Donate SIGN UP

Sugar Tax

Avatar Image
sp1814 | 15:24 Wed 16th Mar 2016 | News
62 Answers
A sensible move to tackle obesity, or gesture politics?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35813973
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 62rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes...sensible. Something has to be done about the growing obesity problem, especially amongst children. This won't do it on its own, of course, but its a good start.

I know sugar isn't good but it's more than sugar making people obese. I grew up in a pub and drank lots of Cola, ate lots of sweets, crisps and chips from the chippy next door.

But I was very active.
It's just a way to raise money. Not everyone is obese. Are they going to weigh them first?
Possibly obesity related, but more a New Tax for all to pay. Fresh air's next.
Sugar does play a part in some people's obesity but the government should be thinking about education not taxation.

This tax is applied to businesses, not on the consumer directly so maybe a small increase at the till, don't see it making a great difference.
I suppose the hope is to discourage businesses from loading their products with sugar, rather than to make money. Worth a try, even if it doesn't work all that well in the end.
Sugar tax?
Sweet!
A Spartane existence from now on then.....
Shoota, such flippancy in the News section is apt to get you caned.
I disagree, I think it is another bad move. Not only will folk now have to find more money to buy the product, again the real aim is to gather more tax. If they were that worried about obesity they'd teach nutrition in school and ensure all pupils got sufficient exercise. But that was the hard decision, not the, "let's pretend we're concerned and doing something", option. Got an issue, can we tax/charge it ? It's all governments know/are interested in. And again it is the less well off that will get hit hardest, firstly because the tax is per can/bottle and not related toi income, and also because they are more inclined to go for the more convenient high sugar soda drink in preference to the low sugar high price organic fair trade New Zealand babaco with tanjong spritzer.
How many of you watched the paired documentaries
The Men Who Made Us Thin
The Men Who Made Us Fat
before I start repeating what you already know?



Don't draw too many conclusions from this but low-dose Aspartame affects gut flora in rats and had knock-effects on metabolism which include insulin response.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25313461

Google search terms "aspartame implicated obesity"

The generation brought up on rationing may have splurged on sugary foods when it came off rationing but did they become obese? If not, it may be that the lean times, during rationing, "programmed" their metabolism to behave in such a way that high-carbohydrate intake, in later life, did not lead to making them fat.

There is another strand of research concerning "epigenetics", in which parental metabolism "settings" influence what nutrient levels the foetus is exposed to, affecting its metabolic settings, so factors are "inherited" but this is not attributable to genes.

Synthetic aspartame is, in effect, a change to our environment and the date of its introduction really ought to be marked on any graph of increasing prevalence of obesity (in childhood or otherwise) just so people can evaluate for themselves what the story is; the same way that we know when the industrial revolution kicked off and keep that in mind when looking at graphs of global CO2 concentration and temperature etc.
As you can a 2 litre bottle of sugary pop for 40p a tax will make very little impact on the cost.
It definitely shouldn't be replaced with artificial sweeteners, that's even unhealthier.
I do wonder if genetics plays a part. My paternal side are overweight, my maternal side are all slim. My sister is fat and I'm slim. My slim maternal side of the family eat fast and lots of it. It's like going out for dinner with a bunch of pigs.
Now let me be sure I understand this. You are slim and follow the slim maternal side of the family, who eat fast and lots of it like a bunch of pigs ?
I know plenty of people like that - built like racing snakes with the appetites of very greedy piggies and the lifestyle of sloths
It certainly fits with the "tax the fat because they're a nuisance on planes" thing...

... But clearly doesn't go far enough.

There's no value in sugary carbonated drinks for anyone other than the companies that make them.

If they were banned completely, would anyone do much more than shrug?

Why a small levy applied to the companies? Why not on the consumer as well. Maybe it would be a deterrent?
There is far more sugar in some of the coffees sold by Starbucks etc than in a can of full sugar Coke.
Yes...OG...in Theory they should all be fat but they are all active. I'm less active but don't eat as much.

1 to 20 of 62rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Sugar Tax

Answer Question >>