FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Is sugar tax a good idea?

Is sugar tax a good idea?

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

They are planning to introduce it more so to the younger ones to keep them healthy, how would it work?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rwhowhatwherewhyMan over a year ago

Aylesbury

By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rwhowhatwherewhyMan over a year ago

Aylesbury

"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories."

*climbs down from soapbox*

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uciyassMan over a year ago

sheffield

Apart from the obvious tax generation it’s a total farce in retail. Prices over inflated. Retailers not knowing the difference between full bodied sugar drinks and no sugar. Next thing you know we will be charged 10p for a sachet of sugar for your tea or coffee

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orenzoVonMatterhornMan over a year ago

Lincoln

Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *latinumkittenWoman over a year ago

from Home Counties to Middle Earth

Don't get me started on sweeteners - the next disease inducing, multi-million pound con

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As a society our diet has changed dramatically over the last 4 to 5 decades. Especially our attitude to sugary confectionery and sugary drinks. When I was younger, they were considered a weekly treat. Now we view them as part of daily diet. The tax may have a small impact on consumption, but as stated, it's just another way of the government generating revenue.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrista BellendWoman over a year ago

surrounded by twinkly lights

"As a society our diet has changed dramatically over the last 4 to 5 decades. Especially our attitude to sugary confectionery and sugary drinks. When I was younger, they were considered a weekly treat. Now we view them as part of daily diet. The tax may have a small impact on consumption, but as stated, it's just another way of the government generating revenue.

Very true they have to replace the dwindling tobacco tax with something else.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rwhowhatwherewhyMan over a year ago

Aylesbury

Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?"

Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No because its penalising the consumer, when actually its the manufacturers that need to reduce the amount of suger in products.

What happens to the supper tax, Who gets the extra money?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orenzoVonMatterhornMan over a year ago

Lincoln

Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?

Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong. "

Gotcha, fair point

Though I'd like to think that those kind of foods don't contain the level of sugar needed to levy a tax

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?

Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong.

Gotcha, fair point

Though I'd like to think that those kind of foods don't contain the level of sugar needed to levy a tax

Oh they do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondCougarWoman over a year ago

Norfuck! / Lincolnshire

This happened in Sweden - residents now cross the border to Norwegian supermarkets for fizzy drinks...

As above post - poverty!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No because its penalising the consumer, when actually its the manufacturers that need to reduce the amount of suger in products.

What happens to the supper tax, Who gets the extra money? "

*suger

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orenzoVonMatterhornMan over a year ago

Lincoln

"No because its penalising the consumer, when actually its the manufacturers that need to reduce the amount of suger in products.

What happens to the supper tax, Who gets the extra money? "

I've always wondered why manufacturers aren't penalised or incentivised more when it comes to things like sugar content or recyclable content

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This happened in Sweden - residents now cross the border to Norwegian supermarkets for fizzy drinks...

As above post - poverty!"

Yes I saw that on the news yesterday.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No because its penalising the consumer, when actually its the manufacturers that need to reduce the amount of suger in products.

What happens to the supper tax, Who gets the extra money?

I've always wondered why manufacturers aren't penalised or incentivised more when it comes to things like sugar content or recyclable content

Also supermarkets should not be able to put bogof or special promotions on high suger, salt and fat products.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rwhowhatwherewhyMan over a year ago

Aylesbury

The trouble is that sugar is quite addictive, it stimulates certain areas of the brain and the food industry know this. They certainly do not want us to stop consuming sugar and neither does the government really. Call me cynical but I'm sure I'm right

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?

Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong. "

Plus, as a percentage of their income, their food bill is more than better of families.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *partacus2024Man over a year ago

Near You

Nope my irnbru is not the same since the Scottish government imposed a sugar tax

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?

Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong.

Plus, as a percentage of their income, their food bill is more than better of families. "

Yes and its cheaper to buy a pack biscuits than a bag of apples. That's what needs to charge.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?"

Apart from time and labour saving foods as already pointed out... Sales taxes always hit the poor hardest. If you earn £15k versus £150k, £100 in sales tax is a very different percentage of your income.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Very true they have to replace the dwindling tobacco tax with something else."

Call be a conspiracy theorist, but what a lot of people don't realise is that the excessive consumption not only responsible for increase in diabetis, but also excessive sugar increases your risk of cancer, which is also a money spinner for the Cancer Cure Industry!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No tax just limit the availability.

Why should the Treasury benefit from our kids healthier lifestyle?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igJandTheBlondeCouple over a year ago

Kings Hill

"No because its penalising the consumer, when actually its the manufacturers that need to reduce the amount of suger in products.

What happens to the supper tax, Who gets the extra money?

I've always wondered why manufacturers aren't penalised or incentivised more when it comes to things like sugar content or recyclable content

The sugar tax was introduced by an ill informed government post a half-arsed “detailed analysis” of the food industry as a knee jerk response to the growing obesity epidemic in the UK.

Sugar is the cheapest raw material available to food manufacturers, it’s soluble and can be inverted which makes it ideal to bulk and thicken products.

Humans can only detect brix levels up to a point, once this is breached you can add as much sugar as you want and people simply cannot taste the difference; more sugar equals more calories, simple as!

Multiple retailers demand certain price points for products to ensure they maintain margin across a basket of goods and so manufacturers will build that product according to price!

It’s simple economics, you get what you pay for! Other supermarkets are available but if you want quality food then shop at Waitrose or M&S, if you want cheap as chips manufactured as cheap as humanly possible then Iceland is for you!

Don’t even get me started on drinks and believe me, one of us is an expert!

We’ve both worked in FMCG our entire careers and bore each other daily

Ask anyone who’s been on a date with us

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igJandTheBlondeCouple over a year ago

Kings Hill

Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?

Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong.

Plus, as a percentage of their income, their food bill is more than better of families.

Yes and its cheaper to buy a pack biscuits than a bag of apples. That's what needs to charge. "

Apples are almost all imported, biccies are made on a random industrial estate in Rugby; do the math

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

*climbs down from soapbox*"

Phew, lucky that wasnt a sugar box....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Just a another way to make money off the people, it won’t change anything. Those who drink it will carry on as normal, same as smokers they keep pushing the price up on cigarettes but they will carry on to smoke regardless.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hilloutMan over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest

"Don't get me started on sweeteners - the next disease inducing, multi-million pound con "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hilloutMan over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest

A sugar tax is just another form of government slipping ir's hands into our pockets for more revenue. It opens up a world of possibilities for additional "special taxes" to be ibtroduced cloaked in an aura of "social responsibility". The extra revenue they make will not be spent to combat the supposed problem and will just disappear into the black hole of public expense.

The UK's debt to GDP ratio is nearly 100% now and servicing it is becoming more expensive. Thete's 200 billion to spend on useless Trident nukes as well. That's where the money will probably go.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I'm not opposed to taxation to support health and welfare, but it needs to actually do that, be directed to the right places, and not be regressive (disproportionately affecting the poor and vulnerable).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

The way I see it, the corporations manipulating our weaknesses by introducing high levels of salt/sugar/fat into foods (to make them more appetising) or targeting children need to be penalised, and those financial penalties should be used to support healthier eating (through subsidies and educational resources).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The NHS is severely underfunded and the obesity epidemic is costing them the most ... noone needs cakes/sweets/ fizzy drinks so as long as the money goes directly into the NHS would it be such a bad thing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layfullsamMan over a year ago

Solihull

Appreciate it's not always this simple but in general families need to take more responsibility.

Eat More Better Food, Eat less Crap and Exercise more

No need to rely on sugar taxes as it's common sense in a lot of cases.

A friend is a teacher and she says that the contents of some children's lunch boxes never cease to amaze her and she jokes that she could select the parents of these children without knowing them if that makes sense.

To be fair to her she arranges trips and visits to food outlets and farms to try to get the children educating the parents and she pays for fresh fruit and snacks for class out of her own money.

The school run classes to show parents how to cook fresh and save money but sadly it often falls on deaf ears.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Don't get me started on sweeteners - the next disease inducing, multi-million pound con "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman over a year ago

On a mooch

Sugar tax isn’t correctly allocated.

I like my Coca Cola, most people try and talk me out of it until I point out that their ‘healthy” pre packaged fruit smoothie actually has more calories and sugar in it !

CC - calories 42, sugar 10.6g per 100g

Strawberry Smoothie - calories 52.1, sugar 11g

Same can be said for mars bar versus what appears to be a healthier cereal / nut bar until you look at the ingredients.

Pre-packaged meals / sauces are the worse for sugar content.

If you made those dishes yourself you wouldn’t dream of adding sugar

Simply check your packaging, make your own as much as possible, make your own choices just like the rest of life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layfullsamMan over a year ago

Solihull

"Sugar tax isn’t correctly allocated.

I like my Coca Cola, most people try and talk me out of it until I point out that their ‘healthy” pre packaged fruit smoothie actually has more calories and sugar in it !

CC - calories 42, sugar 10.6g per 100g

Strawberry Smoothie - calories 52.1, sugar 11g

Same can be said for mars bar versus what appears to be a healthier cereal / nut bar until you look at the ingredients.

Pre-packaged meals / sauces are the worse for sugar content.

If you made those dishes yourself you wouldn’t dream of adding sugar

Simply check your packaging, make your own as much as possible, make your own choices just like the rest of life.

These are my thoughts but the problem is that children can't make their own food choices so have to eat what's put in front of them and that includes lunch boxes.

It's controversial but I do think poor and lazy is often to blame(but not always)

High streets and school playgrounds weren't full of obese people not that many decades ago.

And I agree with "own" choices in life until it impacts on the NHS etc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rontier PsychiatristMan over a year ago

Coventry

Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?

Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong.

Plus, as a percentage of their income, their food bill is more than better of families.

Yes and its cheaper to buy a pack biscuits than a bag of apples. That's what needs to charge. "

Some would argue that's the point of the sugar tax, to make other options more attractive.

Although I think we all know in real terms it will still just hit poorer families in the pocket.

Oh, light bulb moment! If poor processed diet is mainly effective less well off families why do we just drag more people out of poverty and provide more real term opportunities/environments for better education? Surely that will work. I bet the Troies are kicking them selves they didn't think of this before? Quick someone suggest this to them so they can make it policy and everyone can live happily ever after.

I mean seriously if a vast part of the NHS's budget is spent by treating poorest in our society and the numerous health, lifestyle and traumas often linked to poverty then surely the real solution is to provide a better standard of living and less inequality. I know my self growing up and the seeing the same stories unravel with the people I know that proverty is destructive. Anyone who doesn't know how destructive it is has either never been in those shoes or is just deluded. It's fair enough saying well I grew up poor and did ok, yes me too. It's all fair saying the likes of Lord Sugar started with nothing. But the reality is for every lord sugar, every me, there are thousands of people repeating a destructive cycle of the poverty trap. I see its endless circle of destruction every day. Even if we could just have a decent minimum wage that a family could comfortably live off and give their children opportunities would be a start.

*likewise jumps down off soap box*

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?

Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong.

Plus, as a percentage of their income, their food bill is more than better of families.

Yes and its cheaper to buy a pack biscuits than a bag of apples. That's what needs to charge.

Some would argue that's the point of the sugar tax, to make other options more attractive.

Although I think we all know in real terms it will still just hit poorer families in the pocket.

*likewise jumps down off soap box*"

Shhh. You're talking sense, it's not allowed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

What is the solution?

Dentists will tell you they're seeing more and more children with tooth decay.

Type 2 diabetes is increasing.

Our own eyes tell us that obesity across the general population is on the increase but children in particular are affected.

Education is either directed at the wrong people or failing to get through. I don't buy the sweets are cheaper than fruit argument because a mars bar costs about the same as a banana.

Sugar tastes nice, it's what drove our ancestors to pick berries and why cake is so popular. The only way I can think of to stop people eating it in such vast quantities is to restrict it's availability

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hilloutMan over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest

This comes down to individual choice and responsibility, which is often poor and lacking.

