Sugar Tax.

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I rather like free choice. The information is out there. If you decide to ignore it, pay the price. (Smoking is different because it directly affects the health of others). Meantimes, tax the crap out of sugar - why not?

 

[Gwylan]

Unfortunately the evidence is that we're no less active than 40 tears ago - recreational exercise was fairly non-existent back then.

That's absolute twaddle. Here's one survey that shows that only 25% of kids walk to school compared to 86% in 1971

I think back to my school days and my primary school had two PE sessions a week, a dance session and compulsory games. My secondary school had the same: except no dance. How many kids have that now?

And outside school, look at the number of football teams around: every area had one (there were two near me, in Moulsecoomb and Bevendean, both long gone). As for cricket, we've lost huge numbers of teams: all three teams that I played for in the 70s and 80s are no more.

Whatever criteria you use, we do far, far less exercise than we did 40 years ago

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It is. I want progressive taxation on income, but also governments making a stance on what goods should be discouraged. There is an obesity epidemic. This is structural, and a result of a shift in our diets, labour practices, etc.

No, it is due to the working class getting richer. I went to detroit in the early 80s and was amazed by the massive backsides on show. The working class with a sudden increase in income and no added culture and education just eats more. In any case its a response throughout the animal kingdom - pork up during the days of plenty. It takes discipline and a longterm view to not indulge when you are cash rich. I predict that intensive diet education will become the new 'no smoking' imperative pretty soon . . .

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

That's absolute twaddle. Here's one survey that shows that only 25% of kids walk to school compared to 86% in 1971

I think back to my school days and my primary school had two PE sessions a week, a dance session and compulsory games. My secondary school had the same: except no dance. How many kids have that now?

And outside school, look at the number of football teams around: every area had one (there were two near me, in Moulsecoomb and Bevendean, both long gone). As for cricket, we've lost huge numbers of teams: all three teams that I played for in the 70s and 80s are no more.

Whatever criteria you use, we do far, far less exercise than we did 40 years ago

Walking to school doesn't constitute a valid reason for such soaring obesity though. I'm quite involved in this issue and there is a wealth of evidence that activity levels are a very small part of the problem and that very young children remain very active (in terms of overall calorie expenditure).

In one of the largest studies done, it was found that obesity preceded inactivity in children. The steady increase in "empty" calories and "high insulin" diet has resulted in the current situation. Sugar is added to everything (bread, pasta sauce etc) and we have become ever more tolerant to it.

The background to the sugar lobby is very interesting - in the 70s, US farmers were saved by subsidised corn syrup and from then on the lobbyists ensured that fat was painted as the reason for poor health and sugar was presented as healthy.

This could be a regressive tax but it should be used to make cheaper alternative options and legislate down the sugar content in all foods.

 

[Notters]

Terrible idea. The nanny state continues to build on our shores and people blame the EU. Education is key.

 

[spring hall convert]

I think it's just another example of pressure groups hectoring the general public. "Let's tax alcohol, lets tax sugar, lets tax trans-fats"

Fair enough none of them are actually good for you in large quantities, but here's a novel idea- why not let people actually think for themselves? Yes, more public awareness by all means, but by punitively taxing the shit out of stuff all it does is make the cost of living higher. Where does anyone realistically believe that tax will go, because it sure as shit won't go towards healthcare?

I think the food companies need to be given a strict framework within which to self-regulate gradually over a period of time, in much the same way as has been done successfully with salt. If they can't or won't do it, then a sales side tax is probably the only logical way to do it.

You neglect to mention the money sugar is already costing the NHS, in high levels of obesity, type 2 diabetes and dentistry. The tax wouldn't need to go directly to the NHS (though I think it should do for a time) for the NHS to be financially advantaged by it over a long term period (assuming that it cut sugar consumption.)

 

[beorhthelm]

Sugar is added to everything (bread, pasta sauce etc) and we have become ever more tolerant to it.

The background to the sugar lobby is very interesting - in the 70s, US farmers were saved by subsidised corn syrup and from then on the lobbyists ensured that fat was painted as the reason for poor health and sugar was presented as healthy.

the added sugar claims are being overstated or just incorrect. my bread doesnt list any added, nor a couple of other brands i've checked. pasta sauces may have some added but its not much, one i just looked at its below salt. there is however fair amount of sugar in a pasta sause, because theres quite a bit in tomatoes. this is the dificulty with a sugar tax, catching natural sugar in the net.

the US connection is bordering on conspiracy theory, it may apply to the US but we dont have the same need to hide so much sugar crop here (and they ferment lots to add to fuel to get rid of it) its going too far to suggest fat has been portrayed as unhealthy to promote healthy sugar, both have been told to be deleterious to health in large amounts for decades. "no added sugar" has been a marketing campaign since the 80's.

the walking to school issue is interesting though as i doubt that does have much affect, 15 minutes walk doesnt burn that much calories. the problem with levels of exercise stats is they compare different things, recreational exercise vs casual exercise, then gets unbalanced over a population. those in poor health are likely from families that did and do little of either, which has no impact on the health of the active family that did and does alot.

 

[BigGully]

I am someone that goes into schools and I have to say I have yet to see the obesity that it so often claimed.

Most of the kids are stick thin, the schools I go into are a mix between the so called poorer and middle class areas.

Most kids ride bikes, ride scooters, play different sports and generally run about alot, most eat a decent nutritional meal some don't, thats life.

Give out the information let adults make informed decision even if its not in line with any current authoritative guideline.

But always be suspicious of those that wish to impinge on your life choices, they are never quite satisfied until our lifestyle choices mirror their own narrow world view.

 

[Gwylan]

Walking to school doesn't constitute a valid reason for such soaring obesity though. I'm quite involved in this issue and there is a wealth of evidence that activity levels are a very small part of the problem and that very young children remain very active (in terms of overall calorie expenditure).

In one of the largest studies done, it was found that obesity preceded inactivity in children. The steady increase in "empty" calories and "high insulin" diet has resulted in the current situation. Sugar is added to everything (bread, pasta sauce etc) and we have become ever more tolerant to it.

That's all very true and it's also true that exercise doesn't compensate for poor diet but that's not what you said: you said that kids don't do any less exercise than they did 40 years ago and that's demonstrably not true.

To take another example, we played football in our playground every break, every day. At my son's school (like at many schools), football is banned as it's too dangerous. That would have been absolutely unheard of 40 years ago.

But I do agree that the issue for poor diet is much more serious and improving exercise rates wouldn't make things much better

 

[Codner pharmaceuticals]

People need to take responsibility for themselves.

How about penalising those who don't take exercise or having tax breaks for people who send their kids to sports clubs.

People you have a brain.

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

That's all very true and it's also true that exercise doesn't compensate for poor diet but that's not what you said: you said that kids don't do any less exercise than they did 40 years ago and that's demonstrably not true.

To take another example, we played football in our playground every break, every day. At my son's school (like at many schools), football is banned as it's too dangerous. That would have been absolutely unheard of 40 years ago.

But I do agree that the issue for poor diet is much more serious and improving exercise rates wouldn't make things much better

I'll accept that. Much of the evidence about activity levels does relate to adults.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it is due to the working class getting richer. I went to detroit in the early 80s and was amazed by the massive backsides on show. The working class with a sudden increase in income and no added culture and education just eats more. In any case its a response throughout the animal kingdom - pork up during the days of plenty. It takes discipline and a longterm view to not indulge when you are cash rich. I predict that intensive diet education will become the new 'no smoking' imperative pretty soon . . .

I'm not quite sure what you're disagreeing with, if you are (but the first word suggests that you might be). I think we both agree that rather than scarcity, we now have if not abundance, at least more than required to eat in the western world. There's also the effects of MNCs intruding into our diets, producing, marketing and placing products in our way, and these products are some combination of high fat, sugar and salt.
The no smoking imperative you refer to has been tackled by a combination of policies: extremely high taxes/duties, education, tackling marketing, and so on. It's this range of policies that is required with tosh food.

