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

Sugar Tax

I think that using honey as a sugar replacement may attract the 'tax' because it would need to be refined for industrial use, making it a source of sugar. This is probably not a viable source of sweetner since there are cheaper alternatives already on the market. Small scale SME's may be able to use it in innovative ways.
 
DavidGrahamJones said:
It's a start, sadly I wont be around to see if it works as desired, assuming it'll take decades to see any long term effects. What about the low fat stuff with added sugar to improve the taste? Can't have everything I suppose.
Click to expand...
The case of Mexico showed that introducing their levy did have a direct effect on soft drink sales from day 1, but Australia has not had such a strong effect. The jury is still out as to why these two trials differ.
 
Sugar is the culprit all along, if what is said below is true!
Be sure to consult your Doctor before doing away with sugar:
"• Sugar can suppress the immune system.
• Sugar can upset the body's mineral balance.
• Sugar can contribute to hyperactivity, anxiety, depression,
concentration difficulties, and crankiness in children.
• Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides.
• Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.
• Sugar can reduce helpful high density cholesterol (HDLs).
• Sugar can promote an elevation of harmful cholesterol (LDLs).
• Sugar can cause hypoglycemia.
• Sugar contributes to a weakened defense against bacterial infection.
• Sugar can cause kidney damage.
• Sugar can increase the risk of coronary heart disease.
• Sugar may lead to chromium deficiency.
• Sugar can cause copper deficiency.
• Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.
• Sugar can increase fasting levels of blood glucose.
• Sugar can promote tooth decay.
• Sugar can produce an acidic stomach.
• Sugar can raise adrenaline levels in children.
• Sugar can lead to periodontal disease.
• Sugar can speed the aging process, causing wrinkles and grey hair.
• Sugar can increase total cholesterol.
• Sugar can contribute to weight gain and obesity.
• High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.
• Sugar can contribute to diabetes.
• Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis.
• Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity.
• Sugar leads to decreased glucose tolerance.
• Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease.
• Sugar can increase systolic blood pressure.
• Sugar causes food allergies.
• Sugar can cause free radical formation in the bloodstream.
• Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.
• Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.
• Sugar can overstress the pancreas, causing damage.
• Sugar can cause atherosclerosis.
• Sugar can compromise the lining of the capillaries.
• Sugar can cause liver cells to divide, increasing the size of the liver.
• Sugar can increase the amount of fat in the liver.
• Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in
the kidney.
Sugar can increase the body's fluid retention.
• Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance.
• Sugar can cause hypertension.
• Sugar can cause headaches, including migraines.
• Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha and theta brain waves,
which can alter the mind's ability to think clearly.
• Sugar can increase blood platelet adhesiveness which increases risk of
blood clots and strokes.
• Sugar can increase insulin responses in those consuming high-sugar
diets compared to low sugar diets.
• Sugar increases bacterial fermentation in the colon."
 
britishpub said:
Well luckily you won't have to as there is no Tax or Duty proposed in the Budget that will add 25p to anything.

Why is this so difficult to understand ???

Click to expand...
According to BBC analysis of the budget 2016, they said

<<Analysis by the Office for Budgetary Responsibility suggests they will be levied at 18p and 24p per litre.>>

This places a 1.75 L bottle of coca cola within the price claimed above. Erflingley simple, Non?
 
I think you are making some very gross generalisations here, and many of your claims are not supported by scientific study. Please take care when posting this type of response since it is misleading.
 
