What Do You Think About This Banning Sugar Business?

[Mep]

Lately all I hear on the tv when I turn it on is how they want to make changes to products. This week so far I've heard they want to ban fruit juice and they want to reduce sugar in soft drinks. Now for the overall health of society that's a good thing... but for those of us that rely on liquid sugar to get our sugars up.... don't mess with it I say. I don't buy diabetic products for this purpose as they're usually more expensive and not easily accessible.... so I use one particular fruit juice I buy at the supermarket. I keep juice boxes everywhere. I choke easily on things so liquid is much better for me. I guess it does nothing for my anxiety listening to what they want to do all the time. But then of course most people haven't a clue what a hypo is and how to treat it.

 

[Squire Fulwood]

I suppose you can always add sugar yourself if you need it. The manufacturer adding it in unknown quantities is a bit like mass medication. Did you know there was once a proposition to add statins to drinking water?

 

[Circuspony]

I hate the taste of artificial sweetners so I wish they'd stop messing with a lot of the drinks. I'd rather know it has sugar in it and use less.

 

[Prem51]

They haven't made manufacturers reduce sugar in drinks. The Government has increased tax on drinks with higher sugar to deter people from buying them.
I haven't seen anything about fruit juice being banned. The only thing I've seen on the news is that there is a proposal that sugary drinks and confectionery shouldn't be displayed near the checkouts.

 

[Deleted Account]

I think those needing sugar for a medical reason are a minority and, whilst they should take us into consideration, they should not avoid setting laws that protect the majority in order to provide for the minority. There should probably ways around these laws for the minority such as making hypo treatments available on prescription.

Personally, I do not mind paying for my hypo treatment because I am incredibly grateful that I do not have to pay for insulin, etc and able to fund something sugary when I need it. But, if I think about it, the only reason I have supplies of GlucoTabs is due to my medical condition so maybe it should be a prescription item?

Whether the Nanny state should be the way to stop people making themselves ill through stuffing themselves with sugar is another question. I'd like to think education should be the way but that doesn't always work.
When I used to travel for long periods of time (months), I used to get annoyed having to pay for the extra 10kg of luggage when I weigh more than 10g less than the average person on the flight but I'm not sure you could tax someone for their weight ... obesity is much more complex than choosing to eat to much.

 

[Guzzler]

Something has to be done about the levels of added sugar to manufactured foodstuffs, it is simply too high.
To leave things as they are perpetuates the problem of rising obesity levels (especially in children) and Type 2 Diabetes.

 

[Mep]

They haven't made manufacturers reduce sugar in drinks. The Government has increased tax on drinks with higher sugar to deter people from buying them.
I haven't seen anything about fruit juice being banned. The only thing I've seen on the news is that there is a proposal that sugary drinks and confectionery shouldn't be displayed near the checkouts.

I'm in Australia and on my tv tonight they said manufacturers have signed up to reduce sugar in all soft drinks, energy drinks, and fruit juices by 20% by 2025. Yesterday I heard they would like to ban fruit juice.

 

[Mep]

I suppose you can always add sugar yourself if you need it. The manufacturer adding it in unknown quantities is a bit like mass medication. Did you know there was once a proposition to add statins to drinking water?

Yes, that's if you want to make your own.... I'm looking for convenience and to have things at the ready. I have enough to deal with. When I'm at work or out and about... easy access is important to me.

 

[Mep]

I think those needing sugar for a medical reason are a minority and, whilst they should take us into consideration, they should not avoid setting laws that protect the majority in order to provide for the minority. There should probably ways around these laws for the minority such as making hypo treatments available on prescription.

Personally, I do not mind paying for my hypo treatment because I am incredibly grateful that I do not have to pay for insulin, etc and able to fund something sugary when I need it. But, if I think about it, the only reason I have supplies of GlucoTabs is due to my medical condition so maybe it should be a prescription item?