Some places where I worked, it never ceased to amaze me what people would bring to the check out counter at the supermarket. Nothing but processed foods, fizzy drinks, crisps and assortments of biscuits/chocolates/ice cream. Often not one single piece of vege or fruit and little to no fresh meat. Far from being occasional, this was frequent and the checkout bill was shocking.

To say lower income people don't eat healthy because they can't afford to is disingenuous. Many of these people were clearly low income earners and they prefer spending 1.80 on a bag of crisps to 1.50 for a bag of easy peelers. It never dawned on them that a pack of pork shoulder steaks feeds 2-3 people and is cheaper than 2-3 processed ready meals? Or that water is cheaper than fizzy drinks?

I'm all for solidarity in the right circumstances, but not a fan for paying more for people's poor choices.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lbinoGorillaMan over a year ago

Redditch

But surely you need poor people to be able to judge who the rich ones are?

But a lot of this problem goes b a ck to the early 70s, when people were getting fatter - probably because of an increase in desk jobs, rather than manual labour - and Low / No Fat diets became all the rage.

But if you take the fat content out of food, it tastes disgusting and so to make it more palatable it was pumped full of sugar.

Hence people have continued getting bigger, but also more lethargic and grumpy, despite being on a so-called "healthy" diet.

Which is why the Sugar Industry is so big and powerful these days

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Parents need to stop giving in to their kids just to keep them quiet. My kids get sweets maybe once or twice or week. There’s a full fruit bowl if they’re hungry. They’re allowed the chocolatey cereal at weekends as a treat. McDonald’s maybe once a month. They’ve never had a ready meal in their lives. People need to take responsibility for their own family and their own health. Why should everyone else pay because people can’t be arsed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"This comes down to individual choice and responsibility, which is often poor and lacking.

I'm all for solidarity in the right circumstances, but not a fan for paying more for people's poor choices."

Maybe they've not been taught. Maybe their parents did the same.

Plenty have been failed by education systems in that they aren't only not taught how to do something (eat healthily), but they're also not taught how to ask to get the right answer. The tools to cook also cost money, and how do you know how to choose them?

Maybe they're exhausted working physically and emotionally draining jobs but still remaining in poverty and just need to fill the hole in their stomach.

I think pointing our fingers at those making bad choices is limited in its efficacy, and we need to support them in making better choices.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackenzie-LeighWoman over a year ago

Shropshire

Hike the price up on foods and drinks containing sugar... I wonder if they'll do the same for the stuff filled with poisonous artificial sweeteners... I doubt it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Parents need to stop giving in to their kids just to keep them quiet. My kids get sweets maybe once or twice or week. There’s a full fruit bowl if they’re hungry. They’re allowed the chocolatey cereal at weekends as a treat. McDonald’s maybe once a month. They’ve never had a ready meal in their lives. People need to take responsibility for their own family and their own health. Why should everyone else pay because people can’t be arsed. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

We've come to a bizarre point in society.

We know that multinational food manufacturers and retailers do considerable research on how to manipulate our vulnerability. Loss leaders, hyper palatable foods, advertising at children and the like. They spend a huge amount of money trying to get us to spend money we don't always have on crap we shouldn't be eating by exploiting our vulnerability.

We have people making crap choices in this environment. Who are not using knowledge as a weapon, largely they're just trying to survive. And having an increasingly difficult time doing so, given the data.

We have an obesity crisis.

Somehow the businesses out to get us are savvy business people rather than super villains, and people just trying to feed their families need to individually solve a near global crisis.

That's arse backwards.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Appreciate it's not always this simple but in general families need to take more responsibility.

Eat More Better Food, Eat less Crap and Exercise more

No need to rely on sugar taxes as it's common sense in a lot of cases.

To be fair to her she arranges trips and visits to food outlets and farms to try to get the children educating the parents and she pays for fresh fruit and snacks for class out of her own money.

The school run classes to show parents how to cook fresh and save money but sadly it often falls on deaf ears."

If people are told what to eat they get angry and eat shit as rebellion. Jamie Oliver has tried with school meals and people just took the piss.

If diet advice is given to overweight people they cry victimisation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eerobCouple over a year ago

solihull

Yes excellent idea...but they should use the tax to reduce the price of healthier food

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It’s a stupid idea. People will still eat what they want. I don’t think it’s wise to pump kids full of artificial sweeteners. Sugar isn’t the sole reason there’s weight issues. People need to be taught the food pyramid, balanced diet and portion control. Encourage activity and a balance. Parents need to accept their kids don’t need desserts, sweets and sweetened drinks as a daily thing.

Diabetes isn’t solely caused by obesity, obesity isn’t caused solely by sugar. -Mrs

Also, as someone legitimately allergic to aspartame it’s really really annoying to have choice restricted or be given a Diet Pepsi when it makes me ill. The companies just add sweeteners to the sugar to avoid the tax and cut the amount of sugar.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight.

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels"

I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This comes down to individual choice and responsibility, which is often poor and lacking.

I'm all for solidarity in the right circumstances, but not a fan for paying more for people's poor choices.

Maybe they've not been taught. Maybe their parents did the same.

Maybe they're exhausted working physically and emotionally draining jobs but still remaining in poverty and just need to fill the hole in their stomach.

I think pointing our fingers at those making bad choices is limited in its efficacy, and we need to support them in making better choices. "

Spot on, Swing.

A cycle of poverty, lack of education and availability perpetuates poor choices. It’s very easy to sit and say that they’re doing a bad job but it’s not that simple.

I went to a local in a part of town I don’t usually go to when we lived near York, the shop had no actual meat, just ready meal stuff. I don’t usually buy that stuff. The fresh veg there was also very limited. It’s not as cut and dry as it seems. Same as when people assume everyone overweight is living on takeaway and ready meals. I cook from scratch all the time and don’t eat huge portions but am not thin.

Food is a personal choice and many don’t know how to do better, are disabled and can’t do better or struggle in ways we can’t see.

Schools are teaching children ( sometimes unfortunately with shame) how to eat more healthily but when I heard my daughter was told not to eat fruit because of sugar I flipped my lid. She barely has any sweets or treats aside from what we make, fruit is a very healthy part of a diet. I think that’s the worst part of the sugar education. It’s become a slimming world style method of education that is actually unhealthy. Rather than substitutes it should be moderation and alternatives that don’t have sugar. But I don’t think the government should control what people eat.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hechapMan over a year ago

Derry

Sugar tax is a great idea for HMRC.

