FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Sugar Tax
Sugar Tax
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why should healthy fit people pay more for a treat cause of greedy fat bastards! " If those healthy fit people are going to be crippled by an extra 5p a week on their shopping bill they've got bigger problems to worry about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just seen some figures, strangely been repeated on TV this morning. Made me think! I was always tending to the nay side in the sugar tax debate....but the cost to the NHS just for treating obesity and related diseases is £15 billion! That is £215 for every man woman and child in the country (population just under 70million) Should we have a tax on sugar/sugary drinks? Fab Thoughts?" Yeah because taxing sugar would stop people from being fat 
Stupid idea if you ask me, people would just pay the tax which wouldnt go back into the NHS plus there are things with way more calories in it than sugar | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think we might be better closing tax loopholes that enable people like Alan Sugar and other large international organisations to trade from offshore companies taxation So yes I guess in his case I would welcome a Sugar tax "Is that going to stop people getting fat then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just cut out the middle man and tax anyone who is obese.....pmsl!! " That would work better, 9 calories in a gram of fat, 7 calories in a gram of alcohol and 4 in sugar - GO FIGURE. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, I don't believe it would have much, if any, effect. If they bring it in and then use the money raised to provide help for the obese and overweight, if they need it, that wouldn't be a bad idea. Help like counselling, looking at the reasons why people have such a problem with food in the first place, not just bunging them a leaflet. The vast majority of people know what and how much they *should* eat, but the emotional link between mental health and food is a bit wrong. Same as with anorexics, bulimics and other eating disorders. But that will never happen. " This. Plus crisps or cheese wouldn't be taxed under the proposed changes and overconsumption of those is the main culprit when it comes to my podginess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think we might be better closing tax loopholes that enable people like Alan Sugar and other large international organisations to trade from offshore companies taxation So yes I guess in his case I would welcome a Sugar tax
Is that going to stop people getting fat then? "No and I don't think a sugar tax will either if you like doughnuts you will buy them ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There isn't a single problem in this country where the solution is more fucking tax. " The extra taxation money would never find its way to the NHS coffers anyway  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Charge everyone by weight or BMI would be better. Airtravel, bus, train, taxi could be based on your weight. It would make logical sense and encourage people to be slim (mer) Also why should a XXXXL dress, trousers etc cost as much as small? Just an idea (waiting to be shot down lol) " Athletes tend to rank as overweight or obese on the BMI scale. Plus if travel is weight based, you're penalising tall people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just seen some figures, strangely been repeated on TV this morning. Made me think! I was always tending to the nay side in the sugar tax debate....but the cost to the NHS just for treating obesity and related diseases is £15 billion! That is £215 for every man woman and child in the country (population just under 70million) Should we have a tax on sugar/sugary drinks? Fab Thoughts?" Perhaps they should just sort out the NHS .. Not sure it's going to do anything in the long run | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Charge everyone by weight or BMI would be better. Airtravel, bus, train, taxi could be based on your weight. It would make logical sense and encourage people to be slim (mer) Also why should a XXXXL dress, trousers etc cost as much as small? Just an idea (waiting to be shot down lol) " Great idea we could also have concentration camps for repeat offenders where the would only get bread and water ..... Sorry was just being stupid, but I think your idea might be a little difficult to get past the human rights lobbyists | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure" Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure" I don't drink . My very slim daughter,her slim partner and very thin children do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why should healthy fit people pay more for a treat cause of greedy fat bastards! " I think the reasons people are overweight can be complex and its ignorant to dismiss and label them all as ''greedy fat bastards' . Sugar tax will have no impact on those who overeat due to psychological issues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! " 18% sugar (32.6g) in a tesco rack of ribs ... go figure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! 18% sugar (32.6g) in a tesco rack of ribs ... go figure" and 43g of fat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! 18% sugar (32.6g) in a tesco rack of ribs ... go figure" That'll be the sauce honey, there's no sugar in meat! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do people always criticise sugar? People get obese from eating carbs, protein and fat when they don't exercise. Pretty much all food contains these! I think people just need to be educated and they need things to do. Our modern society allows people to laze about."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! 18% sugar (32.6g) in a tesco rack of ribs ... go figure That'll be the sauce honey, there's no sugar in meat!" ribs without sauce wouldn't qualify for a sugar tax then would it princess any case i take this discussion to mean the taxing of what is termed "free" sugars | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! 18% sugar (32.6g) in a tesco rack of ribs ... go figure That'll be the sauce honey, there's no sugar in meat! ribs without sauce wouldn't qualify for a sugar tax then would it " But ribs with 70g of fat make people obese! That's the whole point. It's just another excuse to squeeze money out of us, if they cared about preventing obesity then it wouldn't be so narrow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! 18% sugar (32.6g) in a tesco rack of ribs ... go figure That'll be the sauce honey, there's no sugar in meat! ribs without sauce wouldn't qualify for a sugar tax then would it But ribs with 70g of fat make people obese! That's the whole point. It's just another excuse to squeeze money out of us, if they cared about preventing obesity then it wouldn't be so narrow." where are you getting your 70g figure from? what is it in relation to? per kg of ribs? what's the net weight (meat minus bones)? like i say, tax it in such a way that the administraion of the tax for the stores themselves ties them up in that much red tape that the stores don't bother stocking products with massively excessive amounts of added/free sugars in the first place because it's too much hassle. the consumer is unaffected by the tax then unless they are of course an extremely determined sugaholic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! 18% sugar (32.6g) in a tesco rack of ribs ... go figure That'll be the sauce honey, there's no sugar in meat! ribs without sauce wouldn't qualify for a sugar tax then would it But ribs with 70g of fat make people obese! That's the whole point. It's just another excuse to squeeze money out of us, if they cared about preventing obesity then it wouldn't be so narrow. where are you getting your 70g figure from? what is it in relation to? per kg of ribs? what's the net weight (meat minus bones)? " Who cares, you think ribs aren't fatty? Do you know why Tonga is the fattest nation on earth? Here's a clue... it ain't sugar | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! 18% sugar (32.6g) in a tesco rack of ribs ... go figure That'll be the sauce honey, there's no sugar in meat! ribs without sauce wouldn't qualify for a sugar tax then would it But ribs with 70g of fat make people obese! That's the whole point. It's just another excuse to squeeze money out of us, if they cared about preventing obesity then it wouldn't be so narrow." I totally agree with you! Look at cheese! Majority of cheeses contain 33% fat!!! It's insane! But perfectly ok, providing that you use the energy up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who cares, you think ribs aren't fatty? Do you know why Tonga is the fattest nation on earth? Here's a clue... it ain't sugar " plain ribs wouldn't be taxed though .... and as for the tonga issue and your staement about "it ain't sugar" .... i doubt you have any white paper to back that up and you based it on wild surmise. you don't think they wash ribs down with litre bottles of ? the joys of globalization | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who cares, you think ribs aren't fatty? Do you know why Tonga is the fattest nation on earth? Here's a clue... it ain't sugar plain ribs wouldn't be taxed though .... and as for the tonga issue and your staement about "it ain't sugar" .... i doubt you have any white paper to back that up and you based it on wild surmise. you don't think they wash ribs down with litre bottles of ? the joys of globalization " So just to be clear, your position is that fatty meat doesn't continue to obesity and a petty tax on sugar would reduce obesity? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35346493 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! 18% sugar (32.6g) in a tesco rack of ribs ... go figure That'll be the sauce honey, there's no sugar in meat! ribs without sauce wouldn't qualify for a sugar tax then would it But ribs with 70g of fat make people obese! That's the whole point. It's just another excuse to squeeze money out of us, if they cared about preventing obesity then it wouldn't be so narrow. where are you getting your 70g figure from? what is it in relation to? per kg of ribs? what's the net weight (meat minus bones)? like i say, tax it in such a way that the administraion of the tax for the stores themselves ties them up in that much red tape that the stores don't bother stocking products with massively excessive amounts of added/free sugars in the first place because it's too much hassle. the consumer is unaffected by the tax then unless they are of course an extremely determined sugaholic." It doesn't matter about where the fat is and what it relates to... What matters is that it is consumed! I agree with you about the tax/consumers though. Basically though, in my opinion, people need educating, not taxing! However, education costs! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, I don't believe it would have much, if any, effect. If they bring it in and then use the money raised to provide help for the obese and overweight, if they need it, that wouldn't be a bad idea. Help like counselling, looking at the reasons why people have such a problem with food in the first place, not just bunging them a leaflet. The vast majority of people know what and how much they *should* eat, but the emotional link between mental health and food is a bit wrong. Same as with anorexics, bulimics and other eating disorders. But that will never happen. "