Whether the Nanny state should be the way to stop people making themselves ill through stuffing themselves with sugar is another question. I'd like to think education should be the way but that doesn't always work.
When I used to travel for long periods of time (months), I used to get annoyed having to pay for the extra 10kg of luggage when I weigh more than 10g less than the average person on the flight but I'm not sure you could tax someone for their weight ... obesity is much more complex than choosing to eat to much.

That's good to hear you don't have to pay. Here I pay for almost everything. My insulin isn't free. As you can see by my signature I live with a lot of medical conditions and it's a costly exercise. The last thing I need is to be paying more to treat my hypos.

Of course I agree they're trying to help the majority... it's always the minority that cop it though isn't it.

 

[Mep]

Something has to be done about the levels of added sugar to manufactured foodstuffs, it is simply too high.
To leave things as they are perpetuates the problem of rising obesity levels (especially in children) and Type 2 Diabetes.

Yes, not disputing that. I just would like to be able to grab a drink to get my sugar back up quick rather than be in panic mode and can't find a drink that will get my sugar up quick enough. I've been there before when I drank blueberry juice which was useless.

 

[jlarsson]

While the intent is noble and everything, the approach is wrong. What needs to happen is for people to have a better understanding of nutrition in general, regardless of your condition, and it needs to be learned from a young age. If people then still want to eat and drink unhealthy things, that's fine, I have no problem with that.
Banning things or slapping a tax on top of things as a means to reduce something is just ignoring why the problem is there in the first place.

 

[Guzzler]

Yes, not disputing that. I just would like to be able to grab a drink to get my sugar back up quick rather than be in panic mode and can't find a drink that will get my sugar up quick enough. I've been there before when I drank blueberry juice which was useless.

I am disabled, there are a lot of things that I would change if it was up to me. For example, in an ideal world, there would be a process by where someone with Diabetes could claim back or be exempt from charges for hypo treatments and these would be readily available at every store. But we do not live in an ideal world and governments must cater for the needs of the many. I rail against the prices I pay for disability aids and for the care I receive because it simply isn't fair but we do not live in a fair world.
I would personally go a lot further and legislate against unhealthy levels of carbohydrates to save future generations from becoming ill. It is the thought of my grandchildren's children developing Type 2 Diabetes that I feel this way. I am sorry that you find it difficult to afford hypo treatments that suit you but sometimes we must put others first.

 

[Mep]

While the intent is noble and everything, the approach is wrong. What needs to happen is for people to have a better understanding of nutrition in general, regardless of your condition, and it needs to be learned from a young age. If people then still want to eat and drink unhealthy things, that's fine, I have no problem with that.
Banning things or slapping a tax on top of things as a means to reduce something is just ignoring why the problem is there in the first place.

I completely agree with this..... the reason is that we have been dealing with the processed foods for many years now and only recently have they harped on about banning this and changing that. To put things in perspective... practically everything is going to kill you eventually. We don't live in our mortal bodies eternally... we're decaying. How we decay and how rapidly as you say depends on the habits people form from the education they receive. We can blame society or blame someone else... but at the end of the day each person is responsible for how they live their life which includes what they eat. What I'd like to see is healthy foods being made more accessible (some parts of the world have food deserts where all you can buy is junk food and not healthy foods). They can revise how they market the processed foods and market the healthier options more heavily.... now that would work wouldn't it? This business of targeting sugar products only when they aren't the only source of bad nutrition is not solving anything.

 

[Mbaker]

For a long time now most people know sugar is not great; many don't realise that in a typical supermarket circa 80% of items have this added in one form or another, even in pre-cooked meats. On balance I think reducing sugar is great, so long as they do not put in something we know nothing about, which in 10 years time we are told about (with potential health side effects).

I think education is more important, if parents know their children should have no more than 6 teaspoons of sugar a day, which parent would give a glassfull of orange juice with maybe 9 teaspoons of sugar alongside a breakfast - the same goes for carbs.

