Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories." *climbs down from soapbox* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories." Why do you think it would hit low income families the most? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a society our diet has changed dramatically over the last 4 to 5 decades. Especially our attitude to sugary confectionery and sugary drinks. When I was younger, they were considered a weekly treat. Now we view them as part of daily diet. The tax may have a small impact on consumption, but as stated, it's just another way of the government generating revenue. "Very true they have to replace the dwindling tobacco tax with something else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories. Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?" Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories. Why do you think it would hit low income families the most? Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong. " Gotcha, fair point  Though I'd like to think that those kind of foods don't contain the level of sugar needed to levy a tax  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories. Why do you think it would hit low income families the most? Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong. Gotcha, fair point Though I'd like to think that those kind of foods don't contain the level of sugar needed to levy a tax "Oh they do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No because its penalising the consumer, when actually its the manufacturers that need to reduce the amount of suger in products. What happens to the supper tax, Who gets the extra money? " *suger | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No because its penalising the consumer, when actually its the manufacturers that need to reduce the amount of suger in products. What happens to the supper tax, Who gets the extra money? " I've always wondered why manufacturers aren't penalised or incentivised more when it comes to things like sugar content or recyclable content  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This happened in Sweden - residents now cross the border to Norwegian supermarkets for fizzy drinks... As above post - poverty!" Yes I saw that on the news yesterday. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No because its penalising the consumer, when actually its the manufacturers that need to reduce the amount of suger in products. What happens to the supper tax, Who gets the extra money? I've always wondered why manufacturers aren't penalised or incentivised more when it comes to things like sugar content or recyclable content "Also supermarkets should not be able to put bogof or special promotions on high suger, salt and fat products. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories. Why do you think it would hit low income families the most? Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong. " Plus, as a percentage of their income, their food bill is more than better of families. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories. Why do you think it would hit low income families the most? Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong. Plus, as a percentage of their income, their food bill is more than better of families. " Yes and its cheaper to buy a pack biscuits than a bag of apples. That's what needs to charge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories. Why do you think it would hit low income families the most?" Apart from time and labour saving foods as already pointed out... Sales taxes always hit the poor hardest. If you earn £15k versus £150k, £100 in sales tax is a very different percentage of your income. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a society our diet has changed dramatically over the last 4 to 5 decades. Especially our attitude to sugary confectionery and sugary drinks. When I was younger, they were considered a weekly treat. Now we view them as part of daily diet. The tax may have a small impact on consumption, but as stated, it's just another way of the government generating revenue.
Very true they have to replace the dwindling tobacco tax with something else."Call be a conspiracy theorist, but what a lot of people don't realise is that the excessive consumption not only responsible for increase in diabetis, but also excessive sugar increases your risk of cancer, which is also a money spinner for the Cancer Cure Industry!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No because its penalising the consumer, when actually its the manufacturers that need to reduce the amount of suger in products. What happens to the supper tax, Who gets the extra money? I've always wondered why manufacturers aren't penalised or incentivised more when it comes to things like sugar content or recyclable content "The sugar tax was introduced by an ill informed government post a half-arsed “detailed analysis” of the food industry as a knee jerk response to the growing obesity epidemic in the UK. Sugar is the cheapest raw material available to food manufacturers, it’s soluble and can be inverted which makes it ideal to bulk and thicken products. Humans can only detect brix levels up to a point, once this is breached you can add as much sugar as you want and people simply cannot taste the difference; more sugar equals more calories, simple as! Multiple retailers demand certain price points for products to ensure they maintain margin across a basket of goods and so manufacturers will build that product according to price! It’s simple economics, you get what you pay for! Other supermarkets are available but if you want quality food then shop at Waitrose or M&S, if you want cheap as chips manufactured as cheap as humanly possible then Iceland is for you! Don’t even get me started on drinks and believe me, one of us is an expert! We’ve both worked in FMCG our entire careers and bore each other daily 
Ask anyone who’s been on a date with us  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories. Why do you think it would hit low income families the most? Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong. Plus, as a percentage of their income, their food bill is more than better of families. Yes and its cheaper to buy a pack biscuits than a bag of apples. That's what needs to charge. " Apples are almost all imported, biccies are made on a random industrial estate in Rugby; do the math  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories. *climbs down from soapbox*" Phew, lucky that wasnt a sugar box.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't get me started on sweeteners - the next disease inducing, multi-million pound con " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't get me started on sweeteners - the next disease inducing, multi-million pound con " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sugar tax isn’t correctly allocated. I like my Coca Cola, most people try and talk me out of it until I point out that their ‘healthy” pre packaged fruit smoothie actually has more calories and sugar in it ! CC - calories 42, sugar 10.6g per 100g Strawberry Smoothie - calories 52.1, sugar 11g Same can be said for mars bar versus what appears to be a healthier cereal / nut bar until you look at the ingredients. Pre-packaged meals / sauces are the worse for sugar content. If you made those dishes yourself you wouldn’t dream of adding sugar Simply check your packaging, make your own as much as possible, make your own choices just like the rest of life. " These are my thoughts but the problem is that children can't make their own food choices so have to eat what's put in front of them and that includes lunch boxes. It's controversial but I do think poor and lazy is often to blame(but not always) High streets and school playgrounds weren't full of obese people not that many decades ago. And I agree with "own" choices in life until it impacts on the NHS etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories. Why do you think it would hit low income families the most? Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong. Plus, as a percentage of their income, their food bill is more than better of families. Yes and its cheaper to buy a pack biscuits than a bag of apples. That's what needs to charge. " Some would argue that's the point of the sugar tax, to make other options more attractive. Although I think we all know in real terms it will still just hit poorer families in the pocket. Oh, light bulb moment! If poor processed diet is mainly effective less well off families why do we just drag more people out of poverty and provide more real term opportunities/environments for better education? Surely that will work. I bet the Troies are kicking them selves they didn't think of this before? Quick someone suggest this to them so they can make it policy and everyone can live happily ever after. I mean seriously if a vast part of the NHS's budget is spent by treating poorest in our society and the numerous health, lifestyle and traumas often linked to poverty then surely the real solution is to provide a better standard of living and less inequality. I know my self growing up and the seeing the same stories unravel with the people I know that proverty is destructive. Anyone who doesn't know how destructive it is has either never been in those shoes or is just deluded. It's fair enough saying well I grew up poor and did ok, yes me too. It's all fair saying the likes of Lord Sugar started with nothing. But the reality is for every lord sugar, every me, there are thousands of people repeating a destructive cycle of the poverty trap. I see its endless circle of destruction every day. Even if we could just have a decent minimum wage that a family could comfortably live off and give their children opportunities would be a start. *likewise jumps down off soap box* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By generating more income from lower earning families (and boy is there a lot of them) to help offset the cost to the nhs. All it will really do is push said families further into poverty and the nhs continues to be dismantled by the tories. Why do you think it would hit low income families the most? Sugar is often added to processed foods, the kind of foods that lower income families tend to buy as it they tend to save time. I'm just going from my own experience growing up so I could be wrong. Plus, as a percentage of their income, their food bill is more than better of families. Yes and its cheaper to buy a pack biscuits than a bag of apples. That's what needs to charge. Some would argue that's the point of the sugar tax, to make other options more attractive. Although I think we all know in real terms it will still just hit poorer families in the pocket. Oh, light bulb moment! If poor processed diet is mainly effective less well off families why do we just drag more people out of poverty and provide more real term opportunities/environments for better education? Surely that will work. I bet the Troies are kicking them selves they didn't think of this before? Quick someone suggest this to them so they can make it policy and everyone can live happily ever after. I mean seriously if a vast part of the NHS's budget is spent by treating poorest in our society and the numerous health, lifestyle and traumas often linked to poverty then surely the real solution is to provide a better standard of living and less inequality. I know my self growing up and the seeing the same stories unravel with the people I know that proverty is destructive. Anyone who doesn't know how destructive it is has either never been in those shoes or is just deluded. It's fair enough saying well I grew up poor and did ok, yes me too. It's all fair saying the likes of Lord Sugar started with nothing. But the reality is for every lord sugar, every me, there are thousands of people repeating a destructive cycle of the poverty trap. I see its endless circle of destruction every day. Even if we could just have a decent minimum wage that a family could comfortably live off and give their children opportunities would be a start. *likewise jumps down off soap box*" Shhh. You're talking sense, it's not allowed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This comes down to individual choice and responsibility, which is often poor and lacking. Some places where I worked, it never ceased to amaze me what people would bring to the check out counter at the supermarket. Nothing but processed foods, fizzy drinks, crisps and assortments of biscuits/chocolates/ice cream. Often not one single piece of vege or fruit and little to no fresh meat. Far from being occasional, this was frequent and the checkout bill was shocking. To say lower income people don't eat healthy because they can't afford to is disingenuous. Many of these people were clearly low income earners and they prefer spending 1.80 on a bag of crisps to 1.50 for a bag of easy peelers. It never dawned on them that a pack of pork shoulder steaks feeds 2-3 people and is cheaper than 2-3 processed ready meals? Or that water is cheaper than fizzy drinks? I'm all for solidarity in the right circumstances, but not a fan for paying more for people's poor choices." Maybe they've not been taught. Maybe their parents did the same. Plenty have been failed by education systems in that they aren't only not taught how to do something (eat healthily), but they're also not taught how to ask to get the right answer. The tools to cook also cost money, and how do you know how to choose them? Maybe they're exhausted working physically and emotionally draining jobs but still remaining in poverty and just need to fill the hole in their stomach. I think pointing our fingers at those making bad choices is limited in its efficacy, and we need to support them in making better choices. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Parents need to stop giving in to their kids just to keep them quiet. My kids get sweets maybe once or twice or week. There’s a full fruit bowl if they’re hungry. They’re allowed the chocolatey cereal at weekends as a treat. McDonald’s maybe once a month. They’ve never had a ready meal in their lives. People need to take responsibility for their own family and their own health. Why should everyone else pay because people can’t be arsed. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Appreciate it's not always this simple but in general families need to take more responsibility. Eat More Better Food, Eat less Crap and Exercise more No need to rely on sugar taxes as it's common sense in a lot of cases. A friend is a teacher and she says that the contents of some children's lunch boxes never cease to amaze her and she jokes that she could select the parents of these children without knowing them if that makes sense. To be fair to her she arranges trips and visits to food outlets and farms to try to get the children educating the parents and she pays for fresh fruit and snacks for class out of her own money. The school run classes to show parents how to cook fresh and save money but sadly it often falls on deaf ears." If people are told what to eat they get angry and eat shit as rebellion. Jamie Oliver has tried with school meals and people just took the piss. If diet advice is given to overweight people they cry victimisation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers? I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight. The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels" I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This comes down to individual choice and responsibility, which is often poor and lacking. Some places where I worked, it never ceased to amaze me what people would bring to the check out counter at the supermarket. Nothing but processed foods, fizzy drinks, crisps and assortments of biscuits/chocolates/ice cream. Often not one single piece of vege or fruit and little to no fresh meat. Far from being occasional, this was frequent and the checkout bill was shocking. To say lower income people don't eat healthy because they can't afford to is disingenuous. Many of these people were clearly low income earners and they prefer spending 1.80 on a bag of crisps to 1.50 for a bag of easy peelers. It never dawned on them that a pack of pork shoulder steaks feeds 2-3 people and is cheaper than 2-3 processed ready meals? Or that water is cheaper than fizzy drinks? I'm all for solidarity in the right circumstances, but not a fan for paying more for people's poor choices. Maybe they've not been taught. Maybe their parents did the same. Plenty have been failed by education systems in that they aren't only not taught how to do something (eat healthily), but they're also not taught how to ask to get the right answer. The tools to cook also cost money, and how do you know how to choose them? Maybe they're exhausted working physically and emotionally draining jobs but still remaining in poverty and just need to fill the hole in their stomach. I think pointing our fingers at those making bad choices is limited in its efficacy, and we need to support them in making better choices. " Spot on, Swing. A cycle of poverty, lack of education and availability perpetuates poor choices. It’s very easy to sit and say that they’re doing a bad job but it’s not that simple. I went to a local in a part of town I don’t usually go to when we lived near York, the shop had no actual meat, just ready meal stuff. I don’t usually buy that stuff. The fresh veg there was also very limited. It’s not as cut and dry as it seems. Same as when people assume everyone overweight is living on takeaway and ready meals. I cook from scratch all the time and don’t eat huge portions but am not thin. Food is a personal choice and many don’t know how to do better, are disabled and can’t do better or struggle in ways we can’t see. Schools are teaching children ( sometimes unfortunately with shame) how to eat more healthily but when I heard my daughter was told not to eat fruit because of sugar I flipped my lid. She barely has any sweets or treats aside from what we make, fruit is a very healthy part of a diet. I think that’s the worst part of the sugar education. It’s become a slimming world style method of education that is actually unhealthy. Rather than substitutes it should be moderation and alternatives that don’t have sugar. But I don’t think the government should control what people eat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers? I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight. The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. " I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The trouble is that sugar is quite addictive, it stimulates certain areas of the brain and the food industry know this. They certainly do not want us to stop consuming sugar and neither does the government really. Call me cynical but I'm sure I'm right" You are cynical... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People need to take responsibility for their own family and their own health. Why should everyone else pay because people can’t be arsed. " I agree that sugar taxes aren't the best way of tackling this. Manufacturers need to be more sensible on the sugar (& fats) added to ready meals, but people need to be more food/nutrient savvy. Sadly everyone will pay one way or another; either through schemes like the sugar tax or Via the NHS when they get diabetes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers? I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight. The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence?" I think I'm more assuming that people don't have the tools to make good choices, and we need to put those tools closer to their reach. I'd rather assume that people are misinformed, lazy, or stupid than assume that individuals have the power to stand up to multinationals, because the latter idea is absurd. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things... If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated.. " Yes. And the rich are more to blame, because they have the resources and leisure to get their shit together that the poor manifestly do not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things... If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated.. " Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No tax just limit the availability. Why should the Treasury benefit from our kids healthier lifestyle?" How do you do that though? If that happened, then sure as eggs is eggs, people would complain about living in a nanny state. I wouldn’t see us as the Treasury benfiting, but assuming it contributes to increased funding for the NHS then we all benefit. And anyway, isn’t that arse about face? If kids have a healthier lifestyle by consuming less of the sugary stuff, they’re not paying the additional tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse. " But do they taste as nice. Nobody does duck like my local Chinese, chicken like KFC and pizza like Domino's in my opinion but I bet you do make lovely food | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things... If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated.. Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse. " It's cheaper if you know how and if you have the tools. Not everyone does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers? I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight. The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence? I think I'm more assuming that people don't have the tools to make good choices, and we need to put those tools closer to their reach. I'd rather assume that people are misinformed, lazy, or stupid than assume that individuals have the power to stand up to multinationals, because the latter idea is absurd. " The tools are within reach of most people I think. I also think there's a tendency in this thread to equate poverty with low intelligence and lack of ability. If you look around the really poor people are not fat although I agree that low income means lack of choice and if you're in bed and breakfast accommodation for instance you can't knock up a nourishing meal but this problem is not a problem that just affects the poorest in society and those people are not necessarily stupid or lazy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've come to a bizarre point in society. We know that multinational food manufacturers and retailers do considerable research on how to manipulate our vulnerability. Loss leaders, hyper palatable foods, advertising at children and the like. They spend a huge amount of money trying to get us to spend money we don't always have on crap we shouldn't be eating by exploiting our vulnerability. We have people making crap choices in this environment. Who are not using knowledge as a weapon, largely they're just trying to survive. And having an increasingly difficult time doing so, given the data. We have an obesity crisis. Somehow the businesses out to get us are savvy business people rather than super villains, and people just trying to feed their families need