Sugar tax

[Raine Man]

My mum often tells me of how rare it was to see an obese person during her childhood - she remembers eating mainly good old-fashioned stodge, stuff that dieticians would be aghast at nowadays. However (by her recollection) there was no processed junk between these meals, and things like chocolate were a real treat. Food was based more on proteins, fats and natural carbohydrates than processed sugar. People had more active lifestyles, even those doing office jobs would still have to mow the lawn, wash the car and go for a family walk. Now we have block paving, car washes and Sky TV. No matter how they package it, you can't escape the old 'eat less & move more' adage, but whether a levy on sugar is going to address the calorie issue remains to be seen.

[simoid]

Sooo... is fruit juice getting taxed too? And concentrated diluting juice? So the government will be advising us to get "5 a day" but taxing us because it's bad if one is OJ

[RobDickinson]

grumbledoak said:

Refined sugar is actually pretty evil stuff

Sugar is sugar, in whatever form its the same thing. sugar in fruit = sugar in drink.

its this weeks bad boy of food though.

[Smollet]

This new tax will do fk all to address the unhealthy eating habits of the masses. It wil just mean that people will spend more. Taxing cigarettes hasn't exactly cut out that habit.

[Moonhawk]

Raine Man said:

My mum often tells me of how rare it was to see an obese person during her childhood...

Yeh why - because we fking walked/cycled everywhere. I used to walk to school and back alone (around 1 mile) from age 7. Summer evenings and holidays were spent out on my bike or skateboard - in the park or over the fields.

I was sent to school every day with a packed lunch and used to sell it to other kids - so I could buy chocolate and kendal mint cake.

I was thin as a rake until I hit my late 20s - and only filled out because I got a desk job.

What has changed IMO is the media hype around abductions, paedos etc - so much so that parents now will not let their kids out of their sight. They are ferried to school by car and are chaperoned everywhere....not because of any greater risk - but because of the parents aversion to it.

Despite being a fail article - this illustrates perfectly what the problem is IMO (and ironically - they are probably responsible for a large part of this loss of freedom):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How...

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th March 00:24

[Hoofy]

I agree - I had some pretty awful eating habits about 5 years ago and as a consequence was starting to get a bit tubby (nothing you would notice unless you really looked but enough for me to be unhappy with). I was also only doing proper physical activities once or twice a week.

While dramatically increasing my activity, I tidied up my eating act for about 2 years but for the last 3 years I've gone back to eating crisps and drinking cider. After a heavy meal, I'll eat a packet of crisps and/or a chocolate bar (bad habit, I know). But I can still flex a six pack because I have kept up with the activity. Mind you, at 44, I have my young age on my side.

[grumbledoak]

RobDickinson said:

Sugar is sugar, in whatever form its the same thing. sugar in fruit = sugar in drink.

its this weeks bad boy of food though.

True at the chemical level, but misleading in this context.

Liquid sugar is far more quickly absorbed than that in fruit; fruit juices are the same as colas.
Naturally occurring sugar in fruit is more slowly absorbed, though sadly we have bred all these foods to be sweeter than they naturally were.
Though we use beet and corn now, sugar in it's original raw form is a stick! Most people would not recognise it,let alone chew it.

[ambuletz]

would a sugar tax really deter a kid from a 60p can of coke? No, they'll buy themselves the can of 'emerge' energy drink for 39p instead. even then coke now sell smaller 200ml bottles (that look like red bull cans) for 50p. terrible.

I remember when you could buy those tiny cans from woolworths for about 14p, perfect packed lunch drink for a kid. (except not really, because nobody likes a warm coke, so ribena it was instead)

[RobDickinson]

He's trying to force this onto the agenda here in new Zealand now too...

[wiggy001]

Robertj21a said:

At least, once it's introduced, it will be quite easy to steadily increase the tax. I see no problem anyway, it will help to curb obesity and raise indirect tax - where's the problem ?

The problem for me is that it is the nanny state telling (or trying to tell) us what we can and can't do.

As already mentioned, there wasn't an obesity epidemic when I was a kid (I'm 37) because kids got a lot more exercise and weren't driven everywhere in mummy's 4x4. I bet most people my age can remember the fat kid from school because there were so few back then; his name was Joe and he had diabetes in my class - this was back in 1985-1990 and I still remember him because he stood out.

Unfortunately, in today's blame culture, everything is someone else's fault. How about parents take some fking responsibility for their kids and encourage exercise whilst discouraging them from shoving buckets of crap down their throats? Why do parents need to government to "encourage" them to be good parents?

[PositronicRay]

Moonhawk said:

What has changed IMO is the media hype around abductions, paedos etc - so much so that parents now will not let their kids out of their sight. They are ferried to school by car and are chaperoned everywhere....not because of any greater risk - but because of the parents aversion to it.

Despite being a fail article - this illustrates perfectly what the problem is IMO (and ironically - they are probably responsible for a large part of this loss of freedom):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How...

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th March 00:24

There is this. Local school to me packed roads @ school time. However it's traffic as well.

I had a look on street view of my route to school. About 40 mins walk or a bus (I used to walk and spend the bus money, my folks were cool with this) 1/2 mile of the walk was up a narrow lane with no footpaths. I'm not sure I'd be happy about my offspring using that route twice a day. It's a short cut that gets busy @ peak times, people treat it as a race track.

[Adam Ansel]

This is a chav tax. Educated people avoid products with added sugar. Teagan and Hunter need to be weaned off the stuff, we have an obesity epidemic. Obviously this is the thin end of the wedge, the rate and scope will be ramped up in future years.

[Gecko1978]

wiggy001 said:

Robertj21a said:

At least, once it's introduced, it will be quite easy to steadily increase the tax. I see no problem anyway, it will help to curb obesity and raise indirect tax - where's the problem ?

