The UK is eating far too much sugar and the efforts of Public Health England to cajole the food industry into cutting down for the sake of our health are having very little effect. The latest PHE report shows another tiny reduction in the sugar content of our favourite packaged foods of 2.9%, following 2% last year. The chances of hitting the 2020 target of a total of 20% are vanishingly small.

If you look at the actual amount of sugar we bought and probably ate last year (probably ate, because we waste food too), it’s gone up by 2.6%. We binged on lollies and ice-creams because of the hot summer – 16.3% more sugar was sold for ice-cream, lollies and sorbets, 10.4% for chocolate confectionery, 6.4% for sweet spreads and sauces, 4.9% for sweet confectionery and 3.1% for biscuits.

What that tells us is firstly, that the Brits have a very sweet tooth and secondly, that we see no reason to stint ourselves. We are drinking a lot less sugar in our lemonades and other fizzy drinks, but that’s because the manufacturers have dumped a load of sugar to keep the price down.

It’s relatively easy in drinks, where sugar can be exchanged for sweeteners. And most manufacturers and supermarket chains wanted to get below the 5g per 100ml, which attracts a levy of 18p per litre and certainly below 8g per 100ml which hikes the price by 24p per litre. So the drinks tax is working. PHE says there is an impressive sugar reduction of nearly 29%. Even though Coca-Cola and Pepsi have opted out rather than change their recipe, they have offered smaller sizes and are promoting their diet brands.

Everybody got the message. Sugary drinks are blamed for making us obese, leading to type 2 diabetes, heart problems and cancer. But so far it has not translated into the sticky things we eat. We love our biscuits, cakes and confectionery. And PHE’s latest report shows the food industry is doing little to cut down the sugar in our favourite treats and snacks.

That is partly because it’s hard. Sugar doesn’t just sweeten a cake, it helps it rise. It’s important to the texture of a biscuit or a pastry. It stabilises ice-cream. There are a good many companies that are trying to find ways to cut down on sugar, but it’s a struggle. It’s much easier in yoghurts and breakfast cereals, which are the star performers. But confectionery is sweet and always will be sweet and for the most part, anything other than sugar just doesn’t taste so nice.

So there’s only one answer – and it’s an answer the prime minister is unlikely to embrace. A tax on sugary foods would directly act on us. We would buy less of them. Susan Jebb of Oxford University, a former government adviser, and colleagues produced a paper a couple of weeks ago showing a 20% snack tax would be twice as effective as the sugary drinks tax, mainly because we eat more sugar than we drink. It could reduce the obesity levels of the population from 28% to 25%. That may not sound much, but it equates to a huge number of people living healthier lives, less likely to end up sick, in misery and a burden to the NHS.

Boris Johnson lambasted “sin stealth taxes” in July and scuppered plans to extend the drinks levy to flavoured milkshakes, which “seems to me to clobber those who can least afford it”, he said. But the least affluent are also the people who have the highest levels of obesity and ill-health. The authors of the Oxford paper say a price hike would benefit them most, because they would buy less. It certainly looks more likely to be effective than the tiny voluntary sugar cuts the food companies are making now.