The biggest battle for me isn't exercise as I love it and I know what to eat it's being strong enough to ignore my anxiety telling me I need something unhealthy to feel better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who cares, you think ribs aren't fatty? Do you know why Tonga is the fattest nation on earth? Here's a clue... it ain't sugar plain ribs wouldn't be taxed though .... and as for the tonga issue and your staement about "it ain't sugar" .... i doubt you have any white paper to back that up and you based it on wild surmise. you don't think they wash ribs down with litre bottles of ? the joys of globalization " Mate, the ribs themselves contain a high amount of fat! Without any sauce or anything!!! Maybe they do drink a lot of , maybe not. But I think she was just highlighting that meat is a contributor to obesity too!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10 (39g) teaspoons of sugar in a can of , 0g of fat ..... go figure Lol! 70g grams of fat in a big rack of ribs, 0g of sugar - GO figure! 18% sugar (32.6g) in a tesco rack of ribs ... go figure That'll be the sauce honey, there's no sugar in meat! ribs without sauce wouldn't qualify for a sugar tax then would it But ribs with 70g of fat make people obese! That's the whole point. It's just another excuse to squeeze money out of us, if they cared about preventing obesity then it wouldn't be so narrow. where are you getting your 70g figure from? what is it in relation to? per kg of ribs? what's the net weight (meat minus bones)? like i say, tax it in such a way that the administraion of the tax for the stores themselves ties them up in that much red tape that the stores don't bother stocking products with massively excessive amounts of added/free sugars in the first place because it's too much hassle. the consumer is unaffected by the tax then unless they are of course an extremely determined sugaholic. It doesn't matter about where the fat is and what it relates to... What matters is that it is consumed! I agree with you about the tax/consumers though. Basically though, in my opinion, people need educating, not taxing! However, education costs!" Or just exercise! I'd rather not live than go without sugary food because I LOVE THE CAKE. But cakes + exercise = no problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who cares, you think ribs aren't fatty? Do you know why Tonga is the fattest nation on earth? Here's a clue... it ain't sugar plain ribs wouldn't be taxed though .... and as for the tonga issue and your staement about "it ain't sugar" .... i doubt you have any white paper to back that up and you based it on wild surmise. you don't think they wash ribs down with litre bottles of ? the joys of globalization Mate, the ribs themselves contain a high amount of fat! Without any sauce or anything!!! Maybe they do drink a lot of , maybe not. But I think she was just highlighting that meat is a contributor to obesity too!!!" Indeed that was the point! Glad it wasn't lost on everyone... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Should we have a tax on sugar/sugary drinks? Fab Thoughts?" do you mean sugary drinks as in the fizzy ones...... because there are normally zero calorie alternatives to those.... the drinks that tend to have the most sugar in them are actually fruit juices.... (can't hide all that natural sugar!!!) so unless you are advocating taxing orange/apple/pineapple/ribena/cranberry..... hows it going to help.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You eat too much of anything it will make you fat. The issue is, sugar is highly addictive!" OK but what % tax do you put on it to effect the bahviour of an addict!? Double the price of Mars bars - no problem. Triple - I'm still buying. Quadruple - whatever... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So just to be clear, your position is that fatty meat doesn't continue to obesity and a petty tax on sugar would reduce obesity? " no .... that's what you say/think i said the debate is about sugar Added to processed foods .... not unprocessed natural foods or fatty meats. you know this but you choose to be contrary for the sake of it again what figures per hundred grams of product do you base the 70g of fat on .... i suspect you don't know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why should healthy fit people pay more for a treat cause of greedy fat bastards! I think the reasons people are overweight can be complex and its ignorant to dismiss and label them all as ''greedy fat bastards' . Sugar tax will have no impact on those who overeat due to psychological issues. " Yup. But hey, at least some people get to feel superior for a bit by putting other people down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You eat too much of anything it will make you fat. The issue is, sugar is highly addictive! OK but what % tax do you put on it to effect the bahviour of an addict!? Double the price of Mars bars - no problem. Triple - I'm still buying. Quadruple - whatever... " Tax doesn't make a difference. Look at alcoholics.... Education and treating the underlying problems is. Also cigarettes are hidden from _iew now, surely they can stop putting the naughties by the shop entrance or by tills. When I go to get a post workout drink or banana etc the first thing I see as I walk into Tesco is doughnuts, cookies....it breaks my heart  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So just to be clear, your position is that fatty meat doesn't continue to obesity and a petty tax on sugar would reduce obesity? no .... that's what you say/think i said the debate is about sugar Added to processed foods .... not unprocessed natural foods or fatty meats. you know this but you choose to be contrary for the sake of it again what figures per hundred grams of product do you base the 70g of fat on .... i suspect you don't know." No that's just a debate you are having with yourself. Read the link I showed in regards to your last question and you'll see the figures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I think she was just highlighting that meat is a contributor to obesity too!!!" undoubtedly but then there's diabetes, tooth decay, hyperglycemia, cvd, liver disease etc etc etc there's a wider range of problems caused by copiuous amounts of highly refined sugar being added to processed foods than there is by unprocessed foods containing natural fats. moderation is key in everything we consume but adding the amounts of sugars to food that producers do seems cynical on their part don't you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You eat too much of anything it will make you fat. The issue is, sugar is highly addictive! OK but what % tax do you put on it to effect the bahviour of an addict!? Double the price of Mars bars - no problem. Triple - I'm still buying. Quadruple - whatever... Tax doesn't make a difference. Look at alcoholics.... Education and treating the underlying problems is. Also cigarettes are hidden from _iew now, surely they can stop putting the naughties by the shop entrance or by tills. When I go to get a post workout drink or banana etc the first thing I see as I walk into Tesco is doughnuts, cookies....it breaks my heart "Bananas are also full of sugar. Just sayin'  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Should we have a tax on sugar/sugary drinks? Fab Thoughts? do you mean sugary drinks as in the fizzy ones...... because there are normally zero calorie alternatives to those.... the drinks that tend to have the most sugar in them are actually fruit juices.... (can't hide all that natural sugar!!!) so unless you are advocating taxing orange/apple/pineapple/ribena/cranberry..... hows it going to help...." that's the other thought process ~ adding a sugar tax to fizzy drinks is pointless as people will still consume the other high sugar / calories alternatives such as fruit juices & milk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I think she was just highlighting that meat is a contributor to obesity too!!! undoubtedly but then there's diabetes, tooth decay, hyperglycemia, cvd, liver disease etc etc etc there's a wider range of problems caused by copiuous amounts of highly refined sugar being added to processed foods than there is by unprocessed foods containing natural fats. moderation is key in everything we consume but adding the amounts of sugars to food that producers do seems cynical on their part don't you think?" Sugar is addictive. And I doubt even our government would let them get away with putting actual narcotics in food in order to get us hooked on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You eat too much of anything it will make you fat. The issue is, sugar is highly addictive! OK but what % tax do you put on it to effect the bahviour of an addict!? Double the price of Mars bars - no problem. Triple - I'm still buying. Quadruple - whatever... Tax doesn't make a difference. Look at alcoholics.... Education and treating the underlying problems is. Also cigarettes are hidden from _iew now, surely they can stop putting the naughties by the shop entrance or by tills. When I go to get a post workout drink or banana etc the first thing I see as I walk into Tesco is doughnuts, cookies....it breaks my heart
Bananas are also full of sugar. Just sayin'"But good for muscle repair....oh shit they will have to tax fruit   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You eat too much of anything it will make you fat. The issue is, sugar is highly addictive! OK but what % tax do you put on it to effect the bahviour of an addict!? Double the price of Mars bars - no problem. Triple - I'm still buying. Quadruple - whatever... Tax doesn't make a difference. Look at alcoholics.... Education and treating the underlying problems is. Also cigarettes are hidden from _iew now, surely they can stop putting the naughties by the shop entrance or by tills. When I go to get a post workout drink or banana etc the first thing I see as I walk into Tesco is doughnuts, cookies....it breaks my heart
Bananas are also full of sugar. Just sayin'
But good for muscle repair....oh shit they will have to tax fruit "That's my point. What would be the point of taxing just some high sugar products? Other than as an excuse for more tax, I mean. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Read the link I showed in regards to your last question and you'll see the figures." i did read it, that's why i re-asked the question .... the article says 40g of fat not 70g as you suggested .... plus a bit more research shows the back story about the product introduced and imported by new-zealand companies. the ribs in question are usually smeared with a ready made highly processed sweet sticky sauce which contains massive amounts of added free sugar. the article itself dwells on the fact that developed nations are supplying these kind of "westernised" food-stuffs to the ploynesian market as polynesian food is connected with an idea that it somehow reflects poverty. eating polynesian food is regarded as somewhat of a social stigma. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The proposal was only about taxing extrinsic/ added sugars which are so damaging to health. Intrinsic sugars such as those in fruit would not have been taxed. It's part of the bigger picture that healthy foods are so much more expensive than crap junk food. We can't feasibly decrease the costs of healthy food, therefore raising the price of junk food has to be the answer. If you eat such foods as an occasional treat such a tax wouldn't really affect you, it would only affect those who consume such products habitually. The decline in numbers of smokers as the price of cigarettes has increased suggests to me this would be an effective way of reducing consumption. I think we should have a fixed price for alcohol too. "As pointed out, fruit juices have just as many (or more) calories as fizzy drinks. They're just as bad in terms of obesity and tooth decay etc. With so many people in food poverty, skipping meals, relying on food banks and such, can we really justify increasing the price of food more? If the less healthy stuff is all some people are able to afford to eat (since, as you point out, healthy food does tend to be cheaper than junk), how is making that more expensive going to help them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Read the link I showed in regards to your last question and you'll see the figures. i did read it, that's why i re-asked the question .... the article says 40g of fat not 70g as you suggested .... plus a bit more research shows the back story about the product introduced and imported by new-zealand companies. the ribs in question are usually smeared with a ready made highly processed sweet sticky sauce which contains massive amounts of added free sugar. the article itself dwells on the fact that developed nations are supplying these kind of "westernised" food-stuffs to the ploynesian market as polynesian food is connected with an idea that it somehow reflects poverty. eating polynesian food is regarded as somewhat of a social stigma." Why are you so obsessed with that figure? The figure in the article is 40g per 100g, there's no universal serving size and 100g is not a big portion. If you read my original point, there are 9 calories in a gram of fat compared to just 4 for sugar so it's irrelevant what the serving size it - fat has more calories than sugar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Read the link I showed in regards to your last question and you'll see the figures. i did read it, that's why i re-asked the question .... the article says 40g of fat not 70g as you suggested .... plus a bit more research shows the back story about the product introduced and imported by new-zealand companies. the ribs in question are usually