Discussion
Big-up for w_w.
Dr Jekyll said:
http://www.channel4.com/news/how-sweet-is-our-love...
Your last comment fascinates me. Not only do you regard profit as bad, you assume food profits are for some bizarre reason in US$, which apparently makes it even worse.
Fascinated for wrong reasons, I am fascinated by that. I do not regard profit as bad, that would be bizarre. But avarice at inducing people to be gluttonous, not keen on that. Your last comment fascinates me. Not only do you regard profit as bad, you assume food profits are for some bizarre reason in US$, which apparently makes it even worse.
And you may use whichever denomination makes you feel special.
Interesting link, thank you.
"In the last 30 years or so, sugar consumption crept back down. During that period, it was highest in 1982, when Britons were eating around 42 kilos of refined sugar per head per year, but it fell by 10 per cent, or around 4 kilos, during 1980 to 2000.
Yet, though we are taking less sugar in our tea or coffee, and sprinkle less over our cereals, we are consuming more sugar because people are eating more processed foods. So many people do not actually know how much sugar they are eating."
Less refined sugar in tea, but more refined sugar added into in processed foods. As discussed above.
Edited by Halb on Wednesday 2nd December 09:32
woowahwoo said:
'Induced to gluttony'? They are not.
My POV is by loading processed meals with sugar to induce the bliss point, it is leading in that direction. Since that helps to switch off certain triggers that say, 'I'm full.'Just my view though.
There was a great show a while back with the twin doctors (they've done a few), and they did research on the 'bliss point', the combo of fat and sugar to make people over-consume, it was most interesting. It's just how we are wired.
chris watton said:
I do not believe for a second that 'our' sugar consumption has gone down at all. I'd wager it's risen alarmingly, as most do not know the sugar content of most foods, even foods that you wouldn't think had sugar content!
woowahwoo said:
I remember such a program from a few years ago, where twin doctors visited a 'inuit'-culture in Russia. Is that the same one? It was a brilliant program, most notable for the twin who reduced his cholesterol levels very quickly (more quickly that medical knowledge thought possible) by eating the traditional diet high in saturated fats, such as whale/seal meat. I am recalling from memory, of one viewing, so take this with a pinch of salt (or not).
The food and drink industry sell to customer preferences. Personally, I find most of what the (larger companies) sell to be far too sweet, especially things like cake and biscuits, which I presume use sugar to extend shelf-life (amongst other things like improving colour and texture). We can't continue to offload the responsibilities away from the parent or individual. Prescriptive rules for all instead of acting on the deed is not fair and not efficient.
THat sounds familiar. These Twin doctors have made various programmes about diet/vitimins. It might be The Ruth About '' series, not sure.The food and drink industry sell to customer preferences. Personally, I find most of what the (larger companies) sell to be far too sweet, especially things like cake and biscuits, which I presume use sugar to extend shelf-life (amongst other things like improving colour and texture). We can't continue to offload the responsibilities away from the parent or individual. Prescriptive rules for all instead of acting on the deed is not fair and not efficient.
I find some stuff too sweet too, and I have a sweet tooth. Not sure if it's the artificial sweeteners the sugar is being upped, or a combo.
Just tax all transport costs on an individuals BMI. Plane, train, bus, petrol etc etc is all related to a persons BMI.
The fatter they are the more it costs to move them around so the more tax they pay. Would encourage people to keep slim and help towards global warming at the same time. The real fatties that can't afford to pay the additional tax would have to walk thereby slimming them down.
When the obese kid cost an extra fiver a week to transport to school. Council mum would soon have him slimmed down or go without another packet of fags.
As the overweight family couldn't any longer afford their 2 weeks in the Costa's the Brits would also appear to be a more attractive bunch to the rest of the world.
Admittedly the charging system would take a bit of working through but as you're physically molested every time you get on a plane that wouldn't be difficult as would adding a BMI number to a photo travel card. The car fuel costs would be a bit harder I admit.
The fatter they are the more it costs to move them around so the more tax they pay. Would encourage people to keep slim and help towards global warming at the same time. The real fatties that can't afford to pay the additional tax would have to walk thereby slimming them down.
When the obese kid cost an extra fiver a week to transport to school. Council mum would soon have him slimmed down or go without another packet of fags.