Its just another method of forcing us to pay more tax.

Its a conn!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels

I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ssex_tomMan over a year ago

Chelmsford

"The trouble is that sugar is quite addictive, it stimulates certain areas of the brain and the food industry know this. They certainly do not want us to stop consuming sugar and neither does the government really. Call me cynical but I'm sure I'm right"

You are cynical...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *i1971Man over a year ago

Cornwall

" People need to take responsibility for their own family and their own health. Why should everyone else pay because people can’t be arsed. "

I agree that sugar taxes aren't the best way of tackling this. Manufacturers need to be more sensible on the sugar (& fats) added to ready meals, but people need to be more food/nutrient savvy.

Sadly everyone will pay one way or another; either through schemes like the sugar tax or Via the NHS when they get diabetes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ssex_tomMan over a year ago

Chelmsford

The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things...

If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels

I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power.

I think I'm more assuming that people don't have the tools to make good choices, and we need to put those tools closer to their reach. I'd rather assume that people are misinformed, lazy, or stupid than assume that individuals have the power to stand up to multinationals, because the latter idea is absurd.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things...

If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated.. "

Yes. And the rich are more to blame, because they have the resources and leisure to get their shit together that the poor manifestly do not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things...

If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated.. "

Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ob198XaMan over a year ago

teleford

There is a better solution after Brexit. Put I high tariff on cane sugar imports... increase cost of sugar to reduce demand whilst also helping British farmers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"No tax just limit the availability.

Why should the Treasury benefit from our kids healthier lifestyle?"

How do you do that though?

If that happened, then sure as eggs is eggs, people would complain about living in a nanny state.

I wouldn’t see us as the Treasury benfiting, but assuming it contributes to increased funding for the NHS then we all benefit.

And anyway, isn’t that arse about face? If kids have a healthier lifestyle by consuming less of the sugary stuff, they’re not paying the additional tax.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ssex_tomMan over a year ago

Chelmsford

Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse. "

But do they taste as nice. Nobody does duck like my local Chinese, chicken like KFC and pizza like Domino's in my opinion but I bet you do make lovely food

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things...

If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated..

Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse. "

It's cheaper if you know how and if you have the tools. Not everyone does.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels

I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power.

The tools are within reach of most people I think. I also think there's a tendency in this thread to equate poverty with low intelligence and lack of ability. If you look around the really poor people are not fat although I agree that low income means lack of choice and if you're in bed and breakfast accommodation for instance you can't knock up a nourishing meal but this problem is not a problem that just affects the poorest in society and those people are not necessarily stupid or lazy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"We've come to a bizarre point in society.

We have an obesity crisis.

Somehow the businesses out to get us are savvy business people rather than super villains, and people just trying to feed their families need to individually solve a near global crisis.

That's arse backwards.

Isn't it interesting that it's these businesses, and the businesses contributing to climate change that are being offered the tax breaks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"We've come to a bizarre point in society.

We have an obesity crisis.

Somehow the businesses out to get us are savvy business people rather than super villains, and people just trying to feed their families need to individually solve a near global crisis.

That's arse backwards.

Isn't it interesting that it's these businesses, and the businesses contributing to climate change that are being offered the tax breaks. "

Quite.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels

I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power.

I don't think I, personally, am doing that. I think it's more, power and lack of power, tools and lack of tools. There may be overlap with stupidity or laziness (or lack of education or fatigue), but a lazy stupid rich person can just throw money at the problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels

I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power.

Exactly, it's why I have a personal trainer and chef...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ty31Man over a year ago

NW London

No, it's too Nanny state and I dont see it contributing to a decline in consumption of high sugar drinks or a significant switch to sugar free alternatives as many would switch to cheaper brands.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse.

But do they taste as nice. Nobody does duck like my local Chinese, chicken like KFC and pizza like Domino's in my opinion but I bet you do make lovely food "

They’re all takeaways or fast food though.... not ready meals.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *adame 2SwordsWoman over a year ago

Victoria, London

Won't work, might do short term but eventually its about personal priorities. If sugar is what you want you'll prioritise and cut spending elsewhere. Same as when petrol prices go up, lots of moaning, maybe cut a journey, but eventually you just suck it up and pay.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things...

If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated..

Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse.

It's cheaper if you know how and if you have the tools. Not everyone does. "

So some pasta and a tin of tomatoes and some chopped veg? I would have thought most people in a home have a couple of pans. If they can’t afford pans I very much doubt they can afford ready meals and takeaways and sweets.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things...

If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated..

Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse.

It's cheaper if you know how and if you have the tools. Not everyone does.

Most, but not all.

A ready meal might cost £3, maybe less, a couple of pans maybe £15. Some people don't have £15.

It's workable if it works. It doesn't always.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

But again I question why we blame Joe Schmoe for wanting to feed himself rather than the mega corporations who research ways to exploit us.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things...

If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated..

Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse.

It's cheaper if you know how and if you have the tools. Not everyone does.

I know it sounds simple but for some people it isn't. I work with "disadvantaged" families and sometimes run cooking classes. I cant tell you how many times iv had to show someone how to use a vegetable peeler!

If they are going to put a suger tax on, the only way I would support it is if the money raised was used for education classes like cooking and nutrition for those that really need it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Sugar Tax is actually a very old idea that's been reintroduced.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layfullsamMan over a year ago

Solihull

"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things...

If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated..

Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse.

It's cheaper if you know how and if you have the tools. Not everyone does.

Most, but not all.

A ready meal might cost £3, maybe less, a couple of pans maybe £15. Some people don't have £15.

It's workable if it works. It doesn't always. "

Poundland have pans

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aysolCouple over a year ago

Swansea

What no one talks about is the fact that slavery and child labour exploitation is still going very strong in sugar farms. I wouldnt mind paying more to make sure that is stopped- why not introduce a law to fine companies massively if they dont get rid of slavery and child labour in their supply chain?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So my jelly babies aren’t gonna be £1 anymore !? What is this world coming to

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

My next door neighbours are on the rock n roll, she's 21, in age and probably in stone to, treats her 2 kids with contempt, and feeds them dominoes and other take away 4 or 5 times a week. She could easily afford to cook, but she's a lazy oxygen thief. Whattya gonna do eh?!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My next door neighbours are on the rock n roll, she's 21, in age and probably in stone to, treats her 2 kids with contempt, and feeds them dominoes and other take away 4 or 5 times a week. She could easily afford to cook, but she's a lazy oxygen thief. Whattya gonna do eh?!

Be jealous that she can afford 4/5 take away.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And this is all too common unfortunately. And before anyone jumps on me I get there are genuine people who need help. I stick by what I said earlier though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It will be a good idea, if only the government uses the tax to educate people on healthy eating.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It will be a good idea, if only the government uses the tax to educate people on healthy eating.

You think those people will be willing to be educated on healthy eating???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hampagne_Supernova_91Man over a year ago

Manchester

As a barman it's a nightmare, people actually kick off about not being able to get certain stuff on draught.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The government can knock themselves out if they want to tax sweets provided they give with the other hand and reduce tax on certain other essentials.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Well if it keeps kids healthier yes but I don't think it will really.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hechapMan over a year ago

Derry

As well as getting educated on cooking etc everyone should educate themselves on how governments and the corruprt systym operates.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We should be encouraging people to smoke.Loads of taxes and they do not live as long so the National Pension pot is saving as well.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lay4RealCouple over a year ago

London

"The NHS is severely underfunded and the obesity epidemic is costing them the most ... noone needs cakes/sweets/ fizzy drinks so as long as the money goes directly into the NHS would it be such a bad thing?"

Makes sense, however the additional revenue would not go to the NHS. We all know that!! As has been pointed out earlier this is just a ploy to tax us even more!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If it's about education i think forcing offending parents (and their children) to watch videos of young kids having to go to hospital to have total extractions, and the aftermath, would work better.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels

I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power.

They can but rich people are fat too. I think concentrating on one aspect of the problem ignores the bigger picture. We've arrived at this point due to a combination of circumstances.

My generation was brought up by parents who lived through rationing, sweet rationing only ended three years before I was born. They knew how to cook with basic ingredients because they'd seen their parents do it. During my childhood food became easier to obtain, convenience food appeared, supermarkets opened, cars were available to nearly everyone. Our parents deprived of sweets for years enjoyed treating their kids once a week, more and more households had both parents working and using convenience food to save time. Then fast food outlets opened, nobody wanted to walk anywhere, well you see where I'm going with this. Society changed, it became easier to eat more high calorie, low nutrient food while not moving about much. People bought the rubbish stuff without knowing it was rubbish and the more they bought the more was supplied.

The only way I can see things changing is if there's a huge shift in opinion on every side of this. Big business changes if their profits are threatened, society changes according to factors that are fairly unpredictable but if the message that sugar is bad is repeated often enough maybe people will stop buying it...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lex46TV/TS over a year ago

Near Wells

Definitely not. Apart from sex it's my only vice. I hardly drink, never smoked but I love sugar, cakes biscuits etc.

I only have them in small quantities and mostly eat healthy. I weigh 10 stone, blood pressure 120/80. Cholesterol is OK and I don't have diabetes plus I keep fit.

Of for a cup of tea with 2 sugars and a cake.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hechapMan over a year ago

Derry

And previous generations who all ate plenty of fatty foods and ate frys every day had to do hard manual work so got lots of exercise.

When is the last time you ever saw an old photo with men who are over weight?

Most present day photos with say 5 men in it will have at least 2 or 3 who are all over weight...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels

I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power.

I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence?"
It doesn’t mean that people in a cycle of poverty aren’t intelligent. It means maybe that single parent works 2 jobs and chicken nuggets are easier to make, that people feed their families both what is locally available. If they don’t have a car and they’re living hand to mouth ( can’t online shop) and their local shop doesn’t carry a variety of healthy foods, with poverty comes a higher percentage of mental health issues and disability greatly hinders what people are capable of managing either physically or emotionally. Going to Iceland and buying a massive bag of processed chicken Is cheaper than buying chicken at a shop. The absolute cheapest food is frozen highly processed and high in fat and sugar. Sugar isn’t the only thing making people heavier.

But education about food is a privilege, my mother in law worked in a school in a very low income area and many of the children would start school never having tried most vegetables and others didn’t really even know what home made food was. People in poverty may also indulge more in treats like sweets because the little bright sides make life easier. There’s a lot about poverty that makes it harder that doesn’t mean people in poverty are stupid, just lacking the privilege of modelled behaviour and education.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels

I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power.

They can but rich people are fat too. I think concentrating on one aspect of the problem ignores the bigger picture. We've arrived at this point due to a combination of circumstances.

I agree parents who were brought up in the time of rationing appreciated treating their children to what they didn’t get. also they had large meals once or twice a week not twice a day. My father in law sometimes gives my daughter just an ice cream for lunch and loves to tell me how healthy it is for the milk and calories ( I don’t object because it’s rare and kind of cute). There’s a surplus now but instead of moderating there’s enjoying. And convenience foods are convenient.

The same thing happened in the US just 20 years faster.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *xhib12Man over a year ago

Blyth

The government need to stop hitting the working man with taxes.

If the stuff us there we will buy it.

Bring in legislation to stop manufacturers putting sugar into everything and then we can't buy it.

The only body who would suffer in this scenario is the government as they wouldn't receive the tax revenue. Sort of confirms that it's only in place to raise revenue and not protect the health of the nation.

Or maybe I'm just cynical?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hechapMan over a year ago

Derry

"The government need to stop hitting the working man with taxes.

If the stuff us there we will buy it.

Bring in legislation to stop manufacturers putting sugar into everything and then we can't buy it.

Or maybe I'm just cynical?"

The government dont give 2 hoots about our health and anyone who thinks different is living in cloud cuckoo land.

