Sugar Tax?
chris_bass
Posts: 4,913
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34603118
Do you think it would work?
Although given the fuss made over 5p for a carrier bag I can only assume there would be full blown riots if they tried to introduce this!
Do you think it would work?
Although given the fuss made over 5p for a carrier bag I can only assume there would be full blown riots if they tried to introduce this!
www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
0
Comments
-
Obesity crisis and sugar is pretty much linked to this, add in diabeties and tooth decay, seems a good thing to do.
Countries that have, Finland and Mexico have seen benefits.
But its a non question as the tories have already said that they dont want to financially penalise poor families anymore than they are already.... all heart aint they.0 -
Its funny how poor families can afford sugary drinks, nothing wrong with a cheap bottle of blackcurrent juice*
*can't comment on sugar levels in this...Advocate of disc brakes.0 -
*can't comment on sugar levels in this...
Sugar free varieties are available!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Problem would be the low sugar high in some horrible chemicals version would become more popular. I'd go for something a bit more radical and restrictive - ban certain foods from certain kinds of outlet. THere's no reason petrol stations have to be stacked full of sweets and pop, there's no reason supermarkets have to be full of alcohol and fizzy drinks. Yes it's a small restriction of freedoms but for me it's the lesser of two evils compared to the damage poor diet is doing.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
struggling with why i should pay a tax on a product because others can't be arsed to exercise and/or moderate their gorging
surely the more equitable approach is to tax the fat, win win, the fat have an incentive to drop weight, plus we reduce the burden on the rest of usmy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
When you post a letter/small parcel at the post office they pass it through a guide to decide how much to charge. Why not put all sugary stuff in the supermarket in an isle with a big (but not too big) guide at the end. If you're too fat to get through you can't buy any. I can see it now, a land whale sidling up in the car park of Tescos asking if you would buy them a 48 pack of sugar frosted fat burgers and a diet coke
Rose Xeon CDX 3100, Ultegra Di2 disc (nice weather)
Ribble Gran Fondo, Campagnolo Centaur (winter bike)
Van Raam 'O' Pair
Land Rover (really nasty weather )0 -
Makes sense in theory, but broadly speaking there's a reason sugary food is more popular with those on lower income - it's cheap, so a tax on sugar would be very regressive, and pump up inflation rather a lot.0
-
Makes sense in theory, but broadly speaking there's a reason sugary food is more popular with those on lower income - it's cheap, so a tax on sugar would be very regressive, and pump up inflation rather a lot.
/rant
That's another thing I don't understand. This high sugar bad for me food might be cheap relative to healthier options. But and its a big but, to get the size some of the lardies get to cannot be cheap by any stretch of the imagination. You still need to eat vast quantities which must cost more than a good quality balanced diet. Take aways are not cheap, ready meals are not cheap. The fact is that most of the huge specimens are too lazy to cook properly, and will latch onto anything that gets them off the hook for taking responsibility for their own gluttony. As soon as a scientist (who seem to pop up regularly with new excuses) says that this or that is addictive they all jump on the band wagon. Now it's not big bones, or thyroid problems, it's I'm addicted and therefore a victim and someone else is responsible for me being the size of a baby elephant.
//rant overRose Xeon CDX 3100, Ultegra Di2 disc (nice weather)
Ribble Gran Fondo, Campagnolo Centaur (winter bike)
Van Raam 'O' Pair
Land Rover (really nasty weather )0 -
Makes sense in theory, but broadly speaking there's a reason sugary food is more popular with those on lower income - it's cheap, so a tax on sugar would be very regressive, and pump up inflation rather a lot.
