The foods we crave are often bad for our bodies. The history of human evolution has made us crave sugar and fat. It was these high-calorie substances that saved our ancestors from starvation in the wilderness years. Today these ingredients have become cheap and plentiful, leading to a global increase in obesity and type 2 diabetes. Not long ago, the issue was reignited in the UK with the release of a report. It was a report on public health, and childhood obesity in particular. Now, a fierce battle has broken out between politicians and health experts around the benefits of taxing products high in sugar, such as soft drinks. I can understand the outcry that such a move might shock us into consuming less. But it may not be a good idea to tackle the problem by introducing a sugar tax. In high-income countries, a tax heavy enough to discourage indulgence may be unfair to those who exercise self-restraint. Moreover, the result of a sugar tax would be that the government would exert its financial influence over a flavoring that is neither toxic nor addictive; it would drown out discussion of other undesirable substances, such as saturated fat and salt; it would spare manufacturers from having to change their products; and, most worryingly, it would convey the impression that the government could insulate consumers from personal responsibility. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that free sugar intake for adults and children not exceed 5% of total caloric intake (including glucose, fructose, sucrose added by producers or consumers, and those sugars contained in honey, syrups and fruit juices). This is equivalent to 6 teaspoons per day, which is less than most canned soft drinks. The British are not doing well in adhering to this rule: free sugar intake is up to 15 percent of per capita caloric intake. Public health messages – and the industry’s disingenuous promises to modify the formula – have failed to reduce this figure. The Public Health England report urged the following actions: ban supermarket promotions; modify formulas (a strategy that has worked in controlling salt intake) and reduce portion sizes; limit aggressive marketing and clear labeling; and make some of the highest-sugar products extinct in hospitals. But the report’s proposal for a 10-20% special consumption tax (excise tax) was rejected by Prime Minister David Cameron. If we know the risks, but still eat too much sugar, does that mean that sugar is addictive? Last year, a European Union (EU)-funded study on the neurobiology of diet put an end to this idea: sugar does not cause the same neurological high as heroin or cocaine. The joint research group NeuroFAST concluded that overeating is a behavioral addiction, not an addiction to a substance. Although excessive sugar intake is harmful, sugar is clearly not a toxin like nicotine and alcohol. If sugar itself is non-toxic and non-addictive, then another reason to tax it is that the result is good, regardless of whether the means itself is justified. A review analysis published in 2013 concluded that taxing sugary drinks (SSBs) reduced demand for both sugary and sugar-free beverages in Mexico, some U.S. states, Brazil and France. The results are encouraging, but probably because people are replacing soda with the same high-calorie juice, a move that has had minimal impact on the key indicator of weight. The Brits could probably do better, but for now, taxing sugary drinks is just scratching the surface. We might also ask: Why target only sugary drinks? Candy, chocolate, cakes, takeaways and wine are also what we gorge ourselves on. The food and beverage industries sell us products we don’t need, and in this they are definitely not off the hook, but the vast majority of businesses are guilty of the same thing. Meanwhile, the more difficult issue of personal responsibility remains unaddressed. Focusing only on the sugar tax may distract us from thinking more intelligently about how to bring our primal cravings into line with modern life: eat less, eat better, drink more water, and don’t lounge on the couch.