The big pharmas do care about our health. They want us as sick as possible since no money is to be made from a healthy nation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abs..Woman over a year ago

Taxing individuals won’t work. Higher taxes and stricter healthier guidelines for food manufacturing will. They won’t do that though because that will hit revenue.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers?

The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels

I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power.

I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence? It doesn’t mean that people in a cycle of poverty aren’t intelligent. It means maybe that single parent works 2 jobs and chicken nuggets are easier to make, that people feed their families both what is locally available. If they don’t have a car and they’re living hand to mouth ( can’t online shop) and their local shop doesn’t carry a variety of healthy foods, with poverty comes a higher percentage of mental health issues and disability greatly hinders what people are capable of managing either physically or emotionally. Going to Iceland and buying a massive bag of processed chicken Is cheaper than buying chicken at a shop. The absolute cheapest food is frozen highly processed and high in fat and sugar. Sugar isn’t the only thing making people heavier.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I think that just making this problem about poverty is ignoring the bigger picture.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oruseandabuseCouple over a year ago

chichester

Education. Education. Education

I saw a post from a guy in his mid twenties last week apologising for his poor spelling and grammar. He said he was not educated. He went to school, or at least was meant to, until at least 16 and so he was blaming the system when he should have been looking inwards.

The same with food. It is very simple. Avoid short chain molecule foods and eat only the calories you need.

Short chain is simple and reliable guide. Refined sugar- bad. Fruit is sweet but fructose which is long chain.

Whole grain porridge is long chain. Shred it and it becomes short chain.

As a starting point GI index is great but not fool proof.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *htcMan over a year ago

No. Won't work. You can tax it as much as you like, but sales will remain the same.

Shouldn't be a tax on sugar drinks, soon be cheaper to buy alcohol than cola. Crazy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

yes and the beauty of it in some venues its added on at the till

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *Man1263Man over a year ago

Stockport

But they are doing research into sweeteners that may be a cause of obesity.

Study was done into rat's, but I don't know if that study has been updated.

So whilst they are trying to get us to decrease our sugar intake, what if the sweeteners are the one's making us fat?

(That and the emulsifier's)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rMrs_CCouple over a year ago

Plymouth

"They are planning to introduce it more so to the younger ones to keep them healthy, how would it work?"

The sugar tax money has set up a scheme where it is used to give schools free breakfasts especially in deprived areas. This means no child should go hungry and helps their ability to learn.

The government gives £26m to schools around the UK to do this.

So yes I agree with it.

And I am part of this so I know how it has improved schools so far in the 13 months they have trialled it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And previous generations who all ate plenty of fatty foods and ate frys every day had to do hard manual work so got lots of exercise.

When is the last time you ever saw an old photo with men who are over weight?

Most present day photos with say 5 men in it will have at least 2 or 3 who are all over weight..."

Exactly. Get the kids off those bloody machines all the time and get them outdoors playing and exercising a bit! Too easy to blame society for everything. Take responsibility for you and yours!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"But they are doing research into sweeteners that may be a cause of obesity.

Study was done into rat's, but I don't know if that study has been updated.

So whilst they are trying to get us to decrease our sugar intake, what if the sweeteners are the one's making us fat?

(That and the emulsifier's)

I wouldn’t touch sweeteners ever. I won’t drink diet drinks and neither do my kids. I have a child with ADHD so I’ve looked into all that in great depth and I won’t even entertain aspartame going into mine or their bodies.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"And previous generations who all ate plenty of fatty foods and ate frys every day had to do hard manual work so got lots of exercise.

When is the last time you ever saw an old photo with men who are over weight?

Most present day photos with say 5 men in it will have at least 2 or 3 who are all over weight...

Exactly. Get the kids off those bloody machines all the time and get them outdoors playing and exercising a bit! Too easy to blame society for everything. Take responsibility for you and yours! "

what about the adults? If you mention the obesity problem in adults it causes problems, its a subject that just can't be discussed without causing offence. However there must be a reason for the increase in obesity across the board

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *moothman2000Man over a year ago

Leicestershire

Can't stand that new sweetener that they're using.

I've ended up throwing food out and not buying it again after just one mouthful rather than eat it.

In my experience "New and improved recipe" translates to "it tastes like shit".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

In my opinion, if the government really wanted food and drink producers to reduce sugar content in their products, they would bring in legislation on maximum sugar levels rather than applying a tax.

Some producers did reduce sugar content, but others refused, instead expecting their customers to pay more to continue to enjoy their product.

But of course, the more sensible option doesn't bring in as much tax revenue

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"In my opinion, if the government really wanted food and drink producers to reduce sugar content in their products, they would bring in legislation on maximum sugar levels rather than applying a tax.

Some producers did reduce sugar content, but others refused, instead expecting their customers to pay more to continue to enjoy their product.

But of course, the more sensible option doesn't bring in as much tax revenue"

To be fair to any government it’s a bit of a lose / lose situation. Had they done that, they would have removed consumer’s choice, and been accused of implementing a nanny state.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"In my opinion, if the government really wanted food and drink producers to reduce sugar content in their products, they would bring in legislation on maximum sugar levels rather than applying a tax.

Some producers did reduce sugar content, but others refused, instead expecting their customers to pay more to continue to enjoy their product.

But of course, the more sensible option doesn't bring in as much tax revenue

To be fair to any government it’s a bit of a lose / lose situation. Had they done that, they would have removed consumer’s choice, and been accused of implementing a nanny state."

It's already a nanny state. No government wants to alienate big business they'd sooner see the general public take the blame for a problem

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They are planning to introduce it more so to the younger ones to keep them healthy, how would it work?"

Are they, what’s your source ?

It’s only soft drink companies that get taxed on how much sugar they put into their drinks, it’s up to them whether they pass the tax onto the customer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"In my opinion, if the government really wanted food and drink producers to reduce sugar content in their products, they would bring in legislation on maximum sugar levels rather than applying a tax.

Some producers did reduce sugar content, but others refused, instead expecting their customers to pay more to continue to enjoy their product.

But of course, the more sensible option doesn't bring in as much tax revenue

To be fair to any government it’s a bit of a lose / lose situation. Had they done that, they would have removed consumer’s choice, and been accused of implementing a nanny state.

It's already a nanny state. No government wants to alienate big business they'd sooner see the general public take the blame for a problem"

Is it? What are some of the things that “nanny” is preventing you from doing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oruseandabuseCouple over a year ago

chichester

I helped taking my sons class around a French Market last week. They all had a Crepe with sugar on it. The teachers encouraged them and had the same.

Surly refined sugar should be banned. All evidence says it is harmful.

Unlike the bottle of wine I drink every night, or the , dope or gambolling my neighbours indulge in.

And come to that why is my investing in the stock market or developing property not gambolling?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

i dont take sugar as an additive or salt trouble is its in many things you buy but i saw a documentary years ago about the harmful effects of sugar and the increasing rise in diabetes sufferers, heart disease etc ive really never had a sweet tooth so i suppose I'm lucky in that regard but it is a good thing the tax its making some aware, it probably won't achieve much in terms of stopping peoples intake but it is highlighting it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *urtyGentMan over a year ago

eastleigh

Sugar isn’t addictive in the same way as gambling or alcohol. Things with lots of sugar in tend to be higher in calories. It’s the calorie surplus or deficit that we should be teaching people is important, not the micro/macro nutrients

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rjimMan over a year ago

nr bristol

Sweeteners are poison.

They dont reduce the desire for sweetness ...they increase it.

No Domestic Science taught in schools anymore.

There are 30 allowed names for MSG (to hide it) in British labelling.(that's how bad it is)

MSG = brain damage.

Sugar IS addictive.

Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine.

Thrust me, I'm a............

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

MSG = brain damage.

Total bollocks. Do you honestly think it would be allowed if there was a shred of real evidence?

This is from the same store as anti-vaccination stories.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs"

Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs

Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control. "

I agree, but also disagree.

It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors.

It's cheaper than putting out a fire.

Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs

Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control.

I agree, but also disagree.

It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors.

It's cheaper than putting out a fire.

Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive... "

Will it stop people though? I took kids to McDonald’s Saturday and noticed on the receipt

next to the c#ke it said sugar tax added. Will anyone really say no you can’t have that im not paying that extra 5p or whatever it is!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *urtyGentMan over a year ago

eastleigh

"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs

Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control.

I agree, but also disagree.

It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors.

It's cheaper than putting out a fire.

Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive... "

Is the sugar the problem though? Seems misdirected to me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs

Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control.

I agree, but also disagree.

It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors.

It's cheaper than putting out a fire.

Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive...

Is the sugar the problem though? Seems misdirected to me

It's certainly not the whole problem, and probably will only be effective for a smallish percentage of the population.

However, it acts as a talking point and brings the subject to the fore again.

And even a small percent is a win worth having.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As always, a proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut, as seems the case these days, the masses are penalised because of a few. I drink full fat because I like it, but 2 litres will last almost a week not half a day. Rather than tax me and other sensible people would it not be better to educate those that drink excessive amounts?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *urtyGentMan over a year ago

eastleigh

"As always, a proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut, as seems the case these days, the masses are penalised because of a few. I drink full fat because I like it, but 2 litres will last almost a week not half a day. Rather than tax me and other sensible people would it not be better to educate those that drink excessive amounts?"

I’m a big believer in education. Trouble is lots of people either don’t want to learn or simply believe that their body is somehow different to everyone else. I switched from *full fat * to Pepsi max. 2 bottles of was 600cals. 2 bottles of Pepsi was fewer than 10. It’s not rocket science to see which was going to be better for me losing weight. Nothing to do with the sugar at all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

It's not one or the other. The sugar tax is not the only tool government is using. Education is another. In fact the tax is supposed to help with the other tasks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

MSG = brain damage.

Total bollocks. Do you honestly think it would be allowed if there was a shred of real evidence?

This is from the same store as anti-vaccination stories. "

Isn’t that a bit like saying “Do you honestly think smoking would be allowed if there was a shred of real evidence it cause lung cancer?”?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Don't get me started on sweeteners - the next disease inducing, multi-million pound con "

Do you know that Aspartame is the most highly investigated consumable chemical in America..

It may be the world, I can’t quite remember but definitely in US..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uke OzadeMan over a year ago

Ho Chi Minge City

I personally think that Sugar Tax was one of the finest albums Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark ever made. They saw it coming heh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Busy body bastards place is turning into demolition man world i fine you 1 credit for eating a whisper

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"The government need to stop hitting the working man with taxes.

If the stuff us there we will buy it.

Bring in legislation to stop manufacturers putting sugar into everything and then we can't buy it.

Or maybe I'm just cynical?"

But if they did that, people really would complain about a nanny state. Something like the extra tax, which is only a few pence on a for example, hardly hits the working man that much. And if it does maybe it would incentivise to switch to Diet Coke.

I think you are being cynical to a degree. Given that tax is spent on the NHS, then it’s contributing to healthcare that may be caused by diet.

It’s a hard balance for a government to get right. If diet is a factor in health issues, then that will incite healthcare costs. If they ban stuff outright, they get criticised for being a nanny state. If they do nothing, then what happens when when there is a spike in diet related illness that needs to be covered by the health services?

Something like this which doesn’t ban anything, but both acts as an incentive for people to think about their diet more, and raises a bit of additional tax revenue, seems about the best compromise.

Sometimes it seems too easy for people to complain about things like this, rather than just take a bit of personal responsibility. The 5p charge for carrier bags was a good example of that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uke OzadeMan over a year ago

Ho Chi Minge City

"Busy body bastards place is turning into demolition man world i fine you 1 credit for eating a whisper"

Some people would be guilty of a murder/death/kill for a chocolate bar...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs"

How exactly are you being wrapped in cotton wool though?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

Hmm, i dunno. This all sounds like body shaming to me. Aren't people supposed to be proud of how fat they are these days?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs

Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control.

I agree, but also disagree.

It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors.

It's cheaper than putting out a fire.

Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive...

Will it stop people though? I took kids to McDonald’s Saturday and noticed on the receipt

next to the c#ke it said sugar tax added. Will anyone really say no you can’t have that im not paying that extra 5p or whatever it is!"