/rant
That's another thing I don't understand. This high sugar bad for me food might be cheap relative to healthier options. But and its a big but, to get the size some of the lardies get to cannot be cheap by any stretch of the imagination. You still need to eat vast quantities which must cost more than a good quality balanced diet. Take aways are not cheap, ready meals are not cheap. The fact is that most of the huge specimens are too lazy to cook properly, and will latch onto anything that gets them off the hook for taking responsibility for their own gluttony. As soon as a scientist (who seem to pop up regularly with new excuses) says that this or that is addictive they all jump on the band wagon. Now it's not big bones, or thyroid problems, it's I'm addicted and therefore a victim and someone else is responsible for me being the size of a baby elephant.
//rant over
the Dr who is pushing this latest research is a leading heart specialist, the nhs spends a fortune on treating obesity, anything that reduces it, should be welcomed?
have you ever been to Iceland etc and seen how cheap frozen junk food is? also, many of these people are poorly educated, have never lived in a family that cooks and/or might well suffer from mental illness.
We take the same approach with tabaco and alcohol so why not sugar? it causes bigger health problems amongst the young and faster than drink or tabaco, do we call the taxes of these products regressive? dont understand that argument.0 -
Great in principle, but you know that within minutes of putting it in place, some fatty will get wedged in the width restrictor then I won't be able to buy my sugar puffs.When you post a letter/small parcel at the post office they pass it through a guide to decide how much to charge. Why not put all sugary stuff in the supermarket in an isle with a big (but not too big) guide at the end. If you're too fat to get through you can't buy any. I can see it now, a land whale sidling up in the car park of Tescos asking if you would buy them a 48 pack of sugar frosted fat burgers and a diet coke"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Makes sense in theory, but broadly speaking there's a reason sugary food is more popular with those on lower income - it's cheap, so a tax on sugar would be very regressive, and pump up inflation rather a lot.
/rant
That's another thing I don't understand. This high sugar bad for me food might be cheap relative to healthier options. But and its a big but, to get the size some of the lardies get to cannot be cheap by any stretch of the imagination. You still need to eat vast quantities which must cost more than a good quality balanced diet. Take aways are not cheap, ready meals are not cheap. The fact is that most of the huge specimens are too lazy to cook properly, and will latch onto anything that gets them off the hook for taking responsibility for their own gluttony. As soon as a scientist (who seem to pop up regularly with new excuses) says that this or that is addictive they all jump on the band wagon. Now it's not big bones, or thyroid problems, it's I'm addicted and therefore a victim and someone else is responsible for me being the size of a baby elephant.
//rant over
It's not so much a laziness as being time poor. People at the lower end tend to have less free time, work difficult hours (which makes cooking fresh meals more difficult), worry about money, etc etc.
Sure, ready meals are more expensive than fresh food. But then fresh food requires a lot of effort to get, to put together etc etc.
And anyway, that's only one meal in the day. The others are the meals that tend to be high in sugar. Cereals (which is very cheap - box of crunchy nut and a 2 pints of milk is 3-5 meals in a week for around £5), etc. Industrialised food is cheaper to make both in terms of time and overall costs.
If you go into the shops look at what's on offer - it's usually crisps, litres of fizzy drinks, etc. It's never my fennel or parsley. Sugary salty foods require simpler supply chains, and they stay edible in the store for a lot longer, so there's less thrown away, there are less stresses on ordering the right amount and lower costs for getting it wrong, etc etc.
There's a reason iceland is a budget supermarket and whole foods isn't.
--
Having said al that, the reason obesity is an issue is that more or less everyone is getting fatter on average, and substantially so. And it's not exclusive to the West.
I think the reason it's a 'bandwagon' issue now (as you termed it) is that our understanding of what is triggering this huge growth in obesity across the developed world is still developing. In the '80s fat was the enemy, and that fed through the '90s, but we kept getting fatter, even when we were all eating 'low fat'. Now, there's enough research to suggest that simple sugars are the main cause. It's just that the science is still developing.0 -
Makes sense in theory, but broadly speaking there's a reason sugary food is more popular with those on lower income - it's cheap, so a tax on sugar would be very regressive, and pump up inflation rather a lot.
/rant
That's another thing I don't understand. This high sugar bad for me food might be cheap relative to healthier options. But and its a big but, to get the size some of the lardies get to cannot be cheap by any stretch of the imagination. You still need to eat vast quantities which must cost more than a good quality balanced diet. Take aways are not cheap, ready meals are not cheap. The fact is that most of the huge specimens are too lazy to cook properly, and will latch onto anything that gets them off the hook for taking responsibility for their own gluttony. As soon as a scientist (who seem to pop up regularly with new excuses) says that this or that is addictive they all jump on the band wagon. Now it's not big bones, or thyroid problems, it's I'm addicted and therefore a victim and someone else is responsible for me being the size of a baby elephant.
//rant over
the Dr who is pushing this latest research is a leading heart specialist, the nhs spends a fortune on treating obesity, anything that reduces it, should be welcomed?
have you ever been to Iceland etc and seen how cheap frozen junk food is? also, many of these people are poorly educated, have never lived in a family that cooks and/or might well suffer from mental illness.
We take the same approach with tabaco and alcohol so why not sugar? it causes bigger health problems amongst the young and faster than drink or tabaco, do we call the taxes of these products regressive? dont understand that argument.
So that's why mums go to Iceland. They are thick as shite, poorly raised and mad. :roll:
Iceland have done well to identify such a customer base.0 -
Sugar Tax - an average album by OMD from a few years back. Not as good as Dazzle Ships or their last two albums.Cannondale Trail 6 - crap brakes!
Cannondale CAAD80 -
Too much bother to trim this on a phone.Makes sense in theory, but broadly speaking there's a reason sugary food is more popular with those on lower income - it's cheap, so a tax on sugar would be very regressive, and pump up inflation rather a lot.
/rant
That's another thing I don't understand. This high sugar bad for me food might be cheap relative to healthier options. But and its a big but, to get the size some of the lardies get to cannot be cheap by any stretch of the imagination. You still need to eat vast quantities which must cost more than a good quality balanced diet. Take aways are not cheap, ready meals are not cheap. The fact is that most of the huge specimens are too lazy to cook properly, and will latch onto anything that gets them off the hook for taking responsibility for their own gluttony. As soon as a scientist (who seem to pop up regularly with new excuses) says that this or that is addictive they all jump on the band wagon. Now it's not big bones, or thyroid problems, it's I'm addicted and therefore a victim and someone else is responsible for me being the size of a baby elephant.
//rant over
The problem is possibly right there. Did you mean a family for 3-5 days, or an individual?
I ask as if that was for an individual then portion sizes are the problem.
As an aside. Taste mostly relies on 3 things. Fat, sugar and spices/herbs. Most foods rely on at least 2 of them.
Time to go on a low fat, low sugar, high spice/herb diet.
It's not so much a laziness as being time poor. People at the lower end tend to have less free time, work difficult hours (which makes cooking fresh meals more difficult), worry about money, etc etc.
Sure, ready meals are more expensive than fresh food. But then fresh food requires a lot of effort to get, to put together etc etc.
And anyway, that's only one meal in the day. The others are the meals that tend to be high in sugar. Cereals (which is very cheap - box of crunchy nut and a 2 pints of milk is 3-5 meals in a week for around £5), etc. Industrialised food is cheaper to make both in terms of time and overall costs.
If you go into the shops look at what's on offer - it's usually crisps, litres of fizzy drinks, etc. It's never my fennel or parsley. Sugary salty foods require simpler supply chains, and they stay edible in the store for a lot longer, so there's less thrown away, there are less stresses on ordering the right amount and lower costs for getting it wrong, etc etc.
There's a reason iceland is a budget supermarket and whole foods isn't.
--
Having said al that, the reason obesity is an issue is that more or less everyone is getting fatter on average, and substantially so. And it's not exclusive to the West.
I think the reason it's a 'bandwagon' issue now (as you termed it) is that our understanding of what is triggering this huge growth in obesity across the developed world is still developing. In the '80s fat was the enemy, and that fed through the '90s, but we kept getting fatter, even when we were all eating 'low fat'. Now, there's enough research to suggest that simple sugars are the main cause. It's just that the science is still developing.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
My wife and I have healthy BMIs. We popped into our new, recently opened Tesco on Saturday. At one point I was looking for yoghurt. Normal, healthy stuff with a bit of fat in it, so it tastes nice. I was finding it difficult because, at a guess, I'd say 90% of the stuff was low fat / zero fat.
Now that fat's back on the menu and carbohydrates and sugar in particular are on the black list, how long before the producers / manufacturers / retailers respond with low / no sugar everything and the Mars bars are kept in a locked cabinet behind the customer service desk?
I think there should be a BMI tax. Smokers and drinkers pay a lot in taxation, some of which goes towards paying for the medical care they need as a result. Non smokers and non drinkers do not pay these taxes. Taxing sugar will affect fat and thin people alike. A BMI tax will collect money from the very people who are inflicting the costs of bariatric equipment / treatments on the NHS.
Might not be a vote winner though...
In other news, was looking for Carlsberg Export in said shiny, new Tesco. Turns out they've delisted it, so the shiny new manager let us have a case of something else for a penny to help ease our disappointment
Every little helps!0 -
Whilst your suggestion may have some merit, BMI is not an accurate method of measurement.
Every player at the Rugby World Cup would be classed as obese.
I know skinny people who are dreadfully unfit and unhealthy.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Whilst your suggestion may have some merit, BMI is not an accurate method of measurement.
Every player at the Rugby World Cup would be classed as obese.
I know skinny people who are dreadfully unfit and unhealthy.
VO2Max as a measure of fitness then, and tax inversely proportional? Pensioners exempt obvs.0 -
Whilst your suggestion may have some merit, BMI is not an accurate method of measurement.
Every player at the Rugby World Cup would be classed as obese.
I know skinny people who are dreadfully unfit and unhealthy.
This comes up every time BMI is mentioned. Rugby players (and other similarly built atheletes) hardly form a significant % of the population, with any system there will be flaws but for most it's accurate enough.
As for the skinnies, you can also have a BMI that is too low to be considered healthy.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
I used rugby as it is the obvious one to use as an example.Whilst your suggestion may have some merit, BMI is not an accurate method of measurement.
Every player at the Rugby World Cup would be classed as obese.
I know skinny people who are dreadfully unfit and unhealthy.
This comes up every time BMI is mentioned. Rugby players (and other similarly built atheletes) hardly form a significant % of the population, with any system there will be flaws but for most it's accurate enough.
As for the skinnies, you can also have a BMI that is too low to be considered healthy.
Anyone doing any sport requiring muscle mass on a regular basis will fall foul of BMI.
At a guess, Chris Hoy's thighs alone?
Would body fat percentage not be a better measure than simply mass?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Ah so all those (slightly larger cough cough) families I see going into and out of mcdonalds are elite athletes then?
BMI is fundamentally a fine system for broad classification of large populations. Occasionally groups (who are fit and healthy) will fall foul of such things, most of the population isn't playing rugby or competing in track sprints every week, for them BMI is gonna be fine.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Why bother?
The majority are already overweight. An increasing amount are obese.
One look at a shopping trolley will tell you why. It will also explain why a high sugar and fat tax is the only thing that will work.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Sugar tax? Fat tax? Why stop there? What about a salt tax to reduce the number of people with hypertension? Or a tax on red meat, particularly sausage and bacon which experts are now telling us are linked to higher incidence of cancer?
Stevo, will I be able to offset my broccoli, beetroot and blueberry intake against my fat tax liability? I need to know.0 -
Sugar tax? Fat tax? Why stop there? What about a salt tax to reduce the number of people with hypertension? Or a tax on red meat, particularly sausage and bacon which experts are now telling us are linked to higher incidence of cancer?
Stevo, will I be able to offset my broccoli, beetroot and blueberry intake against my fat tax liability? I need to know.
so i take it you would remove tax from alcohol and tabbaco? infact why stop there? remove taxes from money earnt, i d vote for that as it would put steve0 out of a job lol!!! only joking!
we dont need extra sugar added to food, esp food aimed at children, damage caused is huge and makes reducing the deficit even harder, something i know is close to your heart, estimates to treat diabeties are around £16 billion by 2035 from £9b now, cost of treating complications is £7b to rise to £13b by 2035.
these are huge sums and sugar is directly linked to type 2, money raised can be used for any number of things.
its a no brainer, we dont need all this stuff in our diets, so unless you believe in not treating people or have an alternative idea?0 -
Sugar tax? Fat tax? Why stop there? What about a salt tax to reduce the number of people with hypertension? Or a tax on red meat, particularly sausage and bacon which experts are now telling us are linked to higher incidence of cancer?
Stevo, will I be able to offset my broccoli, beetroot and blueberry intake against my fat tax liability? I need to know.
so i take it you would remove tax from alcohol and tabbaco? infact why stop there? remove taxes from money earnt, i d vote for that as it would put steve0 out of a job lol!!! only joking!
we dont need extra sugar added to food, esp food aimed at children, damage caused is huge and makes reducing the deficit even harder, something i know is close to your heart, estimates to treat diabeties are around £16 billion by 2035 from £9b now, cost of treating complications is £7b to rise to £13b by 2035.
these are huge sums and sugar is directly linked to type 2, money raised can be used for any number of things.
its a no brainer, we dont need all this stuff in our diets, so unless you believe in not treating people or have an alternative idea?
Fags and ale ain't food. I posted the above to lampoon the knee jerk reaction of levying a tax, in what I thought was a lighthearted manner, butPostby Rick Chasey » Thu Oct 22, 2015 7:48 pm
Makes sense in theory, but broadly speaking there's a reason sugary food is more popular with those on lower income - it's cheap, so a tax on sugar would be very regressive, and pump up inflation rather a lot.
Also from RickIt's not so much a laziness as being time poor. People at the lower end tend to have less free time, work difficult hours (which makes cooking fresh meals more difficult), worry about money, etc etc.
Sure, ready meals are more expensive than fresh food. But then fresh food requires a lot of effort to get, to put together etc etc.
And anyway, that's only one meal in the day. The others are the meals that tend to be high in sugar. Cereals (which is very cheap - box of crunchy nut and a 2 pints of milk is 3-5 meals in a week for around £5), etc. Industrialised food is cheaper to make both in terms of time and overall costs.
So Mamba, you are quite happy to burden the poorer elements with a tax rise, albeit by stealth. Perhaps we could offset this with a tax credit? 0 -
So Mamba, you are quite happy to burden the poorer elements with a tax rise, albeit by stealth. Perhaps we could offset this with a tax credit?
Why the fxxk is it burdening the poor with a tax rise? Are they beyond being educated from drinking this shitte? bit of a patronising statement from your Chairman Cameron.
As i said, which you ve ignored, is the cost to an over burdened NHS and the potential for tax revenue, presumably from the rich fatties who can still avoid their sugar hit.
even Dartmoor/exmoor ponies are attacking tourists who dont give them sugary treats as they ve become addicted to sugar.0 -
The tax could subsidise fruit, veg, healthy food in general. No one would be penalised unless they chose otherwise then.So Mamba, you are quite happy to burden the poorer elements with a tax rise, albeit by stealth. Perhaps we could offset this with a tax credit?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
So Mamba, you are quite happy to burden the poorer elements with a tax rise, albeit by stealth. Perhaps we could offset this with a tax credit?