smeared with a ready made highly processed sweet sticky sauce which contains massive amounts of added free sugar. the article itself dwells on the fact that developed nations are supplying these kind of "westernised" food-stuffs to the ploynesian market as polynesian food is connected with an idea that it somehow reflects poverty. eating polynesian food is regarded as somewhat of a social stigma. Why are you so obsessed with that figure? The figure in the article is 40g per 100g, there's no universal serving size and 100g is not a big portion. If you read my original point, there are 9 calories in a gram of fat compared to just 4 for sugar so it's irrelevant what the serving size it - fat has more calories than sugar. " not obsessed .... it's just if you're going to quote flawed data to support your arguement then you're arguement is flawed by default. as you well know 100g of anything is the measuring standard as it's easy to work out nutritional values especially by percentage. again, this thread is concerned with refined sugar added to food, not with how much a particular fat a paticular pig or lamb has on them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Diabetes is a major problem in this country...but don't be fooled if you think it's only people who are over weight that get it...the 3 people that I know who have it all look a picture of health...and slim." Slim doesn't equate to healthy. I know a guy who is stick thin but drinks sugary drinks and lives on pot noodles, pies etc x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Read the link I showed in regards to your last question and you'll see the figures. i did read it, that's why i re-asked the question .... the article says 40g of fat not 70g as you suggested .... plus a bit more research shows the back story about the product introduced and imported by new-zealand companies. the ribs in question are usually smeared with a ready made highly processed sweet sticky sauce which contains massive amounts of added free sugar. the article itself dwells on the fact that developed nations are supplying these kind of "westernised" food-stuffs to the ploynesian market as polynesian food is connected with an idea that it somehow reflects poverty. eating polynesian food is regarded as somewhat of a social stigma." She's absolutely right about 70g. The exact number doesn't matter. It's the fact that people are eating it. For a 200g portion. That is 80g of fat! A 100g, 40g... It doesn't matter. 1kg, 400g, it's irrelevant. She's just comparing it to sugar based product. Also, that is without any coating! It's just the meat on it's own! Like I said, cheese is the same, with around 33% fat. 33g per 100g! It's insane! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Read the link I showed in regards to your last question and you'll see the figures. i did read it, that's why i re-asked the question .... the article says 40g of fat not 70g as you suggested .... plus a bit more research shows the back story about the product introduced and imported by new-zealand companies. the ribs in question are usually smeared with a ready made highly processed sweet sticky sauce which contains massive amounts of added free sugar. the article itself dwells on the fact that developed nations are supplying these kind of "westernised" food-stuffs to the ploynesian market as polynesian food is connected with an idea that it somehow reflects poverty. eating polynesian food is regarded as somewhat of a social stigma. She's absolutely right about 70g. The exact number doesn't matter. It's the fact that people are eating it. For a 200g portion. That is 80g of fat! A 100g, 40g... It doesn't matter. 1kg, 400g, it's irrelevant. She's just comparing it to sugar based product. Also, that is without any coating! It's just the meat on it's own! " so why chuck a further 65g of sugary sauce all over it then. the fat content issue is different and should be addressed too but it would seem better to target the more harmful sugar content in our food and get that under control first before the attention is then turned to fatty foods surely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The proposal was only about taxing extrinsic/ added sugars which are so damaging to health. Intrinsic sugars such as those in fruit would not have been taxed. It's part of the bigger picture that healthy foods are so much more expensive than crap junk food. We can't feasibly decrease the costs of healthy food, therefore raising the price of junk food has to be the answer. If you eat such foods as an occasional treat such a tax wouldn't really affect you, it would only affect those who consume such products habitually. The decline in numbers of smokers as the price of cigarettes has increased suggests to me this would be an effective way of reducing consumption. I think we should have a fixed price for alcohol too.
As pointed out, fruit juices have just as many (or more) calories as fizzy drinks. They're just as bad in terms of obesity and tooth decay etc.
With so many people in food poverty, skipping meals, relying on food banks and such, can we really justify increasing the price of food more?
If the less healthy stuff is all some people are able to afford to eat (since, as you point out, healthy food does tend to be cheaper than junk), how is making that more expensive going to help them?"I don't think it was ever suggested as simply a calorie reduction measure. Even those of a normal BMI who consume high levels of sugar can have dangerous levels of internal fat around their organs due to elevated insulin. They're at higher risk of diabetes and the most common reason for hospital admission in children is for extraction of rotten teeth. Overall it's costing the NHS a fortune and causing immense suffering. We have thousands living in food poverty but that's a separate issue and I don't believe that encouraging families to decimate their health is going to help that. In an ideal world poverty would be dealt with through appropriate social measures. There are cheap, healthy options available to people living in poverty but they tend to require cooking skills which many people lack. Cooking should be made compulsory in schools. But even for those who can utilise the budget options for healthy food, I can't help but feel for a lot of people the easy, unhealthy option will always take precedent, until it's made unaffordable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Program on BBC1 about sugar now "cheers for the heads up ... will have to watch later on catch-up coz we lobbed our telly in the skip a few years ago | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Read the link I showed in regards to your last question and you'll see the figures. i did read it, that's why i re-asked the question .... the article says 40g of fat not 70g as you suggested .... plus a bit more research shows the back story about the product introduced and imported by new-zealand companies. the ribs in question are usually smeared with a ready made highly processed sweet sticky sauce which contains massive amounts of added free sugar. the article itself dwells on the fact that developed nations are supplying these kind of "westernised" food-stuffs to the ploynesian market as polynesian food is connected with an idea that it somehow reflects poverty. eating polynesian food is regarded as somewhat of a social stigma. She's absolutely right about 70g. The exact number doesn't matter. It's the fact that people are eating it. For a 200g portion. That is 80g of fat! A 100g, 40g... It doesn't matter. 1kg, 400g, it's irrelevant. She's just comparing it to sugar based product. Also, that is without any coating! It's just the meat on it's own! so why chuck a further 65g of sugary sauce all over it then. the fat content issue is different and should be addressed too but it would seem better to target the more harmful sugar content in our food and get that under control first before the attention is then turned to fatty foods surely. " People throw the sugary sauce all over it because it apparently tastes nicer. But, my friend, people are saying sugar is more handful! It's not! When either carbs, protein or fats are not used by your body. It stores than as fat around your body. Fine right? But what they don't tell you is that there is that with carbs (sugar), per 1g, there are 4 calories of energy. With fat however, there are 9 calories in 1 gram! By eating foods with a super high fat content, people are getting massive amounts of energy which they aren't using! So, if you compare 100g of sugar to 100g of ribs, you can see how it pans out. 100g of sugar = 100% carbs = 400cals 100g of ribs = 40% fat = 360 cals! Bear in mind that we haven't taken into consideration, the remaining 60% of the content of the ribs! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Program on BBC1 about sugar now
cheers for the heads up ... will have to watch later on catch-up coz we lobbed our telly in the skip a few years ago
"Sweet
I tend to cook about 90% of my food from scratch, I'm making a Shepherds Pie later, only have 1 sugar in coffee and none in tea. Maybe get through 1 packet of biscuits a week and hardly ever eat chocolate  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not saying we should... but if you are going to go down this road why not introduce rationing as in the war time but obviously not based on availability but need. Tax is not the answer in a prosperous country, it just gives the government more money to play with." I agree with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Read the link I showed in regards to your last question and you'll see the figures. i did read it, that's why i re-asked the question .... the article says 40g of fat not 70g as you suggested .... plus a bit more research shows the back story about the product introduced and imported by new-zealand companies. the ribs in question are usually smeared with a ready made highly processed sweet sticky sauce which contains massive amounts of added free sugar. the article itself dwells on the fact that developed nations are supplying these kind of "westernised" food-stuffs to the ploynesian market as polynesian food is connected with an idea that it somehow reflects poverty. eating polynesian food is regarded as somewhat of a social stigma. She's absolutely right about 70g. The exact number doesn't matter. It's the fact that people are eating it. For a 200g portion. That is 80g of fat! A 100g, 40g... It doesn't matter. 1kg, 400g, it's irrelevant. She's just comparing it to sugar based product. Also, that is without any coating! It's just the meat on it's own! so why chuck a further 65g of sugary sauce all over it then. the fat content issue is different and should be addressed too but it would seem better to target the more harmful sugar content in our food and get that under control first before the attention is then turned to fatty foods surely. People throw the sugary sauce all over it because it apparently tastes nicer. But, my friend, people are saying sugar is more handful! It's not! When either carbs, protein or fats are not used by your body. It stores than as fat around your body. Fine right? But what they don't tell you is that there is that with carbs (sugar), per 1g, there are 4 calories of energy. With fat however, there are 9 calories in 1 gram! By eating foods with a super high fat content, people are getting massive amounts of energy which they aren't using! So, if you compare 100g of sugar to 100g of ribs, you can see how it pans out. 100g of sugar = 100% carbs = 400cals 100g of ribs = 40% fat = 360 cals! Bear in mind that we haven't taken into consideration, the remaining 60% of the content of the ribs! " so you're advocating that because ribs or cheese etc have a high fat content then nothing should be done about the huge amounts of refined sugar added to our food in the production process then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Read the link I showed in regards to your last question and you'll see the figures. i did read it, that's why i re-asked the question .... the article says 40g of fat not 70g as you suggested .... plus a bit more research shows the back story about the product introduced and imported by new-zealand companies. the ribs in question are usually smeared with a ready made highly processed sweet sticky sauce which contains massive amounts of added free sugar. the article itself dwells on the fact that developed nations are supplying these kind of "westernised" food-stuffs to the ploynesian market as polynesian food is connected with an idea that it somehow reflects poverty. eating polynesian food is regarded as somewhat of a social stigma. She's absolutely right about 70g. The exact number doesn't matter. It's the fact that people are eating it. For a 200g portion. That is 80g of fat! A 100g, 40g... It doesn't matter. 