to individually solve a near global crisis. That's arse backwards. " Isn't it interesting that it's these businesses, and the businesses contributing to climate change that are being offered the tax breaks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've come to a bizarre point in society. We know that multinational food manufacturers and retailers do considerable research on how to manipulate our vulnerability. Loss leaders, hyper palatable foods, advertising at children and the like. They spend a huge amount of money trying to get us to spend money we don't always have on crap we shouldn't be eating by exploiting our vulnerability. We have people making crap choices in this environment. Who are not using knowledge as a weapon, largely they're just trying to survive. And having an increasingly difficult time doing so, given the data. We have an obesity crisis. Somehow the businesses out to get us are savvy business people rather than super villains, and people just trying to feed their families need to individually solve a near global crisis. That's arse backwards. Isn't it interesting that it's these businesses, and the businesses contributing to climate change that are being offered the tax breaks. " Quite. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers? I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight. The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence? I think I'm more assuming that people don't have the tools to make good choices, and we need to put those tools closer to their reach. I'd rather assume that people are misinformed, lazy, or stupid than assume that individuals have the power to stand up to multinationals, because the latter idea is absurd. The tools are within reach of most people I think. I also think there's a tendency in this thread to equate poverty with low intelligence and lack of ability. If you look around the really poor people are not fat although I agree that low income means lack of choice and if you're in bed and breakfast accommodation for instance you can't knock up a nourishing meal but this problem is not a problem that just affects the poorest in society and those people are not necessarily stupid or lazy." I don't think I, personally, am doing that. I think it's more, power and lack of power, tools and lack of tools. There may be overlap with stupidity or laziness (or lack of education or fatigue), but a lazy stupid rich person can just throw money at the problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers? I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight. The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence? I think I'm more assuming that people don't have the tools to make good choices, and we need to put those tools closer to their reach. I'd rather assume that people are misinformed, lazy, or stupid than assume that individuals have the power to stand up to multinationals, because the latter idea is absurd. The tools are within reach of most people I think. I also think there's a tendency in this thread to equate poverty with low intelligence and lack of ability. If you look around the really poor people are not fat although I agree that low income means lack of choice and if you're in bed and breakfast accommodation for instance you can't knock up a nourishing meal but this problem is not a problem that just affects the poorest in society and those people are not necessarily stupid or lazy. I don't think I, personally, am doing that. I think it's more, power and lack of power, tools and lack of tools. There may be overlap with stupidity or laziness (or lack of education or fatigue), but a lazy stupid rich person can just throw money at the problem. " Exactly, it's why I have a personal trainer and chef... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse. But do they taste as nice. Nobody does duck like my local Chinese, chicken like KFC and pizza like Domino's in my opinion but I bet you do make lovely food " They’re all takeaways or fast food though.... not ready meals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things... If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated.. Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse. It's cheaper if you know how and if you have the tools. Not everyone does. " So some pasta and a tin of tomatoes and some chopped veg? I would have thought most people in a home have a couple of pans. If they can’t afford pans I very much doubt they can afford ready meals and takeaways and sweets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things... If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated.. Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse. It's cheaper if you know how and if you have the tools. Not everyone does. So some pasta and a tin of tomatoes and some chopped veg? I would have thought most people in a home have a couple of pans. If they can’t afford pans I very much doubt they can afford ready meals and takeaways and sweets. " Most, but not all. A ready meal might cost £3, maybe less, a couple of pans maybe £15. Some people don't have £15. It's workable if it works. It doesn't always. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things... If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated.. Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse. It's cheaper if you know how and if you have the tools. Not everyone does. So some pasta and a tin of tomatoes and some chopped veg? I would have thought most people in a home have a couple of pans. If they can’t afford pans I very much doubt they can afford ready meals and takeaways and sweets. " I know it sounds simple but for some people it isn't. I work with "disadvantaged" families and sometimes run cooking classes. I cant tell you how many times iv had to show someone how to use a vegetable peeler! If they are going to put a suger tax on, the only way I would support it is if the money raised was used for education classes like cooking and nutrition for those that really need it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The poor seem to get the blame for lots of things... If the rich get fat it's because of over indulgence but the poor are told that they are uneducated.. Nothing to do with rich or poor at all. It’s cheaper to make your own fresh meals than buy ready meals and processed food. That’s just an excuse. It's cheaper if you know how and if you have the tools. Not everyone does. So some pasta and a tin of tomatoes and some chopped veg? I would have thought most people in a home have a couple of pans. If they can’t afford pans I very much doubt they can afford ready meals and takeaways and sweets. Most, but not all. A ready meal might cost £3, maybe less, a couple of pans maybe £15. Some people don't have £15. It's workable if it works. It doesn't always. " Poundland have pans | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My next door neighbours are on the rock n roll, she's 21, in age and probably in stone to, treats her 2 kids with contempt, and feeds them dominoes and other take away 4 or 5 times a week. She could easily afford to cook, but she's a lazy oxygen thief. Whattya gonna do eh?! "Be jealous that she can afford 4/5 take away. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My next door neighbours are on the rock n roll, she's 21, in age and probably in stone to, treats her 2 kids with contempt, and feeds them dominoes and other take away 4 or 5 times a week. She could easily afford to cook, but she's a lazy oxygen thief. Whattya gonna do eh?! "And this is all too common unfortunately. And before anyone jumps on me I get there are genuine people who need help. I stick by what I said earlier though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It will be a good idea, if only the government uses the tax to educate people on healthy eating. "You think those people will be willing to be educated on healthy eating??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The NHS is severely underfunded and the obesity epidemic is costing them the most ... noone needs cakes/sweets/ fizzy drinks so as long as the money goes directly into the NHS would it be such a bad thing?" Makes sense, however the additional revenue would not go to the NHS. We all know that!! As has been pointed out earlier this is just a ploy to tax us even more!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers? I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight. The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence? I think I'm more assuming that people don't have the tools to make good choices, and we need to put those tools closer to their reach. I'd rather assume that people are misinformed, lazy, or stupid than assume that individuals have the power to stand up to multinationals, because the latter idea is absurd. The tools are within reach of most people I think. I also think there's a tendency in this thread to equate poverty with low intelligence and lack of ability. If you look around the really poor people are not fat although I agree that low income means lack of choice and if you're in bed and breakfast accommodation for instance you can't knock up a nourishing meal but this problem is not a problem that just affects the poorest in society and those people are not necessarily stupid or lazy. I don't think I, personally, am doing that. I think it's more, power and lack of power, tools and lack of tools. There may be overlap with stupidity or laziness (or lack of education or fatigue), but a lazy stupid rich person can just throw money at the problem. " They can but rich people are fat too. I think concentrating on one aspect of the problem ignores the bigger picture. We've arrived at this point due to a combination of circumstances. My generation was brought up by parents who lived through rationing, sweet rationing only ended three years before I was born. They knew how to cook with basic ingredients because they'd seen their parents do it. During my childhood food became easier to obtain, convenience food appeared, supermarkets opened, cars were available to nearly everyone. Our parents deprived of sweets for years enjoyed treating their kids once a week, more and more households had both parents working and using convenience food to save time. Then fast food outlets opened, nobody wanted to walk anywhere, well you see where I'm going with this. Society changed, it became easier to eat more high calorie, low nutrient food while not moving about much. People bought the rubbish stuff without knowing it was rubbish and the more they bought the more was supplied. The only way I can see things changing is if there's a huge shift in opinion on every side of this. Big business changes if their profits are threatened, society changes according to factors that are fairly unpredictable but if the message that sugar is bad is repeated often enough maybe people will stop buying it... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers? I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight. The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence?" It doesn’t mean that people in a cycle of poverty aren’t intelligent. It means maybe that single parent works 2 jobs and chicken nuggets are easier to make, that people feed their families both what is locally available. If they don’t have a car and they’re living hand to mouth ( can’t online shop) and their local shop doesn’t carry a variety of healthy foods, with poverty comes a higher percentage of mental health issues and disability greatly hinders what people are capable of managing either physically or emotionally. Going to Iceland and buying a massive bag of processed chicken Is cheaper than buying chicken at a shop. The absolute cheapest food is frozen highly processed and high in fat and sugar. Sugar isn’t the only thing making people heavier. But education about food is a privilege, my mother in law worked in a school in a very low income area and many of the children would start school never having tried most vegetables and others didn’t really even know what home made food was. People in poverty may also indulge more in treats like sweets because the little bright sides make life easier. There’s a lot about poverty that makes it harder that doesn’t mean people in poverty are stupid, just lacking the privilege of modelled behaviour and education. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers? I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight. The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence? I think I'm more assuming that people don't have the tools to make good choices, and we need to put those tools closer to their reach. I'd rather assume that people are misinformed, lazy, or stupid than assume that individuals have the power to stand up to multinationals, because the latter idea is absurd. The tools are within reach of most people I think. I also think there's a tendency in this thread to equate poverty with low intelligence and lack of ability. If you look around the really poor people are not fat although I agree that low income means lack of choice and if you're in bed and breakfast accommodation for instance you can't knock up a nourishing meal but this problem is not a problem that just affects the poorest in society and those people are not necessarily stupid or lazy. I don't think I, personally, am doing that. I think it's more, power and lack of power, tools and lack of tools. There may be overlap with stupidity or laziness (or lack of education or fatigue), but a lazy stupid rich person can just throw money at the problem. They can but rich people are fat too. I think concentrating on one aspect of the problem ignores the bigger picture. We've arrived at this point due to a combination of circumstances. My generation was brought up by parents who lived through rationing, sweet rationing only ended three years before I was born. They knew how to cook with basic ingredients because they'd seen their parents do it. During my childhood food became easier to obtain, convenience food appeared, supermarkets opened, cars were available to nearly everyone. Our parents deprived of sweets for years enjoyed treating their kids once a week, more and more households had both parents working and using convenience food to save time. Then fast food outlets opened, nobody wanted to walk anywhere, well you see where I'm going with this. Society changed, it became easier to eat more high calorie, low nutrient food while not moving about much. People bought the rubbish stuff without knowing it was rubbish and the more they bought the more was supplied. The only way I can see things changing is if there's a huge shift in opinion on every side of this. Big business changes if their profits are threatened, society changes according to factors that are fairly unpredictable but if the message that sugar is bad is repeated often enough maybe people will stop buying it..." I agree parents who were brought up in the time of rationing appreciated treating their children to what they didn’t get. also they had large meals once or twice a week not twice a day. My father in law sometimes gives my daughter just an ice cream for lunch and loves to tell me how healthy it is for the milk and calories ( I don’t object because it’s rare and kind of cute). There’s a surplus now but instead of moderating there’s enjoying. And convenience foods are convenient. The same thing happened in the US just 20 years faster. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government need to stop hitting the working man with taxes. If the stuff us there we will buy it. Bring in legislation to stop manufacturers putting sugar into everything and then we can't buy it. The only body who would suffer in this scenario is the government as they wouldn't receive the tax revenue. Sort of confirms that it's only in place to raise revenue and not protect the health of the nation. Or maybe I'm just cynical?" The government dont give 2 hoots about our health and anyone who thinks different is living in cloud cuckoo land. The big pharmas do care about our health. They want us as sick as possible since no money is to be made from a healthy nation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it need to be approached from both angles then? More education and more pressure on food manufacturers? I've observed that poor diet isn't just a problem in low income families. I notice that as people become better off their diet becomes worse. They drink more, eat more of the wrong thing and increase in weight. The problems caused by too much sugar in our diets span all income levels I think so, but I think we need to save punitive measures for those with most power. I think we need to stop assuming that everyone is stupid too. The information is there. There can't be many people who don't know that sweets are bad for your teeth and cause weight gain. Human beings will choose the path of least resistance and poverty doesn't equal low intelligence? It doesn’t mean that people in a cycle of poverty aren’t intelligent. It means maybe that single parent works 2 jobs and chicken nuggets are easier to make, that people feed their families both what is locally available. If they don’t have a car and they’re living hand to mouth ( can’t online shop) and their local shop doesn’t carry a variety of healthy foods, with poverty comes a higher percentage of mental health issues and disability greatly hinders what people are capable of managing either physically or emotionally. Going to Iceland and buying a massive bag of processed chicken Is cheaper than buying chicken at a shop. The absolute cheapest food is frozen highly processed and high in fat and sugar. Sugar isn’t the only thing making people heavier. But education about food is a privilege, my mother in law worked in a school in a very low income area and many of the children would start school never having tried most vegetables and others didn’t really even know what home made food was. People in poverty may also indulge more in treats like sweets because the little bright sides make life easier. There’s a lot about poverty that makes it harder that doesn’t mean people in poverty are stupid, just lacking the privilege of modelled behaviour and education. " I agree with a lot of what you say but I think that just making this problem about poverty is ignoring the bigger picture. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are planning to introduce it more so to the younger ones to keep them healthy, how would it work?" The sugar tax money has set up a scheme where it is used to give schools free breakfasts especially in deprived areas. This means no child should go hungry and helps their ability to learn. The government gives £26m to schools around the UK to do this. So yes I agree with it. And I am part of this so I know how it has improved schools so far in the 13 months they have trialled it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And previous generations who all ate plenty of fatty foods and ate frys every day had to do hard manual work so got lots of exercise. When is the last time you ever saw an old photo with men who are over weight? Most present day photos with say 5 men in it will have at least 2 or 3 who are all over weight..." Exactly. Get the kids off those bloody machines all the time and get them outdoors playing and exercising a bit! Too easy to blame society for everything. Take responsibility for you and yours! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But they are doing research into sweeteners that may be a cause of obesity. Study was done into rat's, but I don't know if that study has been updated. So whilst they are trying to get us to decrease our sugar intake, what if the sweeteners are the one's making us fat? (That and the emulsifier's) "I wouldn’t touch sweeteners ever. I won’t drink diet drinks and neither do my kids. I have a child with ADHD so I’ve looked into all that in great depth and I won’t even entertain aspartame going into mine or their bodies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And previous generations who all ate plenty of fatty foods and ate frys every day had to do hard manual work so got lots of exercise. When is the last time you ever saw an old photo with men who are over weight? Most present day photos with say 5 men in it will have at least 2 or 3 who are all over weight... Exactly. Get the kids off those bloody machines all the time and get them outdoors playing and exercising a bit! Too easy to blame society for everything. Take responsibility for you and yours! " what about the adults? If you mention the obesity problem in adults it causes problems, its a subject that just can't be discussed without causing offence. However there must be a reason for the increase in obesity across the board | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my opinion, if the government really wanted food and drink producers to reduce sugar content in their products, they would bring in legislation on maximum sugar levels rather than applying a tax. Some producers did reduce sugar content, but others refused, instead expecting their customers to pay more to continue to enjoy their product. But of course, the more sensible option doesn't bring in as much tax revenue" To be fair to any government it’s a bit of a lose / lose situation. Had they done that, they would have removed consumer’s choice, and been accused of implementing a nanny state. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my opinion, if the government really wanted food and drink producers to reduce sugar content in their products, they would bring in legislation on maximum sugar levels rather than applying a tax. Some producers did reduce sugar content, but others refused, instead expecting their customers to pay more to continue to enjoy their product. But of course, the more sensible option doesn't bring in as much tax revenue To be fair to any government it’s a bit of a lose / lose situation. Had they done that, they would have removed consumer’s choice, and been accused of implementing a nanny state." It's already a nanny state. No government wants to alienate big business they'd sooner see the general public take the blame for a problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are planning to introduce it more so to the younger ones to keep them healthy, how would it work?" Are they, what’s your source ? It’s only soft drink companies that get taxed on how much sugar they put into their drinks, it’s up to them whether they pass the tax onto the customer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my opinion, if the government really wanted food and drink producers to reduce sugar content in their products, they would bring in legislation on maximum sugar levels rather than applying a tax. Some producers did reduce sugar content, but others refused, instead expecting their customers to pay more to continue to enjoy their product. But of course, the more sensible option doesn't bring in as much tax revenue To be fair to any government it’s a bit of a lose / lose situation. Had they done that, they would have removed consumer’s choice, and been accused of implementing a nanny state. It's already a nanny state. No government wants to alienate big business they'd sooner see the general public take the blame for a problem" Is it? What are some of the things that “nanny” is preventing you from doing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" MSG = brain damage. " Total bollocks. Do you honestly think it would be allowed if there was a shred of real evidence? This is from the same store as anti-vaccination stories. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs" Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control. " I agree, but also disagree. It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors. It's cheaper than putting out a fire. Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control. I agree, but also disagree. It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors. It's cheaper than putting out a fire. Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive... " Will it stop people though? I took kids to McDonald’s Saturday and noticed on the receipt next to the c#ke it said sugar tax added. Will anyone really say no you can’t have that im not paying that extra 5p or whatever it is! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control. I agree, but also disagree. It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors. It's cheaper than putting out a fire. Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive... " Is the sugar the problem though? Seems misdirected to me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control. I agree, but also disagree. It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors. It's cheaper than putting out a fire. Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive... Is the sugar the problem though? Seems misdirected to me " It's certainly not the whole problem, and probably will only be effective for a smallish percentage of the population. However, it acts as a talking point and brings the subject to the fore again. And even a small percent is a win worth having. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As always, a proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut, as seems the case these days, the masses are penalised because of a few. I drink full fat because I like it, but 2 litres will last almost a week not half a day. Rather than tax me and other sensible people would it not be better to educate those that drink excessive amounts?" I’m a big believer in education. Trouble is lots of people either don’t want to learn or simply believe that their body is somehow different to everyone else. I switched from *full fat * to Pepsi max. 2 bottles of was 600cals. 2 bottles of Pepsi was fewer than 10. It’s not rocket science to see which was going to be better for me losing weight. Nothing to do with the sugar at all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As always, a proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut, as seems the case these days, the masses are penalised because of a few. I drink full fat because I like it, but 2 litres will last almost a week not half a day. Rather than tax me and other sensible people would it not be better to educate those that drink excessive amounts? I’m a big believer in education. Trouble is lots of people either don’t want to learn or simply believe that their body is somehow different to everyone else. I switched from *full fat * to Pepsi max. 2 bottles of was 600cals. 2 bottles of Pepsi was fewer than 10. It’s not rocket science to see which was going to be better for me losing weight. Nothing to do with the sugar at all " It's not one or the other. The sugar tax is not the only tool government is using. Education is another. In fact the tax is supposed to help with the other tasks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" MSG = brain damage. Total bollocks. Do you honestly think it would be allowed if there was a shred of real evidence? This is from the same store as anti-vaccination stories. " Isn’t that a bit like saying “Do you honestly think smoking would be allowed if there was a shred of real evidence it cause lung cancer?”? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't get me started on sweeteners - the next disease inducing, multi-million pound con " Do you know that Aspartame is the most highly investigated consumable chemical in America.. It may be the world, I can’t quite remember but definitely in US.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government need to stop hitting the working man with taxes. If the stuff us there we will buy it. Bring in legislation to stop manufacturers putting sugar into everything and then we can't buy it. The only body who would suffer in this scenario is the government as they wouldn't receive the tax revenue. Sort of confirms that it's only in place to raise revenue and not protect the health of the nation. Or maybe I'm just cynical?" But if they did that, people really would complain about a nanny state. Something like the extra tax, which is only a few pence on a for example, hardly hits the working man that much. And if it does maybe it would incentivise to switch to Diet Coke. I think you are being cynical to a degree. Given that tax is spent on the NHS, then it’s contributing to healthcare that may be caused by diet. It’s a hard balance for a government to get right. If diet is a factor in health issues, then that will incite healthcare costs. If they ban stuff outright, they get criticised for being a nanny state. If they do nothing, then what happens when when there is a spike in diet related illness that needs to be covered by the health services? Something like this which doesn’t ban anything, but both acts as an incentive for people to think about their diet more, and raises a bit of additional tax revenue, seems about the best compromise. Sometimes it seems too easy for people to complain about things like this, rather than just take a bit of personal responsibility. The 5p charge for carrier bags was a good example of that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Busy body bastards place is turning into demolition man world i fine you 1 credit for eating a whisper" Some people would be guilty of a murder/death/kill for a chocolate bar... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs" How exactly are you being wrapped in cotton wool though? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control. I agree, but also disagree. It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors. It's cheaper than putting out a fire. Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive... Will it stop people though? I took kids to McDonald’s Saturday and noticed on the receipt next to the c#ke it said sugar tax added. Will anyone really say no you can’t have that im not paying that extra 5p or whatever it is!" This is the thing. The answer almost always will be “probably not”. But it still doesn’t stop people from complaining about how hard this hits “the working man”. You can’t have your c*ke and eat it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its stupid why do they keep trying to wrap us in cotton wool i thought there was a population problem ffs Ridiculous. People should be responsible for themselves and their kids. Have some bloody restraint and self control. I agree, but also disagree. It falls into the same category as the fire service fitting free smoke detectors. It's cheaper than putting out a fire. Extra strong beds, and big ambulances are expensive... Is the sugar the problem though? Seems misdirected to me" Sugar is a massive problem. There is quite a lot out there now about how they knew all along, but the sugar industry managed to point the finger at fat. Turns out that sugar is a much bigger problem than we were led to believe, and fat isn’t as big a problem as we were led to believe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice " I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm, i dunno. This all sounds like body shaming to me. Aren't people supposed to be proud of how fat they are these days?" Do you ever say anything nice? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?" There are way healthier choices that cost less and are better for you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade?" Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS? Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No imo its not a good idea things I used to enjoy as a treat are no longer the same and ruined I used to buy original lucozade that was my favourite drink until the sugar tax and they changed the recipe to suit and now its horrible not the same " I agree with the lucozade.. although it’s the only thing I have a problem with them changing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade? Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS? Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax?" Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade? Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS? Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax? Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people?" You can eat without eating sugary foods... I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade? Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS? Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax? Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people? You can eat without eating sugary foods... I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat." How much weight has it helped you lose? Or, how much extra does it cost you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade? Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS? Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax? Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people?" That would be a better point of all sugar content was subject to the additional tax. Healthy people who consume sugar in modicum aren’t really affected by it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tax is just money collected by the government to do government style shit with. It would be ironic if the tax collected under the sugar tax logo was in turn spent on nuclear missiles, or the next equivalent of promoting diesel over petrol. " Interesting point. I wonder if it goes towards anything useful? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade? Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS? Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax? Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people? You can eat without eating sugary foods... I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat. How much weight has it helped you lose? Or, how much extra does it cost you?" When I do diet, I low carb. I do think that sugar is damaging to health. But I don’t agree with the sugar tax for my own personal reasons. I’m a fatty with the capacity to choose to pay the price (in both a fiscal and health sense) for my sugar. I agree with it because evidence (WHO) shows taxation of cigarettes has been a highly effective public health strategy. And those are rare! Diabetes and obesity cost the NHS. Taxation helps keep the NHS afloat. Long live the NHS. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade? Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS? Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax? Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people? You can eat without eating sugary foods... I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat. How much weight has it helped you lose? Or, how much extra does it cost you? When I do diet, I low carb. I do think that sugar is damaging to health. But I don’t agree with the sugar tax for my own personal reasons. I’m a fatty with the capacity to choose to pay the price (in both a fiscal and health sense) for my sugar. I agree with it because evidence (WHO) shows taxation of cigarettes has been a highly effective public health strategy. And those are rare! Diabetes and obesity cost the NHS. Taxation helps keep the NHS afloat. Long live the NHS. " Sugar, in excess, is damaging to health. And teeth obviously! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade? Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS? Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax? Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people? You can eat without eating sugary foods... I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat. How much weight has it helped you lose? Or, how much extra does it cost you? When I do diet, I low carb. I do think that sugar is damaging to health. But I don’t agree with the sugar tax for my own personal reasons. I’m a fatty with the capacity to choose to pay the price (in both a fiscal and health sense) for my sugar. I agree with it because evidence (WHO) shows taxation of cigarettes has been a highly effective public health strategy. And those are rare! Diabetes and obesity cost the NHS. Taxation helps keep the NHS afloat. Long live the NHS. Sugar, in excess, is damaging to health. And teeth obviously! "[Fill in the blank], in excess, is damaging to your health. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody has to pay the sugar tax! It's that simple ... it actually is a choice I like sugar, and I'm not fat. So for me it is a tax. It should be based on how fat people are. "You're fat, that'll be an extra 50p". Why should athletes be penalised when they want lucozade? Do you also want to say that his much you contribute to the NHS should depend on his much you use the NHS? Maybe argue that people without children should pay a lower rate of income tax? Put it this way, tax cigarettes as much as you like. Same with booze. I dont need to smoke or consume alcohol. But i do need to consume sugar. Even in modicum. Why penalise healthy people? You can eat without eating sugary foods... I agree with the sugar tax. I think it’s a good idea. And I’m a big fatty fat fat. How much weight has it helped you lose? Or, how much extra does it cost you? When I do diet, I low carb. I do think that sugar is damaging to health. But I don’t agree with the sugar tax for my own personal reasons. I’m a fatty with the capacity to choose to pay the price (in both a fiscal and health sense) for my sugar. I agree with it because evidence (WHO) shows taxation of cigarettes has been a highly effective public health strategy. And those are rare! Diabetes and obesity cost the NHS. Taxation helps keep the NHS afloat. Long live the NHS. Sugar, in excess, is damaging to health. And teeth obviously!
[Fill in the blank], in excess, is damaging to your health. "I'm fully in support of the cauliflower tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are planning to introduce it more so to the younger ones to keep them healthy, how would it work?" are they going to put tax on my sweetness still at least mine is pure | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Cauliflower is what’s really wrong with society" Hear hear! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Cauliflower is what’s really wrong with society Hear hear!" Too much Cauliflower will kill you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"No ffs sake you'll be taxed to walk the streets one day " They shall have to legalise streetwalking before taxing it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