Why the fxxk is it burdening the poor with a tax rise? Are they beyond being educated from drinking this shitte? bit of a patronising statement from your Chairman Cameron.
As i said, which you ve ignored, is the cost to an over burdened NHS and the potential for tax revenue, presumably from the rich fatties who can still avoid their sugar hit.
even Dartmoor/exmoor ponies are attacking tourists who dont give them sugary treats as they ve become addicted to sugar.
Nowhere have I said the poor, or anyone else for that matter, are beyond educating. People on here have intimated that shite laden ready meals are targeted at the time and cash poor. A view that is probably correct unless Sloane Rangers serve Iceland spag bol in plastic trays at their dinner parties. So if a tax was levied, these poorer people would suffer most.
Any improvement in the nation's health would of course be welcome.
As regards the Dartmoor ponies, perhaps they could become as iconic in the sugar campaign as polar bears in the global warming issues?
How many of the people on here arguing for a sugar tax have altered their drinking habits due to the imposition of a minimum price for alcohol?0 -
So Mamba, you are quite happy to burden the poorer elements with a tax rise, albeit by stealth. Perhaps we could offset this with a tax credit?
Why the fxxk is it burdening the poor with a tax rise? Are they beyond being educated from drinking this shitte? bit of a patronising statement from your Chairman Cameron.
As i said, which you ve ignored, is the cost to an over burdened NHS and the potential for tax revenue, presumably from the rich fatties who can still avoid their sugar hit.
even Dartmoor/exmoor ponies are attacking tourists who dont give them sugary treats as they ve become addicted to sugar.
Nowhere have I said the poor, or anyone else for that matter, are beyond educating. People on here have intimated that shite laden ready meals are targeted at the time and cash poor. A view that is probably correct unless Sloane Rangers serve Iceland spag bol in plastic trays at their dinner parties. So if a tax was levied, these poorer people would suffer most.
Any improvement in the nation's health would have course be welcome.
As regards the Dartmoor ponies, perhaps they could become as iconic in the sugar campaign as polar bears in the global warming issues?
How many of the people on here arguing for a sugar tax have altered their drinking habits due to the imposition of a minimum price for alcohol?
Given the nature of the forum, probably not many but is there a min price for alcohol? :shock:
Research shows that price is driving factor for usage, look at fags for example.
Your on a losing wicket here Bally.0 -
So Mamba, you are quite happy to burden the poorer elements with a tax rise, albeit by stealth. Perhaps we could offset this with a tax credit?
Why the fxxk is it burdening the poor with a tax rise? Are they beyond being educated from drinking this shitte? bit of a patronising statement from your Chairman Cameron.
As i said, which you ve ignored, is the cost to an over burdened NHS and the potential for tax revenue, presumably from the rich fatties who can still avoid their sugar hit.
even Dartmoor/exmoor ponies are attacking tourists who dont give them sugary treats as they ve become addicted to sugar.
Nowhere have I said the poor, or anyone else for that matter, are beyond educating. People on here have intimated that shite laden ready meals are targeted at the time and cash poor. A view that is probably correct unless Sloane Rangers serve Iceland spag bol in plastic trays at their dinner parties. So if a tax was levied, these poorer people would suffer most.
Any improvement in the nation's health would have course be welcome.
As regards the Dartmoor ponies, perhaps they could become as iconic in the sugar campaign as polar bears in the global warming issues?
How many of the people on here arguing for a sugar tax have altered their drinking habits due to the imposition of a minimum price for alcohol?
Given the nature of the forum, probably not many but is there a min price for alcohol? :shock:
Research shows that price is driving factor for usage, look at fags for example.
Your on a losing wicket here Bally.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/banning-the-sale-of-alcohol-below-the-cost-of-duty-plus-vat
Complete with calculator to work out minimum permitted price. As the link states, it is being updated following the budget. I'm sure there is a current calculator if I could be arsed to look.0