 

[Mep]

I am disabled, there are a lot of things that I would change if it was up to me. For example, in an ideal world, there would be a process by where someone with Diabetes could claim back or be exempt from charges for hypo treatments and these would be readily available at every store. But we do not live in an ideal world and governments must cater for the needs of the many. I rail against the prices I pay for disability aids and for the care I receive because it simply isn't fair but we do not live in a fair world.
I would personally go a lot further and legislate against unhealthy levels of carbohydrates to save future generations from becoming ill. It is the thought of my grandchildren's children developing Type 2 Diabetes that I feel this way. I am sorry that you find it difficult to afford hypo treatments that suit you but sometimes we must put others first.

Yes, I'm always putting others first... that's been my problem. I'm always catering for others over my own needs. I just think it's ridiculous they're straight out blanketing the market with these ideas and just assume they're going to make things better. Healthy food advertising and availability would be a much better focus. I can go into a supermarket and find mostly processed foods and the non processed is on the outskirts of the store. What do you see near checkouts and entire aisles filled with? We have entire aisles full of processed foods... an entire aisle dedicated to soft drinks and bottled water. Just rethinking how they sell things would make a world of difference. I don't think altering things will make much difference as the people I know that drink soft drinks drink them all day everyday.... so cutting sugar and replacing with stevia will only help a small amount if at all. Whereas for someone like me that needs to get my sugar up quick... it will save my life rather than me having to drink even more to save my life because someone thought it was a smart idea to reduce the sugar.

 

[Safi]

As I understand it they're not actually planning to remove sugar from anything. What they're doing is adding more sugar free options & including the already reduced consumption figures to make it appear as though sugar levels have been reduced. It's the usual industry smoke & mirrors trick designed to quiet talk of a sugar tax so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it @Mep - all full sugar options will be as widely available & as cheap as ever.

 

[zand]

The problem is that full sugar options are not always available now. The squash I used to buy without artificial sweeteners now has some sugar and some sweeteners. I don't want artificial sweeteners, they help me to become obese and my fear is that in 30 years time we will have more obese people because their bodies will have been messed up by even more chemicals in foods. Sugar may not be healthy, but at least it's natural and you can always cut down if you want to do so. Better the devil you know. I wish I had never had any low cal drinks and it's the first thing I would tell my younger self if I had a chance to go back in time. The 2nd thing would be not to go on starvation diets.

 

[KK123]

What do I think?, I think the sooner they ban it the better. There is no reason why sugar should be added to pretty much everything, it is hidden sugar and that is the problem. People know that a bag of sweets is sugar but would they know about the amount of sugar in their cereals or tins of peas or bread or just about everything else? That hidden sugar is part of why people (many unwittingly) become addicts at a very early age and right through adulthood, retail WANT us to eat sugar, it's profitable for them. As for those who prefer a sugary liquid for their hypo's, well for them there is always an alternative. Yes, it would be annoying if you had to drink twice as much to get that sugary fix but come on, surely a healthier society is a price we would all pay, who knows, it may stop people suffering from the many conditions that are certainly not helped by sugar.

 

[PenguinMum]

As regards rising obesity I’ve noticed that young people are constantly grazing. You see them in the street eating snacks and drinking soft drinks any time of the day. This is a fairly recent phenominum say in the last 20 years. I have to say my boys and their friends (27 and 24) never did that. So maybe its more recently fashionable. Are these youngsters eating meals at home or not. It puzzles me. In my day it was a definite no no to eat or drink in the street!

 

[Mep]

As I understand it they're not actually planning to remove sugar from anything. What they're doing is adding more sugar free options & including the already reduced consumption figures to make it appear as though sugar levels have been reduced. It's the usual industry smoke & mirrors trick designed to quiet talk of a sugar tax so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it @Mep - all full sugar options will be as widely available & as cheap as ever.

They are here in Australia... maybe UK it's just the sugar tax, but here they're actually more focused on removing sugar from products. What they're doing is replacing sugar with artificial sweeteners. They already sell coke here with sugar & stevia.