Oldvatr said:
The case of Mexico showed that introducing their levy did have a direct effect on soft drink sales from day 1, but Australia has not had such a strong effect. The jury is still out as to why these two trials differ.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. I would guess that Australia is a wealthier nation and therefore additional cost is met more easily. I was thinking more of the long term effects on obesity rather than sales.
Also, does it really take 2 years to implement or is the chancellor allowing the drinks industry enough time to change the product or worse still, lobby parliament to not vote it into law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any levy placed on manufacturers or Companies always gets fed (ha! Ha!) back to the consumer... Look at Insurance and petrol etc...
The purpose is to get the consumer as well to think about getting diet drinks instead..
I think it will be interesting what pubs do.. After all they have soft drinks for childrens meals etc and for mixers.. Does anybody envisage the same price being paid for a diet cola and normal cola in a nightclub for example where the youngsters go? I can see them just hiking up the price of diet ones as well...
 
britishpub said:
Why anyone would think it will add a 25p tax to a litre of soda is bizarre.
Click to expand...
Because that is what would actually make sense as a way of implementing the "tax" in order to achieve what the general public expect a "sugar tax" to be designed for. Everything spoken about in the media in relation to the budget is talking in terms of a "sugar tax". Thank you for pointing out that there was more detail behind how it was being implemented, but most people will just see the headline using the term tax and go with what peoples general perception of what a tax is and never read the finer details.

That it is actually a "penalty" being placed on manufacturers just means they will add the cost to all their products and it will really make no difference. If the manufacturer can still make more money by selling full fat drinks then they will, and the penalty they are being charged will make no difference. The cost of everything, diet or full fat, will go up about 12p.

If the consumer was made to pay an extra 25p for a full fat drink rather than a diet drink then they would change their habits and the manufacturer would just stop producing the products. That is what should really be happening if the government want change to occur.
 
I am amazed people are fooled by the congenital Osborne. It's a populist move to fool the masses & a money making effort to boot. Anyone with a hint of seriousness about health issues would force manufacturers to drop sugar levels.
 
Please note! sugar in water still has to be turned into glucose by your body. lucozade is glucose so works faster. I use it for my hypos which can be a godsend if I'm driving or in town shopping. The tax is not fair on anybody including diabetics who use lucozade. !!!!!
 
Has anyone actually confirmed that glucose is included in the new measures?
As pointed out above, it is glucose, not sucrose.
Just a thought.

And no, I ain't gonna do the legwork to confirm or disprove that speculation.
There are far too many knee jerkings going on already.
 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to mention the amount of caffeine you must have been consuming too.
 
Last night I was performing in our local Arts Centre, and I bought a can of diet coke and it cost me £2.30 and thats without a glass. Who says the retailer does not add to the price? The days of RPM are over, and they can charge what they like.

Sadly the drink pushed my bgl up 2 mmol/l, and this is an effect I have seen before, My guitar buddy is T1D and he finds this happens to him as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not read all the replies so apologies if I'm repeating anyone. The tax seems to be a bit smoke & mirrors. It will come in after 2 years & only if manufacturers haven't reduced the sugar content of their drinks which mean for those who do prefer full fat Coke it will be harder & harder to find something without artificial sweeteners. And what happens to the plans for the money raised if manufacturers do get round the sugar problem?
 
It seems to me we are all talking at cross purposes. We seem to all have concerns about this and maybe we need to write to our mp's pointing out some of what has been said here.
 
Don't panic, we can all get copies of Davina McColls Sugar free recipe book. No sugar in that, just jars of honey, maple syrup & agave syrup.
 
As an aside This year my daughter tried to shove maple syrup pancakes down my throat. Although sorely tempted I managed to pick up the bottle, and found it was proper Canadian produce, containing 89.9g of carbohydrate per 100gm, of which 89.9g was sugars. I Declined. This of course would not attract the new levvy. For 2 reasons. i#t is not fizzy, and was not UK manufactured. Will the levvy apply to imported products? Are we going to see drinks manufacturers moving their operations offshore (to Ireland where many have their EU headquarters for other tax reasons?)
 

Is this not akin to blaming all is t2's for making ourselves sick?! After all if all kids need to do is go out and play then by extension you are saying that adults with the condition have it due to not their own sedentary lifestyles. I'm sorry but this condition has so many different causes it is irresponsible at best to throw out comments such as this...
 
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.…