Poll: Sugar tax - what do you think?

[4ratbags]

The only problem with a sugar tax is if people want it they will still buy it no matter the cost. My kids know I have diabetes and they see how much I have changed my diet ect but it doesnt stop them eating or drinking their carb and sugar laden consumables and if it was made more expensive it wouldnt deter them.

 

[Squire Fulwood]

Re: mobile phone law, I think one reason why so many people flout it, is that they see people driving and talking on American TV shows

That may be true or not but it brings out another bad habit of humans. There is a strong tendency to avoid taking personal responsibility by saying something like, "Well, he's doing it over there".

The bad/good habit we are dealing with here is the one where people will continue to do exactly as they please until some meaningful intervention causes them to reconsider their personal circumstances. I cite the examples I gave earlier and what effect tax and legislation had on human behaviour. A sugar tax will be just about as effective.

Another behavioural problem which used to be more prevalent was speeding. Never in human history were there ever more signs reminding people of the law but few took any notice until they were actually being caught with speed cameras and radar guns etc. Some people still speed.

Can you imagine anyone saying, "I won't have sugar in my tea since there is a tax on it".

 

[Squire Fulwood]

Now I need a multiple choice vote since I like the idea of educating people to voluntarily reduce carbs but an idea I like even more is to identify the food manufacturers who make things from flour and sugar (and imply it's chicken) and take them off my Christmas card list.

 

[Ledzeptt]

I thought the best of Jamie's proposals was the sugar teaspoon graphic on each product (to highlight how many teaspoons of sugar it contains). It's better to inform people to allow them to make their own choices; then if they still want to drink 2L of Coke a day it's up to them (or their parents).

Just about everyone knows about sugar in fizzy drinks and sweets; the bigger problem is "everyday" processed foods - so anything to make this blatantly obvious will help. This assumes people (particularly the disadvantaged) are given a choice to shop for a lower sugar alternative, until such time as everyone just stops buying processed food!

 

[Administrator]

Now I need a multiple choice vote since I like the idea of educating people to voluntarily reduce carbs but an idea I like even more is to identify the food manufacturers who make things from flour and sugar (and imply it's chicken) and take them off my Christmas card list.

Added!

 

[Administrator]

I thought the best of Jamie's proposals was the sugar teaspoon graphic on each product (to highlight how many teaspoons of sugar it contains). It's better to inform people to allow them to make their own choices; then if they still want to drink 2L of Coke a day it's up to them (or their parents).

Just about everyone knows about sugar in fizzy drinks and sweets; the bigger problem is "everyday" processed foods - so anything to make this blatantly obvious will help. This assumes people (particularly the disadvantaged) are given a choice to shop for a lower sugar alternative, until such time as everyone just stops buying processed food!

The news today has been reporting whether the WHO consider processed and/or red meat to be carcinogenic - in the report, a number of people said that even if it were to be, they wouldn't stop eating it. Would there be a similar situation with a sugar tax?

 

[Brunneria]

If companies do actually reduce the amount of sugar in food and drink, they will do it by adding other things instead:
grapejuice
agave nectar
polyols
honey
chemical artifical sweeteners...

Although, since I avoid all of the above, almost all the time, so it won't make any difference to my life at all!

 

[Brunneria]

The news today has been reporting whether the WHO consider red meat to be carcinogenic - in the report, a number of people said that even if it were to be, they wouldn't stop eating it. Would there be a similar situation with a sugar tax?

I thought the report was saying that it was processed meat (like bacon, ham, sausages, which usually happen to be red) that are the problem. Although there is that paste like processed chicken too. And chicken nuggets. And goujons. And cheap chicken Kievs. And Turkey Twizzlers...

And that they thought that red meat was probably carcingenic, but not adequately proven (so that is just like 'saturated fat must be deadly, even though we don't have the evidence to prove it...)

Also, comparing the stats of deaths through alcohol and smoking, the number of deaths from bowel cancer from processed meats is minute.

So yes, I guess it would be a similar situation to taxing alcohol, cigarettes, and anything else people enjoy, but know they shouldn't have. Everyone would think they were immortal. Til they discover they obviously aren't.

 

[Administrator]

I thought the report was saying that it was processed meat (like bacon, ham, sausages, which usually happen to be red) that are the problem. Although there is that paste like processed chicken too. And chicken nuggets. And goujons. And cheap chicken Kievs. And Turkey Twizzlers...

And that they thought that red meat was probably carcingenic, but not adequately proven (so that is just like 'saturated fat must be deadly, even though we don't have the evidence to prove it...)

Also, comparing the stats of deaths through alcohol and smoking, the number of deaths from bowel cancer from processed meats is minute.

So yes, I guess it would be a similar situation to taxing alcohol, cigarettes, and anything else people enjoy, but know they shouldn't have. Everyone would think they were immortal. Til they discover they obviously aren't.

Agreed - sorry, it was processed meat. They think that red meat 'probably' causes cancer.

 

[tim2000s]

Agreed - sorry, it was processed meat. They think that red meat 'probably' causes cancer.

Let's just get one thing very clear here. Ageing "causes cancer" too. Should we stop people getting older?

