweetened Beverages Policy?

  1. Well if the healthy food is cheaper and soft drinks etc a lot cost a lot more then people well eat and drink better


  2. By all means develop a policy around the suggested topic, just don’t slap it on the people but on the manufacturers. As long as those foods are allowed to bombard our markets with their products which are cheap as chips, the less wealthy don’t have the same options as others. Education and not necessarily in the schools, has to be the better choice. Programs for healthier options which include community gardens would be an option. All govt agencies must work together with local agencies to provide a better outcome for success instead of punishing the poor, uneducated and health poor people


  3. Focus on core business and stop this passion for wasting resources and attempting to gain control over every aspect of peoples’ lives. People generally just want to be left alone to make their own choices in life.


  4. Absolute bull shite for a Council to be even wasting money in this, Stcik to your core business.


  5. Another nanny state “we know what’s right for you” mindset. It is OUR individual responsibility to choose and consume what is right for ourselves. Those individuals, whom this policy is aimed at, will not be put off by it but those of us who drink sugar drinks in moderation, without health side-effects, will be penalised.
    Sugar drinks have been around forever but people today do not take responsibility for themselves and their families. Same goes for the fluoridation push. That is not the council’s role.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.