cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Sugar

Community Veteran
Posts: 18,613
Thanks: 218
Registered: 12-08-2007

Re: Sugar

The sensible approach is for government to sit down with manufacturers and agree reduction in sugar levels in food. This was done effectively with salt.
Unfortunately the reduction in salt led to an increase in sugar which now needs addressing.
Community Veteran
Posts: 8,393
Thanks: 891
Fixes: 9
Registered: 02-08-2007

Re: Sugar

Quote from: M
@gleneagles Tax hasn't stopped other evils though has it?
True but it might have reduced it.
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,685
Thanks: 111
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Sugar

the idea of a sugar tax follows hot on the footsteps of the tobacco tax and the alcohol tax (which are above VAT) since they demonised smokers so much they no longer have much income from that, the so called education about drinking booze has taken effect and that's another income stream that's hit the effective plateau point (any higher and pubs close in droves) so now they need to pick on something new to tax, something the vast majority have no idea how much there is in any given product and should they succeed the average person will no longer be able to afford an ice cream or ice pole on a hot day due to the new tax (suggestions are £1.00 tax per item) fruit will become something only the rich get regularly and sweets will disappear from the shelves as they stop being a profitable item, who's going to buy those 50p sweets if they cost £1.50 without an allowance raise of several pounds a week ...... fizzy drinks will loose sales momentum and half the countries production plants will close down, but that's long term, in the short term the lobby feels they can realise a few hundred billion in taxes with wich to continue funding themselves for the next decade .....
get rid of the consortium of quango's and get back to common sense, suddenly you will see they no longer promote such fad ideas
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,238
Thanks: 1,130
Fixes: 3
Registered: 06-11-2014

Re: Sugar

Quote from: artmo
The sensible approach is for government to sit down with manufacturers and agree reduction in sugar levels in food. This was done effectively with salt.

Or, we could learn to cook our own food from scratch, rather than eat slops in a tray from the supermarket freezers, I find those to be quite offensive to my tastebuds, so I like cooking things from scratch, for one it helps burn off energy, and two, I know what goes into what I cook... Cool
jab1
All Star
Posts: 1,866
Thanks: 413
Fixes: 6
Registered: 24-02-2012

Re: Sugar

Quote from: nanotm
the idea of a sugar tax follows hot on the footsteps of the tobacco tax and the alcohol tax (which are above VAT) since they demonised smokers so much they no longer have much income from that, the so called education about drinking booze has taken effect and that's another income stream that's hit the effective plateau point (any higher and pubs close in droves) so now they need to pick on something new to tax, something the vast majority have no idea how much there is in any given product and should they succeed the average person will no longer be able to afford an ice cream or ice pole on a hot day due to the new tax (suggestions are £1.00 tax per item) fruit will become something only the rich get regularly and sweets will disappear from the shelves as they stop being a profitable item, who's going to buy those 50p sweets if they cost £1.50 without an allowance raise of several pounds a week ...... fizzy drinks will loose sales momentum and half the countries production plants will close down, but that's long term, in the short term the lobby feels they can realise a few hundred billion in taxes with wich to continue funding themselves for the next decade .....
get rid of the consortium of quango's and get back to common sense, suddenly you will see they no longer promote such fad ideas

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, nanotm. Smiley
At 60 years old and counting, I'm amazed at how the 'experts' who seemingly advise the government  can change tack without even blinking, and expect those with a reasonable memory not to remember when they advised that this or that which is now 'evil' was 'essential' for our health.
John
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 18,312
Thanks: 1,662
Fixes: 182
Registered: 11-01-2008

Re: Sugar

this is just the reward of chasing the low fat 'dream' - fat was the last evil and everyone had to cut it out.
it was replaced by sugar and now sugar is evil.

Customer / Moderator / If it helped click the thumb / If it fixed it click 'This fixed my problem'

nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,685
Thanks: 111
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Sugar

yeah the funny thing is the so called experts are clearly demonstrating that they have zero idea of what makes a healthy diet, constantly advocating to get rid of x or y yet failing to understand without balance all things are bad and most of the time the new idea is worse for your health than the last one was.......
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,238
Thanks: 1,130
Fixes: 3
Registered: 06-11-2014

Re: Sugar

Everything is evil that doesn't conform to those preaching the sermon... Grin
Hmm, ties in nicely with the Sunday thread that... Grin
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,685
Thanks: 111
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Sugar

its like that prophetic look at the future they used in demolition man all those years ago where everything had been deemed bad for your health and was thus illegal ........
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,238
Thanks: 1,130
Fixes: 3
Registered: 06-11-2014

Re: Sugar

So how did they use the three seashells anyway? Grin
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,685
Thanks: 111
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Sugar

that's one of those questions i'll probably never know the answer too XD
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Community Veteran
Posts: 3,426
Thanks: 331
Fixes: 4
Registered: 05-04-2007

Re: Sugar

Wonderful, someone proposes a new tax.
Like petrol duty stops anyone driving.
As does the VED fix the potholes in the road and stop my council wasting 6mil "padestranising" the high street (or [Censored] it up).
The alcohol duty stops people drinking.
The cigarette tax stops people smoking, as does having the bigger warnings, banning the vending machines, and having to ask for your own brand rather than being able to see it.
The Congestion Tax stops people driving into London, but doesn't indirectly increase costs for people who don't. How for example do goods get onto shelves and buildings get serviced?
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,685
Thanks: 111
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Sugar

pump prices have stopped a lot of people driving, pub prices stopped a lot of people drinking in pubs (hence the rise in problem drinking) tobacco prices have seen the cost of ouch of rolling tobacco go from £7.00 for 50g pouch to £17.50 for the same pouch in 10 years, it hasn't stopped people smoking just forced a lot more people to buy bootlegged product that "fell of the back of a van" giving rise to a new bread of criminal enterprise anyone with a vehicle can take part in...... similar things happened with booze, and now we find they want to get the same thing done with sugar .....
by all means tax that nasty artificial junk the processed food industry use, by all means tax that horrible cane based stuff certain companies produce  but how about leaving the sugar beet based stuff (that's actually good for us in small quantities) alone, blanket taxation is never a good thing for the country, it always leads to job losses both in the short medium and long terms and causes the GDP to have a temporary increase before a massive contraction which always triggers a recession ...... the simplest way to fix the problem is education about a balanced diet and if your coffers are short then tax the companies that profit from making the junk food (they will inevitably increase prices to discourage purchasing of their product) and we can get back to a generally more healthy long lived society Smiley
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,238
Thanks: 1,130
Fixes: 3
Registered: 06-11-2014

Re: Sugar

Quote from: nanotm
by all means tax that horrible cane based stuff certain companies produce  but how about leaving the sugar beet based stuff (that's actually good for us in small quantities) alone

Cane sugar is the same quality as beet sugar, it's just different horses, we can grow the beet here for ourselves, and other countries where cane grows well grow it there, we import some, but the majority of our sugar in the UK is usually a mix of the two...
It's the High Fructose Corn Syrup (which as I'm sure you can guess is made from the universal plant that is corn) that's the bad stuff, yet it actually costs more to make than beet or cane sugar is, so there's no logic to using it other than union goons across the pond gripping the back of their senators' necks and saying "Buddy, it's like this......", and hey presto HFCS is the go-to defacto sugary sweetener...
BUT, we don't use it over here usually, so, we just have our beet & cane to worry about... Smiley
There is Stevia which makes for a useful alternative sweetener, but consumed in too large a quantity it causes floppybotty, which I suppose could be used as a way to say "You've had enough mate!!", but with virtually no calories and seemingly no ill effects (aside from loose bowels), it's a good alternative, and even I can have it too... Smiley
Community Veteran
Posts: 14,345
Thanks: 685
Fixes: 10
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: Sugar

Quote from: twocvbloke
Quote from: gleneagles
I can think of no logical reason.

I can, the conservatories only care about the old folk, so they don't care if the young 'uns die of health problems relating to sugar intake... Grin

Why are you laughing at that? Do you think it's funny that the young'uns today are so worthless to the government? - I don't and I doubt many others do either.
I think it's quite clear the government don't want to loose the tax income. Many sugary things are now switching to sweeteners instead - sprite being a fine and disgusting example. Worryingly many of these can cause cancer.. so all the government is doing is trying to dodge one issue and contribute to another.
This country is so good at destroying its own future.
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!