1kg, 400g, it's irrelevant. She's just comparing it to sugar based product. Also, that is without any coating! It's just the meat on it's own! so why chuck a further 65g of sugary sauce all over it then. the fat content issue is different and should be addressed too but it would seem better to target the more harmful sugar content in our food and get that under control first before the attention is then turned to fatty foods surely. People throw the sugary sauce all over it because it apparently tastes nicer. But, my friend, people are saying sugar is more handful! It's not! When either carbs, protein or fats are not used by your body. It stores than as fat around your body. Fine right? But what they don't tell you is that there is that with carbs (sugar), per 1g, there are 4 calories of energy. With fat however, there are 9 calories in 1 gram! By eating foods with a super high fat content, people are getting massive amounts of energy which they aren't using! So, if you compare 100g of sugar to 100g of ribs, you can see how it pans out. 100g of sugar = 100% carbs = 400cals 100g of ribs = 40% fat = 360 cals! Bear in mind that we haven't taken into consideration, the remaining 60% of the content of the ribs! so you're advocating that because ribs or cheese etc have a high fat content then nothing should be done about the huge amounts of refined sugar added to our food in the production process then? " No, not at all. Sugar is also a problem. The thing is though that people like sugar, people also like a rack of ribs! The ribs/cheese are potentially worse for you, yet they are not going to be taxed! I just don't think taxing is the correct solution. I don't think it will help. Lard, for example, 100% fat! 100g of sugar is 400cals. 100g lard is 900cals! Terrible for you if you don't exersize. But at the end of the day, people used to cook with lard. Why tax it? People like sweets too. If people are educated and understand, I think it would be better. It's perfectly fine to cook with even lard, if you use the calories! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. People just need to have self control and eat in moderation." The figures would suggest that a lot of people lack that capacity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. People just need to have self control and eat in moderation. The figures would suggest that a lot of people lack that capacity." Not fair on the people that can to tax them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Charge everyone by weight or BMI would be better. Airtravel, bus, train, taxi could be based on your weight. It would make logical sense and encourage people to be slim (mer) Also why should a XXXXL dress, trousers etc cost as much as small? Just an idea (waiting to be shot down lol) " Should be more expensive x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we've had education on this for the last 30-49 years, but it's undermined by the rapid increase in the amount of sugar added to foods by producers to the point where bread contains on average 40g of sugar per loaf, beans 20g per tin, cornflakes 60g ber box .... sugar is like opium for the masses, it keeps people craving more, that's why they add the stuff" There low sugar alternatives you can buy x I eat shit food most of the time but that's my choice. If I didn't want so much sugar in my food I'd buy low sugar food x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we've had education on this for the last 30-49 years, but it's undermined by the rapid increase in the amount of sugar added to foods by producers to the point where bread contains on average 40g of sugar per loaf, beans 20g per tin, cornflakes 60g ber box .... sugar is like opium for the masses, it keeps people craving more, that's why they add the stuff There low sugar alternatives you can buy x I eat shit food most of the time but that's my choice. If I didn't want so much sugar in my food I'd buy low sugar food x" Most low sugar etc are just replaced with other shit. Not allways the way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we've had education on this for the last 30-49 years, but it's undermined by the rapid increase in the amount of sugar added to foods by producers to the point where bread contains on average 40g of sugar per loaf, beans 20g per tin, cornflakes 60g ber box .... sugar is like opium for the masses, it keeps people craving more, that's why they add the stuff There low sugar alternatives you can buy x I eat shit food most of the time but that's my choice. If I didn't want so much sugar in my food I'd buy low sugar food x" sugar free products tends to be far more expensive though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we've had education on this for the last 30-49 years, but it's undermined by the rapid increase in the amount of sugar added to foods by producers to the point where bread contains on average 40g of sugar per loaf, beans 20g per tin, cornflakes 60g ber box .... sugar is like opium for the masses, it keeps people craving more, that's why they add the stuff There low sugar alternatives you can buy x I eat shit food most of the time but that's my choice. If I didn't want so much sugar in my food I'd buy low sugar food x sugar free products tends to be far more expensive though " buy fresh veg and make your own x make your own bread then u can have zero sugar in it x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax is not the answer... Education is.. Quite a few of you could do with a little education on sugars... The effects.. The recommended daily amounts.. Etc.. . A lot of savoury things have more sugar than sweet And ANY fruit does not count towards your daily allowance.. As it is combined with so many vitamins and minerals EDUCATION from a young age.. And I mean proper education in school, regular classes part of curriculum... Would be more beneficial than any tax Alcoholics still drink.. Smokers still smoke... They just do without on other things to pay " Absolutely true I personally know very little about the food I eat or what I should be eating I find it so confusing I can't be arsed to read all the bumf on the packets in a supermarket, however if I knew exactly what to look for and it was clearly labelled I could avoid some of the nasties | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we've had education on this for the last 30-49 years, but it's undermined by the rapid increase in the amount of sugar added to foods by producers to the point where bread contains on average 40g of sugar per loaf, beans 20g per tin, cornflakes 60g ber box .... sugar is like opium for the masses, it keeps people craving more, that's why they add the stuff" Not the right kind of education | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"IF they taxed the manufacturers for adding the extra sugar i wonder how many would suddenly appear with new recipes with reduced sugar. " I agree they shouldn't be taxing every little thing. But they do. Only way round not paying it is to find alternative to it x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how people blame everyone and everything for their bad habits. I smoke my choice, I eat shit yet again my choice so if I have a heart attack it's gonna be my own fault I know what could happen xx Simple solution if you don't want to pay the extra tax on sugar then don't use Google and find cheaper sugar alternatives. If you think there is to much salt, sugar or fat in the food you buy make it from scratch xx" Trouble is before you die because of your bad diet, the rest of us poor fuckers have got to pay for your treatment. How about people are allowed to eat what ever they want but if it can be proved that they don't want to be healthy they will have to pay for private medical care? Smoker?lung cancer? Join bupa. Overweight? Diabetic? Need an amputation? Join bupa. Job done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how people blame everyone and everything for their bad habits. I smoke my choice, I eat shit yet again my choice so if I have a heart attack it's gonna be my own fault I know what could happen xx Simple solution if you don't want to pay the extra tax on sugar then don't use Google and find cheaper sugar alternatives. If you think there is to much salt, sugar or fat in the food you buy make it from scratch xx Trouble is before you die because of your bad diet, the rest of us poor fuckers have got to pay for your treatment. How about people are allowed to eat what ever they want but if it can be proved that they don't want to be healthy they will have to pay for private medical care? Smoker?lung cancer? Join bupa. Overweight? Diabetic? Need an amputation? Join bupa. Job done." I work full time and pay tax and NI. I very rarely go docs or hospital unless it's urgent. If I get I just go chemist and pay. I pay for prescriptions if I do go docs. I would happily pay for bupa if I got that ill | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how people blame everyone and everything for their bad habits. I smoke my choice, I eat shit yet again my choice so if I have a heart attack it's gonna be my own fault I know what could happen xx Simple solution if you don't want to pay the extra tax on sugar then don't use Google and find cheaper sugar alternatives. If you think there is to much salt, sugar or fat in the food you buy make it from scratch xx Trouble is before you die because of your bad diet, the rest of us poor fuckers have got to pay for your treatment. How about people are allowed to eat what ever they want but if it can be proved that they don't want to be healthy they will have to pay for private medical care? Smoker?lung cancer? Join bupa. Overweight? Diabetic? Need an amputation? Join bupa. Job done. I work full time and pay tax and NI. I very rarely go docs or hospital unless it's urgent. If I get I just go chemist and pay. I pay for prescriptions if I do go docs. I would happily pay for bupa if I got that ill" I should hope so! You're only young! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how people blame everyone and everything for their bad habits. I smoke my choice, I eat shit yet again my choice so if I have a heart attack it's gonna be my own fault I know what could happen xx Simple solution if you don't want to pay the extra tax on sugar then don't use Google and find cheaper sugar alternatives. If you think there is to much salt, sugar or fat in the food you buy make it from scratch xx Trouble is before you die because of your bad diet, the rest of us poor fuckers have got to pay for your treatment. How about people are allowed to eat what ever they want but if it can be proved that they don't want to be healthy they will have to pay for private medical care? Smoker?lung cancer? Join bupa. Overweight? Diabetic? Need an amputation? Join bupa. Job done." People can eat what they want but if they don't want to pay the tax increase that's gonna happen if we like it or not. Then they will have find an alternative x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just seen some figures, strangely been repeated on TV this morning. Made me think! I was always tending to the nay side in the sugar tax debate....but the cost to the NHS just for treating obesity and related diseases is £15 billion! That is £215 for every man woman and child in the country (population just under 70million) Should we have a tax on sugar/sugary drinks? Fab Thoughts?" No! It's about educating the masses to not be so ignorant about what/how much they're eating. Over recent years they've shrunk many chocolate bars and there's plans to make further reductions. The prices have not dropped sufficiently. So, we're now paying more for less, basically! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how people blame everyone and everything for their bad habits. I smoke my choice, I eat shit yet again my choice so if I have a heart attack it's gonna be my own fault I know what could happen xx Simple solution if you don't want to pay the extra tax on sugar then don't use Google and find cheaper sugar alternatives. If you think there is to much salt, sugar or fat in the food you buy make it from scratch xx Trouble is before you die because of your bad diet, the rest of us poor fuckers have got to pay for your treatment. How about people are allowed to eat what ever they want but if it can be proved that they don't want to be healthy they will have to pay for private medical care? Smoker?lung cancer? Join bupa. Overweight? Diabetic? Need an amputation? Join bupa. Job done." It's sounds very cold, but this is the very crux of the matter. As usual, it's to do with money. I'm inclined to agree with you too. The difference is that tabacco is proven to be bad for you and the more you consume, the greater the chances of illness, taxing it does bring money in from smokers in a reasonably fair way. The problem is that sugar isn't bad for you. It's only bad when you don't use up the energy from it, the same as protein and fat, but they aren't going to be taxed. Who knows. I think it needs to be adressed, but I'm not exactly sure how. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how people blame everyone and everything for their bad habits. I smoke my choice, I eat shit yet again my choice so if I have a heart attack it's gonna be my own fault I know what could happen xx Simple solution if you don't want to pay the extra tax on sugar then don't use Google and find cheaper sugar alternatives. If you think there is to much salt, sugar or fat in the food you buy make it from scratch xx Trouble is before you die because of your bad diet, the rest of us poor fuckers have got to pay for your treatment. How about people are allowed to eat what ever they want but if it can be proved that they don't want to be healthy they will have to pay for private medical care? Smoker?lung cancer? Join bupa. Overweight? Diabetic? Need an amputation? Join bupa. Job done. It's sounds very cold, but this is the very crux of the matter. As usual, it's to do with money. I'm inclined to agree with you too. The difference is that tabacco is proven to be bad for you and the more you consume, the greater the chances of illness, taxing it does bring money in from smokers in a reasonably fair way. The problem is that sugar isn't bad for you. It's only bad when you don't use up the energy from it, the same as protein and fat, but they aren't going to be taxed. Who knows. I think it needs to be adressed, but I'm not exactly sure how." food companies start by putting less sugar in stuff would be a start x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how people blame everyone and everything for their bad habits. I smoke my choice, I eat shit yet again my choice so if I have a heart attack it's gonna be my own fault I know what could happen xx Simple solution if you don't want to pay the extra tax on sugar then don't use Google and find cheaper sugar alternatives. If you think there is to much salt, sugar or fat in the food you buy make it from scratch xx Trouble is before you die because of your bad diet, the rest of us poor fuckers have got to pay for your treatment. How about people are allowed to eat what ever they want but if it can be proved that they don't want to be healthy they will have to pay for private medical care? Smoker?lung cancer? Join bupa. Overweight? Diabetic? Need an amputation? Join bupa. Job done. It's sounds very cold, but this is the very crux of the matter. As usual, it's to do with money. I'm inclined to agree with you too. The difference is that tabacco is proven to be bad for you and the more you consume, the greater the chances of illness, taxing it does bring money in from smokers in a reasonably fair way. The problem is that sugar isn't bad for you. It's only bad when you don't use up the energy from it, the same as protein and fat, but they aren't going to be taxed. Who knows. I think it needs to be adressed, but I'm not exactly sure how. food companies start by putting less sugar in stuff would be a start x" So just regulate then! A tax isn't the way to deal with that! We don't let companies put cocaine in products, it's easy enough to regulate limits on sugar. No need for a tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how people blame everyone and everything for their bad habits. I smoke my choice, I eat shit yet again my choice so if I have a heart attack it's gonna be my own fault I know what could happen xx Simple solution if you don't want to pay the extra tax on sugar then don't use Google and find cheaper sugar alternatives. If you think there is to much salt, sugar or fat in the food you buy make it from scratch xx Trouble is before you die because of your bad diet, the rest of us poor fuckers have got to pay for your treatment. How about people are allowed to eat what ever they want but if it can be proved that they don't want to be healthy they will have to pay for private medical care? Smoker?lung cancer? Join bupa. Overweight? Diabetic? Need an amputation? Join bupa. Job done. It's sounds very cold, but this is the very crux of the matter. As usual, it's to do with money. I'm inclined to agree with you too. The difference is that tabacco is proven to be bad for you and the more you consume, the greater the chances of illness, taxing it does bring money in from smokers in a reasonably fair way. The problem is that sugar isn't bad for you. It's only bad when you don't use up the energy from it, the same as protein and fat, but they aren't going to be taxed. Who knows. I think it needs to be adressed, but I'm not exactly sure how. food companies start by putting less sugar in stuff would be a start x So just regulate then! A tax isn't the way to deal with that! We don't let companies put cocaine in products, it's easy enough to regulate limits on sugar. No need for a tax. " Totally agree with you there. But there is no point everyone moaning if they don't want to pay the extra tax on sugar then they shouldnt buy sugar. X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Charge everyone by weight or BMI would be better. Airtravel, bus, train, taxi could be based on your weight. It would make logical sense and encourage people to be slim (mer) Also why should a XXXXL dress, trousers etc cost as much as small? Just an idea (waiting to be shot down lol) Athletes tend to rank as overweight or obese on the BMI scale. Plus if travel is weight based, you're penalising tall people. " Not all athletes will come under obese on the BMI. Most runners except the shorter sprint distances would come way under BMI obese limit, and a lot of cyclists would too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So just regulate then! A tax isn't the way to deal with that! We don't let companies put cocaine in products, it's easy enough to regulate limits on sugar. No need for a tax. " fuck me.... you're suggesting government interfere in the market? go forbid, such a wanton socialist experiment. as i have said tax the business end of it and not the consumer, make the mechamism for it so complex that the stores drop the products completely. that way no consumer is affected by the tax apart from not being able to buy shit that is causing the single biggest problem to the health service. the industry has done everything except regulate itself. if it won't jump it has to be pushed. and to the person who keeps saying sugar isn't unhealthy .... just  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't care less really, tax it, don't tax it. Don't care. What i would care about is where the tax goes.... If you want to lose weight eat less, drink less and move more. It's not rocket science." And there it is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Smoker?lung cancer? Join bupa. Overweight? Diabetic? Need an amputation? Join bupa. Job done." If only it was that easy. I was turned down for private medical insurance through work because my BMI was too high. The insurer also wouldn't cover any pre-existing medical conditions on the policies of those they did accept onto the scheme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just seen some figures, strangely been repeated on TV this morning. Made me think! I was always tending to the nay side in the sugar tax debate....but the cost to the NHS just for treating obesity and related diseases is £15 billion! That is £215 for every man woman and child in the country (population just under 70million) Should we have a tax on sugar/sugary drinks? Fab Thoughts?" First we should raise a 99.99999% tax on MPs and anyone else who thinks taxes are a way of solving any problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So just regulate then! A tax isn't the way to deal with that! We don't let companies put cocaine in products, it's easy enough to regulate limits on sugar. No need for a tax. fuck me.... you're suggesting government interfere in the market? go forbid, such a wanton socialist experiment. as i have said tax the business end of it and not the consumer, make the mechamism for it so complex that the stores drop the products completely. that way no consumer is affected by the tax apart from not being able to buy shit that is causing the single biggest problem to the health service. the industry has done everything except regulate itself. if it won't jump it has to be pushed. and to the person who keeps saying sugar isn't unhealthy .... just "And what about the confectionery companies? They drop all their confectionery and lay off the people making it? Or get them growing lettuces? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So just regulate then! A tax isn't the way to deal with that! We don't let companies put cocaine in products, it's easy enough to regulate limits on sugar. No need for a tax. fuck me.... you're suggesting government interfere in the market? go forbid, such a wanton socialist experiment. as i have said tax the business end of it and not the consumer, make the mechamism for it so complex that the stores drop the products completely. that way no consumer is affected by the tax apart from not being able to buy shit that is causing the single biggest problem to the health service. the industry has done everything except regulate itself. if it won't jump it has to be pushed. and to the person who keeps saying sugar isn't unhealthy .... just "It's only strange to you because you have some bizzare definition of capitalism that nobody else shares! Where did you get the idea that monetarism is different to capitalism by the way? I must have missed that one in my economics lectures. I've honestly never heard anyone else say that so I'm curious where you got it from. Anywah, back to sugar tax - why go to such lengths for an indirect method though? If you don't want something to happen just regulate - simples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just seen some figures, strangely been repeated on TV this morning. Made me think! I was always tending to the nay side in the sugar tax debate....but the cost to the NHS just for treating obesity and related diseases is £15 billion! That is £215 for every man woman and child in the country (population just under 70million) Should we have a tax on sugar/sugary drinks? Fab Thoughts? First we should raise a 99.99999% tax on MPs and anyone else who thinks taxes are a way of solving any problem." Here here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just seen some figures, strangely been repeated on TV this morning. Made me think! I was always tending to the nay side in the sugar tax debate....but the cost to the NHS just for treating obesity and related diseases is £15 billion! That is £215 for every man woman and child in the country (population just under 70million) Should we have a tax on sugar/sugary drinks? Fab Thoughts?" No. Taxing cigarettes didn't make that much difference to the overall number of smokers, it just increased to costs. A sugar tax will probably have the same effect, or it will cause the manufactures to use atificial sweetners instead of sugar - which I cannot tolerate. So from a personal perspective, neitehr option is acceptable. Owl. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So just regulate then! A tax isn't the way to deal with that! We don't let companies put cocaine in products, it's easy enough to regulate limits on sugar. No need for a tax. fuck me.... you're suggesting government interfere in the market? go forbid, such a wanton socialist experiment. as i have said tax the business end of it and not the consumer, make the mechamism for it so complex that the stores drop the products completely. that way no consumer is affected by the tax apart from not being able to buy shit that is causing the single biggest problem to the health service. the industry has done everything except regulate itself. if it won't jump it has to be pushed. and to the person who keeps saying sugar isn't unhealthy .... just
It's only strange to you because you have some bizzare definition of capitalism that nobody else shares! Where did you get the idea that monetarism is different to capitalism by the way? I must have missed that one in my economics lectures. I've honestly never heard anyone else say that so I'm curious where you got it from.
Anywah, back to sugar tax - why go to such lengths for an indirect method though? If you don't want something to happen just regulate - simples. "regulate the market? .... you talking that commy pinko talk now. next you'll be telling us that high rental prices are forcing people that can't afford to pay from the homes that don't belong to them. it's proven .... time and time again, the most effective way to regulate business is to tax the fuck out of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just seen some figures, strangely been repeated on TV this morning. Made me think! I was always tending to the nay side in the sugar tax debate....but the cost to the NHS just for treating obesity and related diseases is £15 billion! That is £215 for every man woman and child in the country (population just under 70million) Should we have a tax on sugar/sugary drinks? Fab Thoughts? No. Taxing cigarettes didn't make that much difference to the overall number of smokers, it just increased to costs. A sugar tax will probably have the same effect, or it will cause the manufactures to use atificial sweetners instead of sugar - which I cannot tolerate. So from a personal perspective, neitehr option is acceptable. Owl." taxing smokers caused number of participants to fall by 60% in 40 years according to ASH. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So just regulate then! A tax isn't the way to deal with that! We don't let companies put cocaine in products, it's easy enough to regulate limits on sugar. No need for a tax. fuck me.... you're suggesting government interfere in the market? go forbid, such a wanton socialist experiment. as i have said tax the business end of it and not the consumer, make the mechamism for it so complex that the stores drop the products completely. that way no consumer is affected by the tax apart from not being able to buy shit that is causing the single biggest problem to the health service. the industry has done everything except regulate itself. if it won't jump it has to be pushed. and to the person who keeps saying sugar isn't unhealthy .... just
It's only strange to you because you have some bizzare definition of capitalism that nobody else shares! Where did you get the idea that monetarism is different to capitalism by the way? I must have missed that one in my economics lectures. I've honestly never heard anyone else say that so I'm curious where you got it from.
Anywah, back to sugar tax - why go to such lengths for an indirect method though? If you don't want something to happen just regulate - simples.
regulate the market? .... you talking that commy pinko talk now. next you'll be telling us that high rental prices are forcing people that can't afford to pay from the homes that don't belong to them.
it's proven .... time and time again, the most effective way to regulate business is to tax the fuck out of it."Every capitalist believes in a degree of regulation and tax. I've never heard anyone say they want a free market for homeland defence!!! I can't even begin to understand your last sentence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So just regulate then! A tax isn't the way to deal with that! We don't let companies put cocaine in products, it's easy enough to regulate limits on sugar. No need for a tax. fuck me.... you're suggesting government interfere in the market? go forbid, such a wanton socialist experiment. as i have said tax the business end of it and not the consumer, make the mechamism for it so complex that the stores drop the products completely. that way no consumer is affected by the tax apart from not being able to buy shit that is causing the single biggest problem to the health service. the industry has done everything except regulate itself. if it won't jump it has to be pushed. and to the person who keeps saying sugar isn't unhealthy .... just
It's only strange to you because you have some bizzare definition of capitalism that nobody else shares! Where did you get the idea that monetarism is different to capitalism by the way? I must have missed that one in my economics lectures. I've honestly never heard anyone else say that so I'm curious where you got it from.
Anywah, back to sugar tax - why go to such lengths for an indirect method though? If you don't want something to happen just regulate - simples.
regulate the market? .... you talking that commy pinko talk now. next you'll be telling us that high rental prices are forcing people that can't afford to pay from the homes that don't belong to them.
it's proven .... time and time again, the most effective way to regulate business is to tax the fuck out of it.
Every capitalist believes in a degree of regulation and tax. "a wild generalisation that you can't back up with evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So just regulate then! A tax isn't the way to deal with that! We don't let companies put cocaine in products, it's easy enough to regulate limits on sugar. No need for a tax. fuck me.... you're suggesting government interfere in the market? go forbid, such a wanton socialist experiment. as i have said tax the business end of it and not the consumer, make the mechamism for it so complex that the stores drop the products completely. that way no consumer is affected by the tax apart from not being able to buy shit that is causing the single biggest problem to the health service. the industry has done everything except regulate itself. if it won't jump it has to be pushed. and to the person who keeps saying sugar isn't unhealthy .... just
It's only strange to you because you have some bizzare definition of capitalism that nobody else shares! Where did you get the idea that monetarism is different to capitalism by the way? I must have missed that one in my economics lectures. I've honestly never heard anyone else say that so I'm curious where you got it from.
Anywah, back to sugar tax - why go to such lengths for an indirect method though? If you don't want something to happen just regulate - simples.
regulate the market? .... you talking that commy pinko talk now. next you'll be telling us that high rental prices are forcing people that can't afford to pay from the homes that don't belong to them.
it's proven .... time and time again, the most effective way to regulate business is to tax the fuck out of it.
Every capitalist believes in a degree of regulation and tax.
a wild generalisation that you can't back up with evidence."Sure I can, read Adam Smith ffs. Or quote some capitalists that actually agree with you to counter it, good luck finding any | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how people blame everyone and everything for their bad habits. I smoke my choice, I eat shit yet again my choice so if I have a heart attack it's gonna be my own fault I know what could happen xx Simple solution if you don't want to pay the extra tax on sugar then don't use Google and find cheaper sugar alternatives. If you think there is to much salt, sugar or fat in the food you buy make it from scratch xx Trouble is before you die because of your bad diet, the rest of us poor fuckers have got to pay for your treatment. How about people are allowed to eat what ever they want but if it can be proved that they don't want to be healthy they will have to pay for private medical care? Smoker?lung cancer? Join bupa. Overweight? Diabetic? Need an amputation? Join bupa. Job done." You forgot to mention drinkers who also cost the NHS money. Plus people who get sport injuries or drive like an arse and crash cars. Where will it end | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sure I can, read Adam Smith ffs. Or quote some capitalists that actually agree with you to counter it, good luck finding any " a quote on the nature of capitalists ..... The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires - adam smith | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why should healthy fit people pay more for a treat cause of greedy fat bastards! " Dam right I'm 6 ft 4 and 12 stone I eat what I like , making me pay more is just wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sure I can, read Adam Smith ffs. Or quote some capitalists that actually agree with you to counter it, good luck finding any a quote on the nature of capitalists ..... The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires - adam smith" That's your evidence for his _iews on regulation in the market? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Should we have a tax on sugar/sugary drinks? Fab Thoughts?" Technically we (sort of) already do. VAT is charged at 20% on many foods classed as luxuries, such as crisps and chocolate biscuits. I'm not sure that has much effect, and personally I'm against a multitude of complex taxes. Mr ddc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Also why should a XXXXL dress, trousers etc cost as much as small? Just an idea (waiting to be shot down lol) " As someone who has to buy 4XL or larger, they often are more expensive and a lot harder to track down. i haven't made my mind up about a sugar tax but i do think they should put less sugar/sweetner in things. There are lots of products that i like or where there is no alternative that are just too sweet. Less sugar in things would reeducate palates. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Every capitalist believes in a degree of regulation and tax. a wild generalisation that you can't back up with evidence. Sure I can, read Adam Smith ffs. Or quote some capitalists that actually agree with you to counter it, good luck finding any " so you are saying that a man who died 200 odd years ago speaks for every capitalist. i again challange you on that wild assumption as i don't beleive you've met every capitalist let alone have their authority to speak on their behalf. your attempted use of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is completely transparent and i take the opportunity to remind you of the most basic rule of debate .... onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Every capitalist believes in a degree of regulation and tax. a wild generalisation that you can't back up with evidence. Sure I can, read Adam Smith ffs. Or quote some capitalists that actually agree with you to counter it, good luck finding any so you are saying that a man who died 200 odd years ago speaks for every capitalist. i again challange you on that wild assumption as i don't beleive you've met every capitalist let alone have their authority to speak on their behalf. " I take it you're restoring to this approach because you couldn't find anything where he says there can't be any regualtion and maybe you even found the bit where he explicitly endorses it saying that the liberty of an elite few “ought to be restrained by the laws of all governments". Yes Adam Smith is the father of capitalism, if people want to redefine things they should come up with new words. Since you can't answer any of my questions about your odd understanding of monetarism, people that agree with your definitions or much else then I think we'll call it a night. I think a reasonably intelligence person can read out exchange and see who knows what they are talking about so I have no need to discuss further with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Every capitalist believes in a degree of regulation and tax. a wild generalisation that you can't back up with evidence. Sure I can, read Adam Smith ffs. Or quote some capitalists that actually agree with you to counter it, good luck finding any so you are saying that a man who died 200 odd years ago speaks for every capitalist. i again challange you on that wild assumption as i don't beleive you've met every capitalist let alone have their authority to speak on their behalf. I take it you're restoring to this approach because you couldn't find anything where he says there can't be any regualtion and maybe you even found the bit where he explicitly endorses it saying that the liberty of an elite few “ought to be restrained by the laws of all governments". Yes Adam Smith is the father of capitalism, if people want to redefine things they should come up with new words. Since you can't answer any of my questions about your odd understanding of monetarism, people that agree with your definitions or much else then I think we'll call it a night. I think a reasonably intelligence person can read out exchange and see who knows what they are talking about so I have no need to discuss further with you." I don't really thing that's got anything to do with it. There no point going into a debate about that. The fact is (how I see it anyway), the gov want to charge a tax on sugar because they think that it will: Generate revenue Counter obesity I think it probably will generate extra income. I don't think it will affect obesity. Like I said before, sugar isn't the problem. Obesity is caused by eating any of the three; carbs, Protein or fats, without burning off the energy which it brings. Sugar is just a part of it. Most people I know will simply just pay the extra 20% or whatever it is. Will it generate revenue? Yes. Will it reduce obesity? In my opinion, not at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Charge everyone by weight or BMI would be better. Airtravel, bus, train, taxi could be based on your weight. It would make logical sense and encourage people to be slim (mer) Also why should a XXXXL dress, trousers etc cost as much as small? Just an idea (waiting to be shot down lol) Athletes tend to rank as overweight or obese on the BMI scale. Plus if travel is weight based, you're penalising tall people. Not all athletes will come under obese on the BMI. Most runners except the shorter sprint distances would come way under BMI obese limit, and a lot of cyclists would too. " People could appeal against being charged extra for all sorts of reasons. At the end of the day any remedies have to be simplistic because the majority of people who are doing damage to themselves are not 'the sharpest tools in the box', that's not judgmental just realistic. Taxing is simple but it just puts money into govt coffers and probably won't go where it is most needed. It also gives opportunity for food producers to rip people off. In fact it is these manufacturers who are the villains in their drive to rip off the customers by putting crap into food. Look at mechanical rendering of meat?. More regulation in manufacture would help. This country over-regulates everything else ffs why not food? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there should be no sugar tax, always some people ruin for others, why not just add a additional fee to anyone who is overweight that attends the nhs for treatment. " Because you don't have to be overweight to suffer the consequences of eating crap! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there should be no sugar tax, always some people ruin for others, why not just add a additional fee to anyone who is overweight that attends the nhs for treatment. Because you don't have to be overweight to suffer the consequences of eating crap! "Now don't be daft, you know fat people are the devil and slim people can't possibly be at fault in any way! I wonder what the cost of dental treatment on the NHS is, in total, for slim people with tooth decay through eating sugar? But yeah, as usual, pick on the fatties! Bandwagon anyone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd support it. Smoking and drinking have serious negative health effects and we tax those. Sugar is the same in my opinion. " So does smoked bacon. Bacon tax anyone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd support it. Smoking and drinking have serious negative health effects and we tax those. Sugar is the same in my opinion. So does smoked bacon. Bacon tax anyone? " Fuck right off! That would be my breaking point! Taxing bacon? What a suggestion
Wash your mouth out! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd support it. Smoking and drinking have serious negative health effects and we tax those. Sugar is the same in my opinion. " How about people who injure themselves doing sport, or DIY? Should we tax sports based on the severity of the risk of injury? Should we tax doing DIY? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there should be no sugar tax, always some people ruin for others, why not just add a additional fee to anyone who is overweight that attends the nhs for treatment. Because you don't have to be overweight to suffer the consequences of eating crap!
Now don't be daft, you know fat people are the devil and slim people can't possibly be at fault in any way!
I wonder what the cost of dental treatment on the NHS is, in total, for slim people with tooth decay through eating sugar?
But yeah, as usual, pick on the fatties!
Bandwagon anyone?"Exactly. I hardly use the nhs and never for weight related issues, yet my sister who doesn't do any activity and is a size 8 is always at the doctors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd support it. Smoking and drinking have serious negative health effects and we tax those. Sugar is the same in my opinion. How about people who injure themselves doing sport, or DIY? Should we tax sports based on the severity of the risk of injury? Should we tax doing DIY?" It's totally different... The benefits outweigh the risks and sports people inspire the next generation to great things. DIY on the other hand should be limited... Certain products you should need a licence to buy. But excessive amounts of anything is poison and it's cheap crap refined sugar... I don't mind killing myself with expensive scotch, but I don't want someone else to do it by stealth with a cheap spag bol.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there should be no sugar tax, always some people ruin for others, why not just add a additional fee to anyone who is overweight that attends the nhs for treatment. Because you don't have to be overweight to suffer the consequences of eating crap!
Now don't be daft, you know fat people are the devil and slim people can't possibly be at fault in any way!
I wonder what the cost of dental treatment on the NHS is, in total, for slim people with tooth decay through eating sugar?
But yeah, as usual, pick on the fatties!
Bandwagon anyone?
Exactly. I hardly use the nhs and never for weight related issues, yet my sister who doesn't do any activity and is a size 8 is always at the doctors."This is not a bandwagon issue for me... We have great food laws, but I have worked in factories in the Far East and the USA & they don't give a fuck it they poison you & your kids to death, just that you thank them for doing so. And if those same companies could get away with it here.... They would. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, sugar and fat doesn't make obese people. It' is the thyroid, hormones and too much exercise which makes them that fat. Ask any fat person, if you don't believe me" I concur, except diet does have a large part to do with it... Diet is everything, otherwise almost all of human history, except the last 30 years is useless at explaining out dietary habits. There is genetics of cause and there is bad form and exercise that is suboptimal for your body type... But to say it's anyone thing can't be correct... I know someone with a thyroid problem, she hit the weights and is super fit looking now, in her mid 50s, solid, no waif, but defined curves... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there should be no sugar tax, always some people ruin for others, why not just add a additional fee to anyone who is overweight that attends the nhs for treatment. Because you don't have to be overweight to suffer the consequences of eating crap!
Now don't be daft, you know fat people are the devil and slim people can't possibly be at fault in any way!
I wonder what the cost of dental treatment on the NHS is, in total, for slim people with tooth decay through eating sugar?
But yeah, as usual, pick on the fatties!
Bandwagon anyone?
Exactly. I hardly use the nhs and never for weight related issues, yet my sister who doesn't do any activity and is a size 8 is always at the doctors.
This is not a bandwagon issue for me...
We have great food laws, but I have worked in factories in the Far East and the USA & they don't give a fuck it they poison you & your kids to death, just that you thank them for doing so.
And if those same companies could get away with it here.... They would."So regulate the companies. If they pass the cost of the tax on to the consumer, they have no reason to change. You could argue that people will buy healthier food as a result so the companies will have to act but I don't think that's true for several reasons. For example, sugar is addictive, people will continue to buy stuff loaded with unnecessary sugar even if it gets slightly more expensive. Most convenience foods are loaded with unnecessary salt, sugar and god knows else, so they'd all be subject to prices rises, and some people will still stick with convenience food over actually cooking. Putting up the prices of these foods, without tackling the actual causes of obesity and crap-food-related-health-problems and encouraging and supporting people to change their habits, won't work. I agree, companies shouldn't load their food with sugar, salt, additives and goodness knows what but taxing them, hitting the consumer, won't help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd support it. Smoking and drinking have serious negative health effects and we tax those. Sugar is the same in my opinion. How about people who injure themselves doing sport, or DIY? Should we tax sports based on the severity of the risk of injury? Should we tax doing DIY? It's totally different... The benefits outweigh the risks and sports people inspire the next generation to great things. DIY on the other hand should be limited... Certain products you should need a licence to buy. But excessive amounts of anything is poison and it's cheap crap refined sugar... I don't mind killing myself with expensive scotch, but I don't want someone else to do it by stealth with a cheap spag bol...." The argument, though, is that it costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who eat too much sugar. It also costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who do sports, do DIY etc. The answer isn't more tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd support it. Smoking and drinking have serious negative health effects and we tax those. Sugar is the same in my opinion. How about people who injure themselves doing sport, or DIY? Should we tax sports based on the severity of the risk of injury? Should we tax doing DIY? It's totally different... The benefits outweigh the risks and sports people inspire the next generation to great things. DIY on the other hand should be limited... Certain products you should need a licence to buy. But excessive amounts of anything is poison and it's cheap crap refined sugar... I don't mind killing myself with expensive scotch, but I don't want someone else to do it by stealth with a cheap spag bol.... The argument, though, is that it costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who eat too much sugar. It also costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who do sports, do DIY etc. The answer isn't more tax." No the answer is never more tax, but if it is so cost prohibitive consumers will leave the product. It's a tool worth using, for now, as is food regulation, but it takes many years to get regulations through and costs a lot in legal challenges... Tax is the simple cheap way to do it, unfortunately. And it's not about the cost to the NHS, that's just one side of the argument, if it was about that we could simply say the NHS won't treat X related diseases, you have to go private for that treatment... The NHS is a big stupid, emotional stick that gets waved to fool the population into paying for poor service. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd support it. Smoking and drinking have serious negative health effects and we tax those. Sugar is the same in my opinion. How about people who injure themselves doing sport, or DIY? Should we tax sports based on the severity of the risk of injury? Should we tax doing DIY? It's totally different... The benefits outweigh the risks and sports people inspire the next generation to great things. DIY on the other hand should be limited... Certain products you should need a licence to buy. But excessive amounts of anything is poison and it's cheap crap refined sugar... I don't mind killing myself with expensive scotch, but I don't want someone else to do it by stealth with a cheap spag bol.... The argument, though, is that it costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who eat too much sugar. It also costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who do sports, do DIY etc. The answer isn't more tax. No the answer is never more tax, but if it is so cost prohibitive consumers will leave the product. It's a tool worth using, for now, as is food regulation, but it takes many years to get regulations through and costs a lot in legal challenges... Tax is the simple cheap way to do it, unfortunately. And it's not about the cost to the NHS, that's just one side of the argument, if it was about that we could simply say the NHS won't treat X related diseases, you have to go private for that treatment... The NHS is a big stupid, emotional stick that gets waved to fool the population into paying for poor service." There is already a disparity in price between unhealthy food and healthier alternatives. Healthier food tends to be more expensive. Putting up the price of convenience food and sugary drinks will only, at best, bring it into line with healthier stuff. As the sugary crap is addictive and convenience food is, well, convenient, people still won't have an incentive to switch to more healthy food. I don't think it will help. And it won't address obesity as it's supposed to either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd support it. Smoking and drinking have serious negative health effects and we tax those. Sugar is the same in my opinion. How about people who injure themselves doing sport, or DIY? Should we tax sports based on the severity of the risk of injury? Should we tax doing DIY? It's totally different... The benefits outweigh the risks and sports people inspire the next generation to great things. DIY on the other hand should be limited... Certain products you should need a licence to buy. But excessive amounts of anything is poison and it's cheap crap refined sugar... I don't mind killing myself with expensive scotch, but I don't want someone else to do it by stealth with a cheap spag bol.... The argument, though, is that it costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who eat too much sugar. It also costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who do sports, do DIY etc. The answer isn't more tax. No the answer is never more tax, but if it is so cost prohibitive consumers will leave the product. It's a tool worth using, for now, as is food regulation, but it takes many years to get regulations through and costs a lot in legal challenges... Tax is the simple cheap way to do it, unfortunately. And it's not about the cost to the NHS, that's just one side of the argument, if it was about that we could simply say the NHS won't treat X related diseases, you have to go private for that treatment... The NHS is a big stupid, emotional stick that gets waved to fool the population into paying for poor service. There is already a disparity in price between unhealthy food and healthier alternatives. Healthier food tends to be more expensive. Putting up the price of convenience food and sugary drinks will only, at best, bring it into line with healthier stuff. As the sugary crap is addictive and convenience food is, well, convenient, people still won't have an incentive to switch to more healthy food. I don't think it will help. And it won't address obesity as it's supposed to either." Not so... Yes pound for pound healthier food is more expensive... But if you control portion size and only add what is needed to a dish, plus drink more water... It's not that expensive... And no it's not about fat, for me it's about poisoning... If it's about the NHS then I am all for a private, multi tiered system, but I realise at this point in time many cant handle that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd support it. Smoking and drinking have serious negative health effects and we tax those. Sugar is the same in my opinion. How about people who injure themselves doing sport, or DIY? Should we tax sports based on the severity of the risk of injury? Should we tax doing DIY? It's totally different... The benefits outweigh the risks and sports people inspire the next generation to great things. DIY on the other hand should be limited... Certain products you should need a licence to buy. But excessive amounts of anything is poison and it's cheap crap refined sugar... I don't mind killing myself with expensive scotch, but I don't want someone else to do it by stealth with a cheap spag bol.... The argument, though, is that it costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who eat too much sugar. It also costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who do sports, do DIY etc. The answer isn't more tax. No the answer is never more tax, but if it is so cost prohibitive consumers will leave the product. It's a tool worth using, for now, as is food regulation, but it takes many years to get regulations through and costs a lot in legal challenges... Tax is the simple cheap way to do it, unfortunately. And it's not about the cost to the NHS, that's just one side of the argument, if it was about that we could simply say the NHS won't treat X related diseases, you have to go private for that treatment... The NHS is a big stupid, emotional stick that gets waved to fool the population into paying for poor service. There is already a disparity in price between unhealthy food and healthier alternatives. Healthier food tends to be more expensive. Putting up the price of convenience food and sugary drinks will only, at best, bring it into line with healthier stuff. As the sugary crap is addictive and convenience food is, well, convenient, people still won't have an incentive to switch to more healthy food. I don't think it will help. And it won't address obesity as it's supposed to either. Not so... Yes pound for pound healthier food is more expensive... But if you control portion size and only add what is needed to a dish, plus drink more water... It's not that expensive... And no it's not about fat, for me it's about poisoning... If it's about the NHS then I am all for a private, multi tiered system, but I realise at this point in time many cant handle that." For you it's about poisoning but that's not why it's being suggested and that's not the aim. It could be a beneficial side effect but the aim is to get people to buy different food and change their habits, not to push manufacturers to put less sugar, salt and crap in their food. Ultimately, if people did change their habits, they might, ultimately, eventually. But people won't significantly change their habits as a result of sugar tax and it won't lead to a change in manufacturers' behaviour. People won't switch from convenience and junk food just because the price goes up a bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd support it. Smoking and drinking have serious negative health effects and we tax those. Sugar is the same in my opinion. How about people who injure themselves doing sport, or DIY? Should we tax sports based on the severity of the risk of injury? Should we tax doing DIY? It's totally different... The benefits outweigh the risks and sports people inspire the next generation to great things. DIY on the other hand should be limited... Certain products you should need a licence to buy. But excessive amounts of anything is poison and it's cheap crap refined sugar... I don't mind killing myself with expensive scotch, but I don't want someone else to do it by stealth with a cheap spag bol.... The argument, though, is that it costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who eat too much sugar. It also costs the NHS a lot of money to treat people who do sports, do DIY etc. The answer isn't more tax. No the answer is never more tax, but if it is so cost prohibitive consumers will leave the product. It's a tool worth using, for now, as is food regulation, but it takes many years to get regulations through and costs a lot in legal challenges... Tax is the simple cheap way to do it, unfortunately. And it's not about the cost to the NHS, that's just one side of the argument, if it was about that we could simply say the NHS won't treat X related diseases, you have to go private for that treatment... The NHS is a big stupid, emotional stick that gets waved to fool the population into paying for poor service. There is already a disparity in price between unhealthy food and healthier alternatives. Healthier food tends to be more expensive. Putting up the price of convenience food and sugary drinks will only, at best, bring it into line with healthier stuff. As the sugary crap is addictive and convenience food is, well, convenient, people still won't have an incentive to switch to more healthy food. I don't think it will help. And it won't address obesity as it's supposed to either. Not so... Yes pound for pound healthier food is more expensive... But if you control portion size and only add what is needed to a dish, plus drink more water... It's not that expensive... And no it's not about fat, for me it's about poisoning... If it's about the NHS then I am all for a private, multi tiered system, but I realise at this point in time many cant handle that. For you it's about poisoning but that's not why it's being suggested and that's not the aim. It could be a beneficial side effect but the aim is to get people to buy different food and change their habits, not to push manufacturers to put less sugar, salt and crap in their food. Ultimately, if people did change their habits, they might, ultimately, eventually. But people won't significantly change their habits as a result of sugar tax and it won't lead to a change in manufacturers' behaviour. People won't switch from convenience and junk food just because the price goes up a bit." Yet strangely enough it's already leading manufactures to change their production methods... They currently want to propose an initial reduction of one fifth of sugar content in foods & a counter to the government not bringing in the tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