This is one of those reports that raises some interesting ethical questions regarding life. We've known for a while that there is a link between processed meats and cancer - it is not new news. Red meats may cause cancer too? Oh well. According to the WHO data, the increased risk is an increase of 18% on the existing risk.

According to the US CDC, the likelihood of getting bowel cancer over periods of time increases as you get older, or in other words, if you are 30, the likelihood of getting it in the next ten years, is 0.07% and in 30 years is 0.97%. So, the likelihood if you eat the bad processed meats is 0.083% in the next ten years and and 1.14% in the next thirty years. Really not worth worrying about.

By having Diabetes, my risk of death is increased. I am 48% more likely than normal to have a heart attack. Everything kills you in some way. It's called life, so let's just get on with it!

 

[killerkaz]

I haven't written anything on this website for a while but I do regularly read the different topics. With this sugar tax though I feel it will have the same effect as on alcohol and smoking, which is negligible really although I do see a lot of young people attitudes are different these days to smoking and drinking, but that is down to education more than tax. The only thing that will stop people consuming too much sugar is education. And not just the children either. It will probably take a generation as the older adults of today may not be so receptive to the information out there as the younger people, my grandfather used to say you had to die of something it might as well be something you enjoy as he smoked his head off. His generation and my parents didn't have fast food outlets, unless you count the local chippy, and certainly didn't have the confectionary that's out there these days either. They did, however, grow their own veg and have plenty of meat in one form or another. Sound familiar to you low carbers out there?(and I am one of them) everything was cooked in butter or lard, sugar was strictly rationed in the war. My mother is 84 and she is fit hale and hearty. The trouble is the government will be coming under huge pressure from the big companies who manufacturer high sugar food and other lovely delicious things which I have consumed in great quantities in the past thus rendering me diabetic and needing treatment for the rest of my life. But that is not what these companies are bothered with, just profit. And yes we do all have a choice and moderation is the key but as a reformed chocoholic I can tell you when sugar gets a hold the cravings can be as bad as I would imagine a smokers would be. (I don't smoke) diabetes was a wake up call as it was for many of us on here, I just wish I had had the information a few years ago when I could have limited the damage and avoided this condition. An extra few pence on chocolate, cakes and fizzy drinks wouldn't have stopped me.

 

[Avocado Sevenfold]

The only thing that surprises me about the WHO news it that I didn't think it was news. I read it in a book about 30 years ago and it stuck in my head. Just shows you that people will believe what they want to believe. People will eat/drink/smoke whatever they want to eat/drink/smoke regardless of what they read. Taxation will not deter people. I only gave up fags when I got a horrible disease and only gave up sugar when I got diabetes.

The thing that concerns me a little is that one day there will be an important food scare and nobody will believe it due to the relentless barrage of Daily Fail click-bait food-scare stories. People become immune to them because the Fail has cried, "Wolf!" so many times. Here are some examples

http://www.anorak.co.uk/288298/scar...things-that-give-you-cancer-from-a-to-z.html/

 

[Ledzeptt]

Technically, I should avoid or minimise breathing because I live a few miles from a busy airport (another recent health scare).

I'm finding this quite challenging

Going back to the original post, you don't actually need sugar (ignoring hypo situations), so it should be made easier for people to minimise intake, whether through regulation, taxation, education, information or any EFFECTIVE combination of these.

 

[BeccyB]

It would help if shops/bars sold more sugar free drinks - if you don't want Coke/Pepsi or water you have no choice but to have a high sugar drink in many places!

How we solve that I don't know though!

(Obviously by 'shops' I don't mean supermarkets - if you want to buy a drink when out and about smaller shops don't always stock anything else)

 

[tim2000s]

if you don't want Coke/Pepsi or water you have no choice but to have a high sugar drink in many places!

Most bars sell Wine, or slimline tonic for drinking with Gin. I find them suitable alternatives

 

[Squire Fulwood]

While we are off topic and writing about cancer instead of the sugar tax may I ask a question?

Would it be a shorter list and a whole lot quicker if we were all given a list of things that don't cause cancer?

Perhaps the Daily Fail could help here.

 

[4ratbags]

That would be a short list.

 

[Jaylee]

Re: mobile phone law, I think one reason why so many people flout it, is that they see people driving and talking on American TV shows

Maybe they are all manically driving round trying to catch the guy that kidnapped their family..?

 

[Jaylee]

While we are off topic and writing about cancer instead of the sugar tax may I ask a question?

Would it be a shorter list and a whole lot quicker if we were all given a list of things that don't cause cancer?

Perhaps the Daily Fail could help here.

There is a song to help the memory..

 

[AllyS]

With the prospect of a sugar tax supported by Jamie Oliver (but refuted by David Cameron), what do people think - should there be a sugar tax? It has been reported that hypo treatments would be exempt from a sugar tax.

Labelling suggestions from Jamie:

If you think any choices are missing from the poll, please let us know and we'll update the poll

There is no way yet another stealth tax is required. The answer always seems to be charge the public more! Green tax being a great example! Why do they always want to charge us more, all this does is line the pockets of someone else and we all still buy the stuff! ENOUGH!

Educate people!