This is the thing. The answer almost always will be “probably not”. But it still doesn’t stop people from complaining about how hard this hits “the working man”.

You can’t have your c*ke and eat it!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ourayloversCouple over a year ago

chesterfield

Yes,

The amount of sugar that manufacturers add to foods/drinks is obscene !

Same applies for salt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Depends which way you look at it for me sugar tax is good because I love full fat Coke they won't change there recipe so get hit with sugar tax so all they have done is lowered the price so now I can buy it cheaper than it was before 39 p a can or if bye in bulk as little as 28 p even a litre bottle now only a quid less tax now than before

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs

Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control.

I agree, but also disagree.

It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors.

It's cheaper than putting out a fire.

Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive...

Is the sugar the problem though? Seems misdirected to me"

Sugar is a massive problem. There is quite a lot out there now about how they knew all along, but the sugar industry managed to point the finger at fat.

Turns out that sugar is a much bigger problem than we were led to believe, and fat isn’t as big a problem as we were led to believe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Kinda ruins the line "gimme some sugar baby" when the reply is "that'll be 32p please"

The evil dead is now ruined

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

Corn syrup was the beginning of the end. Twice as sweet as cane sugar. The developers thought it was brilliant because you only needed half as much. But the producers soon realised if you added more than you needed, people lapped it up like cats on cream.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uke OzadeMan over a year ago

Ho Chi Minge City

So all the manufacturers have done is to reduce the size of the products and still charge the same price as before and the majority are none the wiser.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice "

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Hmm, i dunno. This all sounds like body shaming to me. Aren't people supposed to be proud of how fat they are these days?"

Do you ever say anything nice?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?"

There are way healthier choices that cost less and are better for you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tella HeelsTV/TS over a year ago

west here ford shire

Yes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?"

Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS?

Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No imo its not a good idea things I used to enjoy as a treat are no longer the same and ruined I used to buy original lucozade that was my favourite drink until the sugar tax and they changed the recipe to suit and now its horrible not the same

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No imo its not a good idea things I used to enjoy as a treat are no longer the same and ruined I used to buy original lucozade that was my favourite drink until the sugar tax and they changed the recipe to suit and now its horrible not the same "

I agree with the lucozade.. although it’s the only thing I have a problem with them changing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?

Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS?

Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax?"

Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?

Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS?

Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax?

Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people?"

You can eat without eating sugary foods...

I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Oh but I don’t think they should change recipes! Or at least keep the original (eg and Diet Coke etc)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?

Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS?

Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax?

Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people?

You can eat without eating sugary foods...

I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat."

How much weight has it helped you lose? Or, how much extra does it cost you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?

Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS?

Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax?

Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people?"

That would be a better point of all sugar content was subject to the additional tax. Healthy people who consume sugar in modicum aren’t really affected by it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

So far all im seeing is another tax on the poor or weak of will. If you're comfortable financially you won't care. 20 fags might cost 10 quid, but it's not gonna stop those with no money buying them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Tax is just money collected by the government to do government style shit with. It would be ironic if the tax collected under the sugar tax logo was in turn spent on nuclear missiles, or the next equivalent of promoting diesel over petrol.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

"Tax is just money collected by the government to do government style shit with. It would be ironic if the tax collected under the sugar tax logo was in turn spent on nuclear missiles, or the next equivalent of promoting diesel over petrol.

Interesting point. I wonder if it goes towards anything useful?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?

Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS?

Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax?

Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people?

You can eat without eating sugary foods...

I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat.

How much weight has it helped you lose? Or, how much extra does it cost you?"

When I do diet, I low carb. I do think that sugar is damaging to health. But I don’t agree with the sugar tax for my own personal reasons. I’m a fatty with the capacity to choose to pay the price (in both a fiscal and health sense) for my sugar.

I agree with it because evidence (WHO) shows taxation of cigarettes has been a highly effective public health strategy. And those are rare!

Diabetes and obesity cost the NHS. Taxation helps keep the NHS afloat. Long live the NHS.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?

Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS?

Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax?

Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people?

You can eat without eating sugary foods...

I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat.

How much weight has it helped you lose? Or, how much extra does it cost you?

I agree with it because evidence (WHO) shows taxation of cigarettes has been a highly effective public health strategy. And those are rare!

Diabetes and obesity cost the NHS. Taxation helps keep the NHS afloat. Long live the NHS.

Sugar, in excess, is damaging to health. And teeth obviously!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?

Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS?

Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax?

Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people?

You can eat without eating sugary foods...

I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat.

How much weight has it helped you lose? Or, how much extra does it cost you?

I agree with it because evidence (WHO) shows taxation of cigarettes has been a highly effective public health strategy. And those are rare!

Diabetes and obesity cost the NHS. Taxation helps keep the NHS afloat. Long live the NHS.

Sugar, in excess, is damaging to health. And teeth obviously!

[Fill in the blank], in excess, is damaging to your health.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice

I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?

Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS?

Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax?

Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people?

You can eat without eating sugary foods...

I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat.

How much weight has it helped you lose? Or, how much extra does it cost you?

I agree with it because evidence (WHO) shows taxation of cigarettes has been a highly effective public health strategy. And those are rare!

Diabetes and obesity cost the NHS. Taxation helps keep the NHS afloat. Long live the NHS.

Sugar, in excess, is damaging to health. And teeth obviously!

[Fill in the blank], in excess, is damaging to your health. "

I'm fully in support of the cauliflower tax.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Cauliflower is what’s really wrong with society

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They are planning to introduce it more so to the younger ones to keep them healthy, how would it work?"

are they going to put tax on my sweetness

still at least mine is pure

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

"Cauliflower is what’s really wrong with society"

Hear hear!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Cauliflower is what’s really wrong with society

Hear hear!"

Too much Cauliflower will kill you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No ffs sake you'll be taxed to walk the streets one day

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Good sugar tits everyone

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No ffs sake you'll be taxed to walk the streets one day "

They shall have to legalise streetwalking before taxing it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensual mMan over a year ago

conwy

That big egoed (there are more words to describe him but im polite)jamie oliver first mentioned this a few years ago and the powers that be put it into practice . Hes to blame for it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I have done a new thread we can continue on

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)