• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Poll: Sugar tax - what do you think?

Do you support a sugar tax?

  • Yes: absolutely

  • Yes: depends on how much tax is added though

  • No: we don't need a sugar tax but better labelling about sugar content would be great

  • No: things are fine the way they are

  • I'm not sure

  • No: there should be a carb tax

  • No: Government needs to get manufacturers to reduce the sugar content of their foods

  • No: there needs to be better education

Results are only viewable after voting.
"Shrinkflation" = when a chocolate bar or creme egg gets smaller but remains the same price.

People are already paying more for sweeties, but I am not sure if it puts them off :confused:

I therefore vote above for education.
 
Squire Fulwood said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't remember which show it was but I once saw a list of things the Daily Fail had said caused cancer in scary headlines - it was a very very long list!
 
Undoubtedly education is the main point. But on nutrition more broadly, not just telling people that sugar is not good for them. As far as I am concerned the problems began many years ago when we started picking on single items to have a go at. I can remember complaining to manufacturer's when 'low fat' was first used as being healthy and supportive of weight loss, yet there were very high amounts of sugar. As a long standing type 1 diabetic it feels as though the fight is not only with manufacturers but also with the marketing teams, who take advantage of busy people who do not have the time to read the labels properly. '97% fat free' as rebranding of something which naturally has 3% fat.
Before the school curriculum had to make space for computer studies & design and technology, home economics or domestic science used to cover nutrition, but this appeared to be lost as the minimal time available was used to show how to actually cook something. The new junior school curriculum does now include food, but perhaps with the high interest shown at present in 'Bake off' and the like perhaps more should be made of the nutritional values of the ingredients being used. If more people know and understood about carbohydrates, proteins and fats perhaps they would be more inclined to read follow the basic nutritional information on the packaging.
 
Avocado Sevenfold said:
"Shrinkflation" = when a chocolate bar or creme egg gets smaller but remains the same price.

People are already paying more for sweeties, but I am not sure if it puts them off :confused:

I therefore vote above for education.
Click to expand...

Didn't Roald Dahl come up with a similar theory many years ago?? ;)

Ahead of his time like George Orwell on this one..!

 
Administrator said:
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:

jamie-oliver-drink-inline.jpg


If you think any choices are missing from the poll, please let us know and we'll update the poll :)
Click to expand...
Why do we need a 'Sugar Tax'?
This would be the start of something none of us really would want, additional tax on foods would just be wrong when education is the key to this problem.
 
It is all very well for the teminally self-rightious to preach that there needs to be a TAX on sugar. The money raised by said 'tax' will go to the NHS to fund research into obesity....really? If we give this government any more tax revenue it will just waste it on more vanity projects. The NHS is very unlikely to see any of it.

Example: I think that cigarettes should be £25 (£20 tax) per packet and Whiskey should be £80 (£60 tax) per bottle. This would cure cancer and alcoholism overnight. Yeh right. But I don't drink and I don't smoke so I will not be affected.

How well would Jamie Oliver's resturants do if he cut out all suger use?
 
alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, hot food, sports drinks, hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks
I assume the list above is what needs the tax? Well guess what, they already are its called VAT. Does it stop people buying them? No.
 
While In am in favour of the principle of reducing sugar content in foods, this is the wrong approach. Firstly concealed sugars should be drastically reduced (e.g. there is near 50g of carbs in Morrison tomato soup) - this is simply inexcusable! Sugar tax on the other hand could cause issues that are not intended. Firstly as a diabetic my 'hypo treatment' sometimes involves rushing into a shop and buying something sweet because my glucose tablets have gone solid as concrete were somebody truly short of cash, that tax might prevent purchase.

Better labelling in general (including mandatory labeling of sugar and carbs) and a reduction in sugar where the amount is inappropriate (such as savoury products) or obscenely high (some shop bought cakes) would be my first 'go to methods' of dealing with this issue..
 
I'm reading Professor John Yudkin's book ' Pure White and Deadly' from 1972. In 1850, worldwide sugar production was 1.5 million tons, in 1972 70 million tons.The latest figures I could find for worldwide sugar production were for 2013. Scarily, 1.37 billion tonnes.

Sugar Reduction - Responding to the Challenge PDF report by Public Health England

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ction_Responding_to_the_Challenge_26_June.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A tax on sugar would only put more money for the government to squander and the man in the street to lose. When I make pancakes the recipe calls for sugar and honey. I don't use either, just a wee bit sweetener and they are great.
 
GeorgeWBaker said:
A tax on sugar would only put more money for the government to squander and the man in the street to lose. When I make pancakes the recipe calls for sugar and honey. I don't use either, just a wee bit sweetener and they are great.
Click to expand...
This is a prime example of why we do not need a sugar tax. We need education about carbohydrates and proteins and the affect on blood sugars. Pancakes roughly have 30gs of carbohydrates,6g of protein and 9gms of fats per 2 4inch america or 1 10inch crepe. No body eats plain pancakes most will add sugar them lets say another 15gs (per table spoon). Now we at 51gs of potential glucose (protein and carbs). We all know portion size isnt serving size. Who sticks at 2 pancakes and nothing else. Probably add orange juice 28g and coffee to breakfast Ill add 1g for the milk and who knows how many sugars people put in. I am already up to 80gs of sugar makers. Out of 180gs recomended on the eat well place and Ive only had a small breakfast leaving 50g each for lunch and dinner and no snacks. Portion sizes are a much more effective way of telling people they are eating too much glucose. Just pointing out sugars isnt going to work, there has to be a major shift in peoples eating habits, tax on sugar wont give them this advice.

I do not know of any carbohydrate rich foods that do not need something else to go with it. You dont eat dry bread or rice, or potatoes or pasta. You can eat meat and vegs on their own. Why is that we are told we have to eat carbohydrates? Probably because they are the foods that are "enriched" for our health.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But the sad truth is that the price of things does affect how much of them we buy. To be honest I'd rather have a whacking great tax on sugar with it ring-fenced for funding the NHS and the care of the elderly and vulnerable than some of the other taxation arrangements and suggestions made by our governments present and past.
 
JenniferW said:
But the sad truth is that the price of things does affect how much of them we buy. To be honest I'd rather have a whacking great tax on sugar with it ring-fenced for funding the NHS and the care of the elderly and vulnerable than some of the other taxation arrangements and suggestions made by our governments present and past.
Click to expand...
So what price do you think you would have to add on top of the price of sugar to make people stop buying sugar? 20% 50% 200% 500% I still do not think people would stop buying sugar just on price. We already add 20% to sodas/fizzy drinks It doesnt work.
 
This is a good idea to sugar tax. The money collected can be use spesifically for helping diabetic related patients.
In Malaysia, the government use to subsidy sugar price and make it cheapest among South East Asia nations. Consequent of this policy, many Malaysian, young or old suffer diabetic related diseases. Since, about 3 yrs ago, malaysia government discontinued to subsided the sugar price n we call see that the price of sugar soared. The public started to cut down the consumption of sugar. This will produced healthier Malaysian in future.
 
Kyi said:
So what price do you think you would have to add on top of the price of sugar to make people stop buying sugar? 20% 50% 200% 500% I still do not think people would stop buying sugar just on price. We already add 20% to sodas/fizzy drinks It doesnt work.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, I couldn't say what it would need - but from all the years that fuel, tobacco and alcohol have been taxed, there's a mass of data about how the price affects consumption levels.

And other countries are trying it: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-sugar-tax-drinks-idUKKCN0VH1D1

'... Scandinavian countries have had such taxes, with varying degrees of success, for many years, and in 2012, France and Hungary joined the list, followed by Mexico in 2014. ... "This puts political leaders in a stronger position to enact policies such as taxes because the companies aren't considered unbreakable," said Kelly Brownell, dean of Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy in North Carolina. Now India, the Philippines and Indonesia have said they are studying similar levies ... Brownell said Mexico was a watershed given the popularity of soft drinks there. "The fact that they (drinks companies) lost in Mexico was pretty staggering," he said.'
 
khkwong said:
This is a good idea to sugar tax. The money collected can be use spesifically for helping diabetic related patients.
Click to expand...

Noble, but I don't trust governments to spend revenues where they should ... broken promises ... period. Politics. This is not about doing something, it's about being seen to do something. Massive difference. Crosses borders and crosses cultures and it . It needs everything thrown at it.
 
Back
Top