Should obesity cause a sugar tax?

Dyadya_Maykl · Mar 6, 2014

So government suggestions are that a tax should be imposed on sugar items to make them less popular.
Well will that mean that my emergency sugar will be additionally taxed again? Yes, my jelly babies are already taxed.
But would a tax help reduce the problem?
Well we encourage people to drink fruit juice - nice and healthy. Just, very high in CHO.
Surely though, more thought needs to be given to getting the manufacturers to cut down the sugars, and salt, they overabundantly add to prepared foods.
And if sugar is addictive, a tax will not help much! Well, it will swell the government coffers.

douglas99 · Mar 6, 2014

Help pay for treatment though.
Alcohol is taxed, cigarettes are taxed, why not added sugar?

mo1905 · Mar 6, 2014

I just think it will be another form of income for the Gov't ! No point taxing it as those who can still afford it will keep buying it. The food manufacturers must bear the brunt and there should be limits to amount of added sugars they can use.

Madbazoo · Mar 7, 2014

Tax penalises the consumer but does not directly deal with the problem. Better to fine the manufacturer who exceeds fixed guidelines for added sugars

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

Garr · Mar 7, 2014

They seem to be making enough money out of sugar as it is.......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ut-sugar-levels-causing-countless-deaths.html

Yorksman · Mar 7, 2014

Give me your money. It's for your own good. I will put it to good use, like closing down the A&E in Calderdale and propping up HBOS. Or closing down A&E in Dewsbury and propping up RBS.

Our governments, irrespective of colour, have an insatiable appetitie for your money and are extremely inventive in working out schemes to get their grubby little hands on it. They are the ones who should be dieting.

catherinecherub · Mar 7, 2014

boyle.mike.h@gmail.com said:
So government suggestions are that a tax should be imposed on sugar items to make them less popular.
Well will that mean that my emergency sugar will be additionally taxed again? Yes, my jelly babies are already taxed.
But would a tax help reduce the problem?
Well we encourage people to drink fruit juice - nice and healthy. Just, very high in CHO.
Surely though, more thought needs to be given to getting the manufacturers to cut down the sugars, and salt, they overabundantly add to prepared foods.
And if sugar is addictive, a tax will not help much! Well, it will swell the government coffers.

It is a stealth tax.

You might like to read this article which shows how the manufacturers behave if there is a hint of any thing being classed as poison or bad for health.

Perils of a sugar-coated scapegoat.
http://ginews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/food-for-thought.html

Alanp35 · Mar 7, 2014

Both salt and sugar add "flavour" to foods. Over the last years salt has been reduced in many foods and to ensure that they stay palatable the salt has been replaced by sugar. If and when sugar is reduced what will then be used to make prepared foods palatable ?

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

noblehead · Mar 7, 2014

Totally agree with what your saying Dyadya, forcing the food manufacturers to reduce the sugar content would go a long way to reduce the average consumption.

zand · Mar 7, 2014

It would be good to see any tax collected on sugar to be handed out again in the form of subsidy on fresh fruit and vegetables. Then we would see that the government really was committed to promoting a healthy lifestyle!

Yes, I know, it will never happen

Sid Bonkers · Mar 7, 2014

I cant see it helping at all, it will do nothing to stop people stuffing their faces with packets of crisps and cakes made with sweeteners will it?

Surely education is best and to start telling the truth about low fat processed foods.....

Sid Bonkers · Mar 7, 2014

ps. does the annual rise in tax on alcohol stop people from drinking?

Of course it doesnt it just makes money for the government and so will this stupid tax. But it could well start another divide in our society the Government have already set the workforce against those on benefits now they will set thin people against the over weight and obese......

This really makes me angry!

phoenix · Mar 7, 2014

Food manufacturers will latch onto anything. To add to the GI news article linked to by Catherine. I was flabbergasted to see a slide showing that In the US they now have brownies and chips(crisps) proudly proclaiming that they will reduce cholesterol as they have added plant sterols. They are expensive, it obviously doesn't deter.
It would be far cheaper and better for the cholesterol to get rid of the brownies and chips and replace them with an apple.

This post by David Katz is also relevant

The 'ONAAT' fallacy stands for 'one nutrient at a time.' It's the false, but insidiously persistent notion, that the nutritional quality of a food, or the relevant nutrition guidance for a given patient, can in fact be gauged just that way, one nutrient at a time..................

Good food is among the best medicines we have. Good nutrition, like good health, is best viewed holistically. So beware the ONAAT fallacy -- because we are unlikely to get to either good food, or good health, one attribute at a time

.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/holistic-nutrition_b_842627.html

Scandichic · Mar 7, 2014

Sid Bonkers said:
I cant see it helping at all, it will do nothing to stop people stuffing their faces with packets of crisps and cakes made with sweeteners will it?

Surely education is best and to start telling the truth about low fat processed foods.....

Hear, hear! I couldn't believe how much sugar is in low fat yoghurt!

andcol · Mar 7, 2014

Sid Bonkers said:
Surely education is best and to start telling the truth about low fat processed foods.....

That is assuming they know the truth and not just in their own fantasies believing what they want and not questioning everything. People get bound to beliefs and try to fit the facts and just ignore things that threaten those beliefs.

editted spiling mostike

Yorksman · Mar 7, 2014

Andrew Colvin said:
That is assuming they know the truth and not just in their own fantasies believing what they want and not questioning everything. People get bound to beliefs and try to fit the facts and just ignore things that threaten those beliefs.

Perhaps you remember the newsreel footage of parents pushing packs of fish and chips through the school fence at lunchtime because the kids refused to eat the new healthy options and the school retaliated by not letting them leave the premises.

I heard some minor council official actually say that those parents needed to undergo re-education.

A programme of political re-education of the public to comply with council policies? Come back Uncle Joe, all is forgiven.

WeeWillie · Mar 7, 2014

Excellent post Dyadya_Makkl prompting excellent replies , and it is
a subject we should be well reminded of but, do you know what, each
and every time the Government issue a warning/statement akin to the
basis of this discussion, I have the distinct impression the Government
is attempting to take our minds off other important subjects going on in
the background.
Have a think of what's going on in the Government that, by sheer coincidence
of course, is of major concern to them when these statements are issued by them.

Now this is not to take away your concern regarding the content your post.
It is merely looking at the warning/statement issued by the Government from a different angle.

Trusting you understand that.

Warm regards.
willie.

Alanp35 · Mar 7, 2014

WeeWillie said:
Excellent post Dyadya_Makkl prompting excellent replies , and it is
a subject we should be well reminded of but, do you know what, each
and every time the Government issue a warning/statement akin to the
basis of this discussion, I have the distinct impression the Government
is attempting to take our minds off other important subjects going on in
the background.
Have a think of what's going on in the Government that, by sheer coincidence
of course, is of major concern to them when these statements are issued by them.

Now this is not to take away your concern regarding the content your post.
It is merely looking at the warning/statement issued by the Government from a different angle.

Trusting you understand that.

Warm regards.
willie.

Do you mean that " this could be a day to bury bad news". You're wise wee willie, that often happens and we poor mortals are left to pick the remnants

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

WeeWillie · Mar 8, 2014

Alanp35 said:
Do you mean that " this could be a day to bury bad news". You're wise wee willie, that often happens and we poor mortals are left to pick the remnants

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

Hello Alanp35.
Yes, you've got it in one, and you're correct, it's us poor mortals, or plebs, as they may possibly look upon us, who are left to pick up the pieces.

Good thinking on your part.

willie.

xyzzy · Mar 8, 2014

Tax sugar to the food manufactuers it would make processed low fat foods more expensive and cost the food industry a good amount so it would become more profitable to sell low sugar products.

Can someone get Ritz to put the salt back in their recipe. The new ones are nothing like as nice!

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

Should obesity cause a sugar tax?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

BANNED

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

catherinecherub

Guest

Well-Known Member

Guru

Master

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency