Bold, big, brave.
Those are some of the words being used to describe Britain's surprise announcement this week it will implement a tax on sugary drinks from 2018.
It is a significant move in public health policy, a significant challenge to big business, and could - as it is hoped - have a significant impact on the obesity problem.
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced the plans as part of the 2016 Budget.
The soft drinks industry would be charged a levy which would then be used to double the funding for sports in primary schools - raising an extra $NZ1billion per year.
It is hoped the industry will reduce the levels of sugar in manufactured drinks, not simply absorb the cost of the levy or pass it on to consumers.
Likewise, it is hoped consumers will baulk at the price increase (about 17c for a can of Coca-Cola, for example) and go for healthier options (milk products and natural fruit juices will not be subject to the levy).
There are no guarantees of either, of course.
Several countries have already imposed similar levies, with mixed results. But health experts believe it is an important start, if only one measure in the fight against obesity.
Given our ties with Britain, and similar health problems, the implementation of the tax in the next few years is bound to be carefully scrutinised.
But would it ever see the light of day here?
The Government has consistently said a tax on soft drinks is unpalatable.
It has committed to addressing the childhood obesity issue, launching a major plan last year, although there was no extra funding attached to it.
While the aims were laudable, the expectations on the processed food and beverage industry were underwhelming.
There is clearly little appetite for forcing big business to change, and the onus remains on the individual.
It seems more likely the Government will adopt a wait-and-see approach, as it did with tobacco giant Philip Morris' case against Australia over plain-packaging.
Although the Australian Government won, there are still questions over whether the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement could have a bearing on the Government's ability to impose similar changes here - including the likes of a sugar tax on products or banning or restricting products.
Britain's move is bold, then.
It signifies a top-level commitment to the issue that goes beyond simply encouraging everyone to play the personal responsibility game.
There seems little doubt putting the levy money into junior sport can only have a positive impact on the children's health.
If the tax works, and consumers do reduce their sugar intake, that must have some impact on obesity, diabetes, heart disease and dental health.
There are certainly economic implications, and arguments about freedom of choice and personal responsibility to consider.
Governments are increasingly unable to carry the social and health burdens associated with certain products, however.
And if grossly unhealthy products saturate the market, and are the easiest, most accessible and cheapest options, encouraging good behaviour alone is never going to work.
New Zealand weighs in with the third-highest rate of adult obesity in the developed world; almost a third of adults and 10% of children are obese.
The long-term implications for individuals and the health system certainly require more than a one-trick pony solution.
So the questions will remain for the moment.
Can a sugar tax be legally implemented here?
Will it be done here?
Will it be effective?
And what's next on (or rather off) the menu?
Salt or fat?
