Sugar tax

[grumbledoak]

simoid said:

Enforce a minimum price for snacks and a maximum price for fruit & veg this (quite) free market malarkey is overrated.

^^^ I am quite sure this sort of ste is what they will do, cheered on by all the industries I mentioned above, and others.


There is no hope for government intervention or advice. Our obesity and diabetes epidemics really took off after the government introduced dietary "advice" - the food pyramid, the various Eat Well Plates. They are just advertising in disguise, and that was before the government gave itself a financial motive. The only hope is for individuals to learn to ignore the official advice.

[makaveli144]

HTP99 said:

What's perplexed me with this sugar tax is, when it was implemented a litre bottle of Coke in Sainsbury's was £1.65 (I actually don't know what it was pre "sugar tax" as I never took any notice), a month or so later it went down to £1 "on offer" and has remained so, in Aldi its the same price and my local One Stop was doing it for £1.50 or £2 for 2.

What's that all about?

Edited by HTP99 on Sunday 24th June 21:01

I know i'm late to the thread. But the tax is paid at point of manufacture, so doesn't have to be passed onto the consumer. It also means that some companies then imported to avoid the tax, anyone seen the American Fanta flavours?

[tangerine_sedge]

grumbledoak said:

simoid said:

Enforce a minimum price for snacks and a maximum price for fruit & veg this (quite) free market malarkey is overrated.

^^^ I am quite sure this sort of ste is what they will do, cheered on by all the industries I mentioned above, and others.


There is no hope for government intervention or advice. Our obesity and diabetes epidemics really took off after the government introduced dietary "advice" - the food pyramid, the various Eat Well Plates. They are just advertising in disguise, and that was before the government gave itself a financial motive. The only hope is for individuals to learn to ignore the official advice.

Am I missing a whoosh parrot and this is biting satire, or are you really that stupid?

The advice was/is being given because clever people in white coats with spectacles and clipboards did some special kind of really difficult maths called statistical analysis which indicated that diabetes and other health problems were going to increase in the population because people were eating too much 'st'. The fact that they started the health campaigns before things got worse is good, the fact that most people haven't changed their diet is bad.

[Mrr T]

tangerine_sedge said:

Am I missing a whoosh parrot and this is biting satire, or are you really that stupid?

The advice was/is being given because clever people in white coats with spectacles and clipboards did some special kind of really difficult maths called statistical analysis which indicated that diabetes and other health problems were going to increase in the population because people were eating too much 'st'. The fact that they started the health campaigns before things got worse is good, the fact that most people haven't changed their diet is bad.

I have never seen a statistician in a white coat or holding a clip board. Some may wear glasses.

Statistics is not complex but its results should be treated with caution. My first statistics lecturer made us read this

https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-...

[grumbledoak]

tangerine_sedge said:

Am I missing a whoosh parrot and this is biting satire, or are you really that stupid?

The advice was/is being given because clever people in white coats with spectacles and clipboards did some special kind of really difficult maths called statistical analysis which indicated that diabetes and other health problems were going to increase in the population because people were eating too much 'st'. The fact that they started the health campaigns before things got worse is good, the fact that most people haven't changed their diet is bad.

Ah, a representative of "The Anointed", I presume. Complete with cliche imagery of trustworthy clever old scientists in white lab coats. Except your story doesn't match the history. It matches the usual "Advice by the Anointed" tale though.

For those who don't know it, this is where a few people get themselves a reputation and a career in being educated and wise, and they proceed to give advice. After all, that's what wise people do. But they give bad advice, and people follow it, with damaging or disastrous consequences. Now anyone can see that we have no use for people who give bad advice. So the truth becomes an existential threat, or at least a career threat. So the advice *must* be right. And the people *must* be ignoring the advice, or not following it correctly. Normally with a good dose of "because they are stupid" thrown in (see above). And they double down on the same bad advice.

Does anyone remember when your "five a day" was "three a day"?

And the same has been true of
- fat is bad
- saturated fat is very bad
- cholesterol is bad
- salt is bad

All "supported by clever old scientists" we were told. But in fact the public would have been better off doing the exact opposite of the advice.

Yes, finally they are looking at sugar, and you should be cutting it out except in an occasional desert. But the Eat Well Plate is still there - a high carb, low fat, low protein disaster zone. The basic -bad - advice is still there. And they won't be changing it in your lifetime.

[gregs656]

Personally I think this theory of ‘blame the govt’ relies on the idea that anyone pays any kind of notice to this kind of advice.

Given that there is an obesity problem in many countries with varying dietary advice I am not convinced.

I think people just like to eat junk food.

[Down and out]

I'm just pissed off that Frosties are turning into Corn flakes.

[grumbledoak]

gregs656 said:

Personally I think this theory of ‘blame the govt’ relies on the idea that anyone pays any kind of notice to this kind of advice.

Given that there is an obesity problem in many countries with varying dietary advice I am not convinced.

I think people just like to eat junk food.

You can find the changes in people's aggregate food intakes if you go looking. People are eating less fat, less saturated fat, more "vegetable" seed oils, less red meat, more chicken. Steady declines and increases over the last half of the 20th century. They are following the advice. And it is killing them.

[Plymo]

grumbledoak said:

You can find the changes in people's aggregate food intakes if you go looking. People are eating less fat, less saturated fat, more "vegetable" seed oils, less red meat, more chicken. Steady declines and increases over the last half of the 20th century. They are following the advice. And it is killing them.

What sort of foods should we be eating more/less of then?
I've seen quite a bit about how high carbohydrate diets are unhealthy and so on but there is probably more misinformation and fads about diet than pretty much anything else!

[simoid]

I think it’s probably more down to us being lazy bds these days as much as diet.

[gregs656]

grumbledoak said:

You can find the changes in people's aggregate food intakes if you go looking. People are eating less fat, less saturated fat, more "vegetable" seed oils, less red meat, more chicken. Steady declines and increases over the last half of the 20th century. They are following the advice. And it is killing them.

I have no doubt that you can find the changes, but your assertion is that it is because of some specific advice from the govt and not the massive advertising campaigns that have pushed low cost high margin foods.

[JagLover]

grumbledoak said:

You can find the changes in people's aggregate food intakes if you go looking. People are eating less fat, less saturated fat, more "vegetable" seed oils, less red meat, more chicken. Steady declines and increases over the last half of the 20th century. They are following the advice. And it is killing them.

You are undoubtedly right that it is government advice to do most of the above, but why is eating more chicken likely to kill them?. As far as I am aware it is a healthy source of protein?

[Dr Jekyll]

grumbledoak said:

Yes, finally they are looking at sugar, and you should be cutting it out except in an occasional desert.

So how often can we eat fruit?

[grumbledoak]

gregs656 said:

I have no doubt that you can find the changes, but your assertion is that it is because of some specific advice from the govt and not the massive advertising campaigns that have pushed low cost high margin foods.

What do you think this is?




To spell it out - my point is that "specific advice from the govt" and "massive advertising campaigns that have pushed low cost high margin foods" are exactly the same thing.

Edited by grumbledoak on Sunday 22 September 07:57

[grumbledoak]

JagLover said:

You are undoubtedly right that it is government advice to do most of the above, but why is eating more chicken likely to kill them?. As far as I am aware it is a healthy source of protein?

Why would you think that? And to be clear I didn't say "eating more chicken is likely to kill" anyone.

Not being facetious. We have been told that red meat is bad, fat is bad, and saturated fat is bad over and over and over, so we conclude that chicken is more healthy than beef. But is it true? Do you think protein is protein is protein, and fat is fat is fat, like a calorie is a calorie is a calorie? Because of course none of those are true. The nutritional composition of chicken is very different from that of beef. The protein component is fine. The fats are very different though.

But we're getting off sugar.

[grumbledoak]

Dr Jekyll said:

So how often can we eat fruit?

I'm not here to replace bad government advice with bad internet advice!

Don't fall for the "it's natral innit" bollards. There is a lot more sugar in modern fruit than the stuff we evolved eating. And we could only eat it when it was in season. If we lived in the right countries.



15g sugar or so. Treat it as a desert - eat them occasionally.

[Earthdweller]

We need a war

There were no fat people during the war years

Bring back rationing I say

Vote Corbyn and get it

[anonymous-user]

grumbledoak said:

Dr Jekyll said:

So how often can we eat fruit?

I'm not here to replace bad government advice with bad internet advice!

Don't fall for the "it's natral innit" bollards. There is a lot more sugar in modern fruit than the stuff we evolved eating. And we could only eat it when it was in season. If we lived in the right countries.



15g sugar or so. Treat it as a desert - eat them occasionally.

Most research concludes that, overall, a banana is a good thing to have regularly, and that the sugar content is fine as long as our diet isn’t supplemented by sugar in drinks, cakes, chocolate etc.

[Hoofy]

Earthdweller said:

We need a war

There were no fat people during the war years

Bring back rationing I say

Vote Corbyn and get it

Don't worry. After we "do or die", there'll be rationing so people will lose weight. There'll also be a shortage of medicine so the weak will die off.

What do you mean, you take pills for your chronic health condition??

[Dr Jekyll]

Earthdweller said:

We need a war

There were no fat people during the war years

Bring back rationing I say

Vote Corbyn and get it

Ironically the calories from WW2 rations were far more than we are supposed to eat now.