As the overweight family couldn't any longer afford their 2 weeks in the Costa's the Brits would also appear to be a more attractive bunch to the rest of the world.
Admittedly the charging system would take a bit of working through but as you're physically molested every time you get on a plane that wouldn't be difficult as would adding a BMI number to a photo travel card. The car fuel costs would be a bit harder I admit.
BlackLabel said:
Not a good day for soft drink firms as Osborne unveils a sugar tax.
Just an excuse to raise more revenue. A genuine effort would simply have set legal levels of sugar, with no tax penalty. In any case given the negligible effect food labelling, especially with regards to fat, had on obesity it won't make any difference.
But, again, that wasn't the point.
REALIST123 said:
Just an excuse to raise more revenue. A genuine effort would simply have set legal levels of sugar, with no tax penalty.
In any case given the negligible effect food labelling, especially with regards to fat, had on obesity it won't make any difference.
But, again, that wasn't the point.
Agreed. It was quite a simple option for Osborne.In any case given the negligible effect food labelling, especially with regards to fat, had on obesity it won't make any difference.
But, again, that wasn't the point.
TV celeb chef, loads of support, everyone worried about obesity levels. Put a tax on sugar and appear to care about the public. More revenue for the coffers. It's a no-brainer as the Americans say.
It's just a revenue raiser. If it was about sugar it wouldn't have been constructed this way.
The companies wont care too much as they have such a broad range of products anyway, there's all sorts of scope for varying the prices (which are seriously distorted anyway) plus the main players in the market (i.e. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola) are also the owners of all the main fruit juice brands so still get the benefit of any displaced sales on a product that isn't getting taxed extra.
The only loser is the public getting another half billion taken from their pockets.
But as said still lots of time for challenges behind the scenes and for this to disappear...
The companies wont care too much as they have such a broad range of products anyway, there's all sorts of scope for varying the prices (which are seriously distorted anyway) plus the main players in the market (i.e. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola) are also the owners of all the main fruit juice brands so still get the benefit of any displaced sales on a product that isn't getting taxed extra.
The only loser is the public getting another half billion taken from their pockets.
But as said still lots of time for challenges behind the scenes and for this to disappear...
REALIST123 said:
In any case given the negligible effect food labelling, especially with regards to fat, had on obesity it won't make any difference.
The demonization of fat these last fifty years has been misguided. Yes it is very energy dense, but if you give someone a pat of butter to eat, then offer them another one twenty minutes later, they probably won't accept. Try that with chocolate, very different result.Sugary drinks are the worst in one way - being the most quickly absorbed form of glucose and entirely nutrition-free extra calories to boot.
That said, I don't think this alone will make anyone thinner. Basically any pre-prepared solid food is rammed with the stuff. And those so-called "coffees" - milkshakes more like - that people seem intent on lugging about with them are rammed with it too.
grumbledoak said:
The demonization of fat these last fifty years has been misguided. Yes it is very energy dense, but if you give someone a pat of butter to eat, then offer them another twenty minutes later, they probably won't accept. Try that with chocolate, very different result.
Sugary drinks are the worst in one way - being the most quickly absorbed form of glucose and entirely nutrition-free extra calories to boot.
That said, I don't think this alone will make anyone thinner. Basically any pre-prepared solid food is rammed with the stuff. And those so-called "coffees" - milkshakes more like - that people seem intent on lugging about with them are rammed with it too.
Sugar's fine if you're about to spend an hour or so of intense physical training, not so fine if all you do all day is either sit at your desk or in front of the TV.Sugary drinks are the worst in one way - being the most quickly absorbed form of glucose and entirely nutrition-free extra calories to boot.
That said, I don't think this alone will make anyone thinner. Basically any pre-prepared solid food is rammed with the stuff. And those so-called "coffees" - milkshakes more like - that people seem intent on lugging about with them are rammed with it too.
It shouldn't be just soft drinks, though. Sugar is in foods that you wouldn't think would have it. This is just a crazy half ass measure and does not really address the problem of sugars being in almost all crappy foods, and even so called healthy options!
I do agree, this is mostly symbolic as there are so many other source. But, fizzy drinks are the poster boy, and this is a landmark change. Refined sugar is actually pretty evil stuff - an objective definition of drugs as "addictive, harmful compounds" would put it quite high up the list.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff