Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Sugar Tax


Sugar Ape
 Share

Recommended Posts

What do you reckon on this then? I've seen a few commentators saying it's yet another tax on poor people since they are more likely to be buying sugary products.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34603118

 

Sugar tax and offers ban 'would work'

 

_86270166_thinkstockphotos-533575123.jpg

 

A sugar tax and cutting buy-one-get-one-free deals are part of Public Health England's "key actions" to tackle people's addiction to sugar.

 

Their long-awaited report says the nation is "eating too much sugar" leading to health problems and obesity.

The report also called for less marketing aimed at children in-store, on TV and online.

 

A spokesman for David Cameron said the prime minister did not want to see the introduction of a sugar tax.

 

People get between 12 and 15% of their energy from sugar, but official recommendations say it should be less than 5%.

 

The report says achieving those levels could save the NHS £500m a year, but admitted no single measure would be effective.

 

It suggests:

  • A sugar tax between 10% and 20%
  • Significantly reducing advertising high sugar food and drink to children
  • Targeting supermarkets and take-away special offers
  • Sugar reduction in everyday food and drink
  • Ensure the sale of healthier foods in hospitals and other public bodies

The report attacked price promotions that distort people's shopping baskets - 40% of money spent on food and drink was on products on offer.

 

Public Health England called for a "rebalancing" of promotions with a shift away from cakes and biscuits towards healthier foods.

 

And it concluded 6% of total sugar consumption could be prevented if promotions on higher sugar products were banned.

 

_86270174_2010623_daily_added_sugar_v4.g

 

 

On the sugar tax, it said a 10% tax in Mexico resulted led to a 6% reduction in sales of sugary drinks and says a similar policy in England would cut consumption "at least in the short term".

 

Speaking to MPs on Tuesday, Dr Alison Tedstone from Public Health England said: "PHE does see there is a role for a fiscal approach in reducing sugary drink consumption.

 

"The higher the tax increase the greater the effect," she said.

 

There were also calls from the TV chef Jamie Oliver for ministers to introduce a tax on fizzy drinks saying it was the "single most important" change that could be made.

 

To tax or not to tax?

 

 

However, the report said the impact of extra taxes would be less than measures aimed at marketing and promotions.

 

It said the use of "characters" such as the Coco Pops monkey and adverts masquerading as online games were hugely influential.

 

 

And it added that end of aisle displays "significantly increase" the sale of sugary products.

 

The prime minister's spokesman has confirmed that David Cameron has not read the report and that "he doesn't see a need for a tax on sugar".

 

The government's plans for tackling childhood obesity will be released in January.

 

They had been due to be revealed in the Autumn and the sugar report was commissioned to inform the plans.

 

However, there was criticism from MPs that the sugar report was not being released as planned.

 

The sugar problem

 

_84547151_cupcakes_getty.jpg

 

  • There has been growing concern about the damaging impact of sugar on health - from the state of people's teeth to type-2 diabetes and obesity
  • Sugar has been dubbed "empty calories" because it has no nutritional benefit
  • Government advisers recommend no more than 5% of daily calories should come from sugar
  • That is about 1oz (25g; six or seven teaspoons) for an adult of normal weight every day. For children, it is slightly less
  • The limits apply to all sugars added to food, as well as sugar naturally present in syrups and honey
  • To put this in context, a typical can of fizzy drink contains about nine teaspoons of sugar

Why is sugar so addictive?

 

The doctor's union, the British Medical Association, called on the government to adopt the recommendations in the report.

 

But the Food and Drink Federation's director general, Ian Wright, said: "We do not agree that the international evidence supports the introduction of a sugar tax and for this reason would oppose such a move."

 

However, he said the industry was "determined" to help tackle childhood obesity and had already "removed millions of calories from the food chain" by changing ingredients and pack sizes.

 

Dr Julian Hamilton-Shield, from the University of Bristol, said: "No one can really doubt the harm sugar-containing drinks do to children - they rot their teeth and likely make them obese and at risk of later type 2 diabetes.

 

"If a tax is needed to reduce sugar consumption, I am right behind it, no-one complains about tobacco taxation, sugar should be treated the same way."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've slowly started cutting sugar from my diet after reading some of the reports about it lately. It's wrong to put a tax on it though. Surely it would be better for everyone if they raised awareness in schools from a young age and made sure kids ate healthy school dinners with less sugar in? You can't change this generation but you can have an impact on future generations by properly educating kids early on. There will always be fat unhealthy fuckers of course but at least people will have 'done their bit'. 

 

But then again that idea will cost the government more and foil yet another plan for them to rinse the working class. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't really know what to think about this. It's very complicated and seems to be largely a cultural problem. Countries that place significance on meals seem to generally have less of a problem. When I lived in Italy I very rarely snacked.

 

Another problem is kids eating all sorts of shit during school days. Even 15 years ago when I was at school it was fairly new that we were allowed into town at lunch, we couldn't at first break or the one in the afternoon. Now my town is a fucking no go area from 9-4 as the little cunts waddle around ploughing cheeseburgers and mars bars into themselves all day.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a good idea, to say people don't know about healthy eating in this day and age is crazy; the message Is everywhere.

 

If you only drinking 2 cans a week then the 25p isn't going to impact you much, if you drink 30 cans a week then few quid might make you think or make a,different choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a good idea, to say people don't know about healthy eating in this day and age is crazy; the message Is everywhere.

 

If you only drinking 2 cans a week then the 25p isn't going to impact you much, if you drink 30 cans a week then few quid might make you think or make a,different choice.

 

sYgj4HS.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way of making a few bob off the man in the street ,if you want to eat and drink shite all day you will if you want to look after yourself and not bother eating shite you will it's up to you.

Educate the parents of kids to eat properly from an early age and this might go along way to having a healthier population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usual bollocks. The media terrifies people into keeping their kids indoors for fear of rampaging paedophiles so they don't get any exercise, them bombards them with adverts for shite - to the point where even the likes of the world cup and Olympics are sponsored by McDonalds and coke - then blame people for being overweight and penalise them.

 

Good food should be subsidised by the government. If I forget my lunch I've got a choice of two pasties for a quid or a sandwich from boots which costs about eight grand. It should be the other way around.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's bullshit. Alright for Jamie Oliver and his 300 million quid. Educate kids, regulate companies use of sugar. Tory cunts want people to live in huts and eat turnips and be fucking happy about it, leave nice things to high born,  the favela loving fucks.

What are you on about, the government have said they aren't implementing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usual bollocks. The media terrifies people into keeping their kids indoors for fear of rampaging paedophiles so they don't get any exercise, them bombards them with adverts for shite - to the point where even the likes of the world cup and Olympics are sponsored by McDonalds and coke - then blame people for being overweight and penalise them.

 

Good food should be subsidised by the government. If I forget my lunch I've got a choice of two pasties for a quid or a sandwich from boots which costs about eight grand. It should be the other way around.

 

Nailed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I forget my lunch I've got a choice of two pasties for a quid or a sandwich from boots which costs about eight grand.

A main, snack and drink is £3.29 in Boots. Substantially less then 8 grand anyway. I usually get pasta, wrap or porridge plus a fruit bar and a smoothie. Cheaper than McDonald's, innit. People just prefer to eat junk food. It's how we're wired.

 

So far as a sugar tax is concerned I find regular Pepsi/Coke almost undrinkable, so it wouldn't bother me at all, and hopefully it would mean better stocking of other sugar free drinks, like Fanta Zero and No Added Sugar Tango, which you can never fucking get in the smaller stores. My main fear is that they will still price the sugar free alternative at the same level as the sugary shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usual bollocks. The media terrifies people into keeping their kids indoors for fear of rampaging paedophiles so they don't get any exercise, them bombards them with adverts for shite - to the point where even the likes of the world cup and Olympics are sponsored by McDonalds and coke - then blame people for being overweight and penalise them.

Good food should be subsidised by the government. If I forget my lunch I've got a choice of two pasties for a quid or a sandwich from boots which costs about eight grand. It should be the other way around.

If the government subsidised good food the money would come from taxation - which is exactly what the report suggests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I drink shit loads of the stuff. 2/3 bottles per week. I dont drink tea or coffee though

 

I do as well, mate. I pretty much only drink squash, tea, and water. I can't fucking stand Coke, Fanta, etc. It isn't thirst quenching and you can feel it spunking all over your teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bloke on radio 4 made the same point earlier, the government intervened on fags, drink driving and seat belts as it was killing too many people. What's the difference here?

 

 

The difference is that those three can easily cause harm to others, fatness not so much (not wearing a seatbelt is dangerous to others in the car).

 

Not in reply to rico.

 

Fuck off.

 

Why should I pay more for the odd bit of sugary food because fat cunts cant stop eating?

 

Or if fat fucks cant stop feeding their fat fucking kids.

 

Hey fatty, stop eating shit. Learn to cook, it really isn't difficult.

 

It is amazing that you can be prosecuted for over feeding a pet, but nothing happens to parents that let their child/children become fat/obese/diabetic.

 

Luckily I could never see the cunts (tories) go for it.

 

I'm still annoyed at lower salt/fat in foods, again because fat people cant control themselves.

 

Fatness is becoming an epidemic. Not nice to see (skin tight clothes......),not fun sitting next to on trains/planes. Why are your rolls touching me? Why do you make it so hard to change the pages of my book? And the smell, trains get hot; fat people generally sweat more.

 

There should be a normal seating area (normal as being fat is normal now} and an area for thin/athletic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...