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

Sugar Tax??

D

DaveNN

Well-Known Member
Messages
327
Forgive me if this is old news but wouldn't it be an idea to include carbs in this possible initiative?

We all know that there are cube upon cube of sugar in full fat fizzy drinks, donuts etc....but what about bread, pasta and all of the other 'healthy' options?

Even my none DB other half checks the carb count of our food shopping, with " 20g per 100g"..." Why not just say 20%?" I ask (cue another debate ) being the max if at all possible.

OK...she does buy breads and stuff..but mainly for the boys these days.
 
20% could also mean 20% of calories or even 20% of volume - quoting the values as 20g per 100g makes it clear that they're talking about weight.
 
I will add...

How will the UK Government reconcile taxing carbs when the NHS tells diabetics that a healthy diet includes plenty of carbs with every meal?

Food is already taxed. VAT on sweets, biscuits, booze etc. Putting up the price doesn't stop people buying stuff. Shrinkflation proves this - crème eggs get smaller but remain the same price, for example, and people still buy them. They probably buy two now because one is too tiny!

When I am out and need to buy a snack, I buy a bag of peanuts. I pay VAT on these so am already taxed. They would have to be dearer than heroin before I would stop buying them. I don't believe that making food more expensive makes people change their behaviour. Education does. Taxing just makes people poorer.
 
To follow on from that thought @Avocado Sevenfold we all know that people who care about their health are changing the way they view sugar right now and, sadly, taxes and even education won't affect the people who (probably) most need to change the way they eat/drink/smoke/exercise
 
I avoid sugar, if i can, but a tax on it would encourage manufacturers to add artificial sweeteners instead. Yuk.

Besides, if someone wants an alcoholic drink, they aren't discouraged by the taxes on it.
It would be the same with sugar.
The concept is flawed from the outset.
 
What if you need a carby or sugary drink to counter act a hypo, will they be putting regular cola on prescription, it's my meds honest.
ambulance crews on 999 checking patient over, opening bag, comes out with a can of soda, gathered crowd gasp then cheering and clapping as smiling diabetic downs it in one.
Food is so much cheaper than it used to be in relation to wages. It was great getting a proper brand cola rather than the cheap copy, but it didn't stop cheap copy and do it will be if ingredients are taxed, you will still get a cheap brand.
Cake isn't taxed can you imagine the kick up if they then had it added due to it having sugar.
 
But when the OP said, "wouldn't it be an idea to include carbs in this possible initiative?" I think they meant other, non-sugary, carbs.

I can't personally eat a lot of carrots, but wouldn't want to deprive the rest of the population of their enjoyment (<there wasn't a rabbit smiley) Where do you draw the line? I don't think the Government can be trusted to nanny us when it comes to nutrition as they have been getting it wrong for decades.
 
Can't argue with any of this...how about no income related tax but a tax on 'consumption'? Those who buy, eat, spend more ...pay more. I must stress I have no real view either way. For instance, Burnham once supposedly proposed a tax on Frosties...what would stop anyone buying regular corn flakes and simply adding sugar? However, how on earth do we ( as a population) control- let alone reduce- the instances of type 2? Education? ,Incentives, or more punitive measures.
 
The current tax on certain foods (VAT) is not income related but based on buying the products. So that's already a thing.

Punitive measures? Like giving diabetes nurses whips? Tell me more
 
Dark Horse said:
20% could also mean 20% of calories or even 20% of volume - quoting the values as 20g per 100g makes it clear that they're talking about weight.
Click to expand...


Totally correct...

However, how often does someone measure out an exact weight of food on their plate?

That's why I quote %age with the better half..

At the moment I'm aiming for < 5% total carb content, the weight of the food is irrelevant ( unless I have a bucket full of it, of course.)
 
Avocado Sevenfold said:
The current tax on certain foods (VAT) is not income related but based on buying the products. So that's already a thing.

Punitive measures? Like giving diabetes nurses whips? Tell me more
Click to expand...
...
Yes. I'm talking about no income tax...just tax on consumption ( fuel,food etc) and even raising it if possible for those already at the standard rate.

Again, I have no real view either way BUT something HAS to be done..

As for punitive...you only get whips on the Gold standard from BUPA ;-)
 
They will be taxing air next...it's all about money and how to squeeze it out of you. Even as a diabetic NO sugar tax.
 
Use stevia, a natural plant, instead of sugar. There is a soft drink called Zevia. It's made of stevia.
 
Very true about the air. That's why I hold my breath for a short time after a flight, to reduce my own carbon footprint. ...that's a good point re: Stevia. One thing, is this used in food production? Can it have the same effects as with sugar free ***** bears? Please do read the reviews on Amazon....
 
Should tax be used to modify behaviour? It doesn't work with petrol/diesel. It should work with tobacco but smoking is increasing in young people again. Should they tax sugary drinks and sugary food? Yes - it would help get some cash in to deal with the medical fall out. Will it modify the behaviour of the manufacturers and make them switch to artificial sweetners - maybe? Is there are a link between artificial sweetners and cancer? I'd like to see another 20-30 years of testing, but some results are already in.. It's a complex argument but only if you don't want a sugar tax.
 
A fair point...though the price of vehicle fuel ( the vast majority is taxation) has dropped to the extent that millions of 'extra' miles are being driven....so perhaps punitive taxation can modify behaviours? As we all know the drive to a higher carb/ sugar enriched diet was certainly not helped by the crusade to demonise fats, animal in the main. In addition, due to socioeconomic reasons, where convenience foods took a foothold in our day to day diets. What frustrates me is that many of us Type 2 diabetics now know this and try to take steps to address the issue- not unlike fitting a burglar alarm the day after the 50" flat screen has disappeared at 3am, though.
 
Avocado Sevenfold said:
The current tax on certain foods (VAT) is not income related but based on buying the products. So that's already a thing.

Punitive measures? Like giving diabetes nurses whips? Tell me more
Click to expand...

You are a few years too late. In the 1930s an American doctor whipped some of his patients into compliance with his diet
It was a very boring diet; it was by many accounts, a very successful one for several problems (including diabetes, high blood pressure, CAD, arthritis and psoriasis) .His patients had well documented weight loss .He treated over 18000 patients. He was not your average snake oil salesman and published result in reputable medical journals. (there are still 20 papers indexed on pubmed)
Ironically the diet comprised:
White rice
fruit
fruit juice
white sugar
http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in...for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/#kempner
(not recommending the diet in any way )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Surely it would make more sense to force food processors/supermarkets/coffee shops to colour code high sugar items.. anything with more than say 5g of sugar per 100g has to be put in bright red packaging to show how dangerous it is? Coke tins would then already be the correct colour...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…