The problem for me is that it is the nanny state telling (or trying to tell) us what we can and can't do.

As already mentioned, there wasn't an obesity epidemic when I was a kid (I'm 37) because kids got a lot more exercise and weren't driven everywhere in mummy's 4x4. I bet most people my age can remember the fat kid from school because there were so few back then; his name was Joe and he had diabetes in my class - this was back in 1985-1990 and I still remember him because he stood out.

Unfortunately, in today's blame culture, everything is someone else's fault. How about parents take some fking responsibility for their kids and encourage exercise whilst discouraging them from shoving buckets of crap down their throats? Why do parents need to government to "encourage" them to be good parents?

same age as you and yes there was a "fat kid" just the one and he was also a bully hence being fat I think was always as a child a negative thing not due to looks but because fat kids were mean.

Now at 37 an 6ft I was at the GP with my son and had to be weighed to work out his weight (he is a healthy 14 kilos). The GP however took my weight and said time for a diet daddy hint hint as I was 100kg or about 16 stone. 3 months down the line I am 87kg and still loosing weight....all I did was stoped snacking between meals and avoided anything with high sugar content. I have never drunk full fat coke I prefer the taste of diet.

I also find I like going to the gym an exercising more now i fell less tubby (still some way to go). Its easy to ;imit sugar an calories everythig you buy has a guide on it just eat less.

Ask yourself this could you with your partner eat a large pizza (I know I can) yet they are recommended for a group of 4, then on tp you have garlic bread and wedges and maybe a couple of beers...now work out the calories in that...Elvis was not so unusual after all lol.

Sugar tax is fine as you can avoid it and if you dont want to think of it as paying for health care up front.

[WestyCarl]

wiggy001 said:

The problem for me is that it is the nanny state telling (or trying to tell) us what we can and can't do.

Why do parents need to government to "encourage" them to be good parents?

But it's the "nanny state" that will (and currently is) picking up the tab for peoples obesity. I'm all for people having a free choice but when that choice affects or costs society there needs to be some impact for the choice.

[Einion Yrth]

WestyCarl said:

wiggy001 said:

The problem for me is that it is the nanny state telling (or trying to tell) us what we can and can't do.

Why do parents need to government to "encourage" them to be good parents?

But it's the "nanny state" that will (and currently is) picking up the tab for peoples obesity. I'm all for people having a free choice but when that choice affects or costs society there needs to be some impact for the choice.

And right there is the downside of a socialised health service; all of a sudden, since nanny has a financial stake, nanny can almost legitimately start ordering people about.

[RemyMartin]

What genuinely annoys me is that some things will have a recipe change now...so we lose out because some people cant control themselves.

God I love a dark chocolate bounty every now and again...and irn bru

[chris watton]

Einion Yrth said:

And right there is the downside of a socialised health service; all of a sudden, since nanny has a financial stake, nanny can almost legitimately start ordering people about.

It's a shame that those of us who use the Nanny State the least cannot have some kind of rebate!

[WestyCarl]

Einion Yrth said:

WestyCarl said:

wiggy001 said:

The problem for me is that it is the nanny state telling (or trying to tell) us what we can and can't do.

Why do parents need to government to "encourage" them to be good parents?

But it's the "nanny state" that will (and currently is) picking up the tab for peoples obesity. I'm all for people having a free choice but when that choice affects or costs society there needs to be some impact for the choice.

And right there is the downside of a socialised health service; all of a sudden, since nanny has a financial stake, nanny can almost legitimately start ordering people about.

Or people can take responsibility at both ends. Either live healthily or make provision for the potential downsides if you choose not too.

[Otispunkmeyer]

grumbledoak said:

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.

Indeed. In fact I watched a program about this kind of thing... Sugar on its own, your body basically knows when its had enough. Fat on its own illicits the same response. But mixed together sugar and fat seems to switch something off in our heads and we can't get enough of it. I for one will own up to buying a 200 g bar of Dairy Milk the other day and once I opened it it was long before I'd scoffed the lot! Yesterday I came back from the shop with a packet of Choco Leibniz (dark), all gone today. fking delicious.

I'd be a balloon if I also didn't have a) a high metabolism and b) hadn't been and still am a competitive swimmer a do loads of training. I do try to not go mad on that kind of stuff. I'll manage it for a fortnight or so, then cave and demolish a bag of Haribo or something. But I have now gotten off putting sugar in a cup of tea.

Sugary drinks should be the start, as you say, its basically a direct shot of processed sugar to the body. But processed sugar is in all sorts of other stuff, including supposedly healthy cereals and other "healthy" options.


I heard also something about making school kids do a mandatory 1 mile run every day (can just see the confetti of doctors notes now). I guess its a start but a mile run? jeeze you can walk it in 15 minutes.... hardly enough time to get some decent activity in. They want PT style circuits or something or you know, actually go learn and play a sport. Its a good job I was already well into swimming because at my school if you didn't like footy or indoor quik-cricket, you were stuffed. Teachers too bone idle to do anything else.

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 17th March 09:47

[Einion Yrth]

WestyCarl said:

Einion Yrth said:

WestyCarl said:

wiggy001 said:

The problem for me is that it is the nanny state telling (or trying to tell) us what we can and can't do.

Why do parents need to government to "encourage" them to be good parents?

But it's the "nanny state" that will (and currently is) picking up the tab for peoples obesity. I'm all for people having a free choice but when that choice affects or costs society there needs to be some impact for the choice.

And right there is the downside of a socialised health service; all of a sudden, since nanny has a financial stake, nanny can almost legitimately start ordering people about.

Or people can take responsibility at both ends. Either live healthily or make provision for the potential downsides if you choose not too.

Except that the point that wiggy001 was making was that nanny won't let you do that.