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

I am someone that goes into schools and I have to say I have yet to see the obesity that it so often claimed.

Most of the kids are stick thin, the schools I go into are a mix between the so called poorer and middle class areas.

Most kids ride bikes, ride scooters, play different sports and generally run about alot, most eat a decent nutritional meal some don't, thats life.

Give out the information let adults make informed decision even if its not in line with any current authoritative guideline.

But always be suspicious of those that wish to impinge on your life choices, they are never quite satisfied until our lifestyle choices mirror their own narrow world view.

I'm not doubting your experience but I also interact with hundreds of children and lots are big.

An interesting recent study in Britain found half of children were overweight but only 3% of parents recognised this in their own children! People don't think they or their children are fat because the other kids are big.

 

[BigGully]

I'm not doubting your experience but I also interact with hundreds of children and lots are big.

An interesting recent study in Britain found half of children were overweight but only 3% of parents recognised this in their own children! People don't think they or their children are fat because the other kids are big.

50% are overweight, really

I ask every parent, family member, taxi driver or after school club supervisor to take a look at the profile of the chuildren at their school today, it will never ever be 50% ...... never.

Having said that my point is more offering information and let adults irrespective of the morale and academic superiority of those of you that wish to tax the poor to save them from themselves, to allow everyone to access reasonable nutritional information and let them freely make considered choices.

I think the extreme obesity we too often see on TV is a more complex issue and something that this tax has no bearing on, more likely a dysfunctionality that requires different solutions, but this proposed tax is not about them.

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

50% are overweight, really

I ask every parent, family member, taxi driver or after school club supervisor to take a look at the profile of the chuildren at their school today, it will never ever be 50% ...... never.

Having said that my point is more offering information and let adults irrespective of the morale and academic superiority of those of you that wish to tax the poor to save them from themselves, to allow everyone to access reasonable nutritional information and let them freely make considered choices.

I think the extreme obesity we too often see on TV is a more complex issue and something that this tax has no bearing on, more likely a dysfunctionality that requires different solutions, but this proposed tax is not about them.

Sorry, figure was actually 34%.

Parents 'rarely spot child obesity' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32069699

Point is, people won't try and fix a problem they don't even recognise. People are not idiots but marketing, perverse incentives, ease of access etc are all factors. People smoke, drink, speed, take drugs, as they make a choice to do this and society has to both inform them to make better choices and push them in a certain direction. So called nudging and industry self regulation don't work.

 

[nwgull]

50% are overweight, really

I ask every parent, family member, taxi driver or after school club supervisor to take a look at the profile of the chuildren at their school today, it will never ever be 50% ...... never.

Having said that my point is more offering information and let adults irrespective of the morale and academic superiority of those of you that wish to tax the poor to save them from themselves, to allow everyone to access reasonable nutritional information and let them freely make considered choices.

I think the extreme obesity we too often see on TV is a more complex issue and something that this tax has no bearing on, more likely a dysfunctionality that requires different solutions, but this proposed tax is not about them.

It's around 35% of school age kids that are classified as overweight or obese as far as BMI is concerned. And BMI is a good indication of the point at which weight is likely to cause health issues.

Edit: Indurains Lungs beat me to it. However another point to add is that people often don't realise that their kids (or themselves) are unhealthily fat, because being fat is becoming the norm in the UK.

 

[Machiavelli]

I rather like free choice. The information is out there. If you decide to ignore it, pay the price. (Smoking is different because it directly affects the health of others). Meantimes, tax the crap out of sugar - why not?

And on this one, I think there's some tension between your first two sentences and the last. Taxing behaviour impedes free choice, as it directs our choices into specific directions. I think this is a good thing, and that we should value certain things above others -- decent food over MNC food, for instance, or the health and education of the public over its ill-health and poor education. To return to my original email, I think that this should come from a combination of a progressive income tax and taxes on certain poor products, and tax relief, public provision of others.

 

[BigGully]

Sorry, figure was actually 34%.

Parents 'rarely spot child obesity' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32069699

Point is, people won't try and fix a problem they don't even recognise. People are not idiots but marketing, perverse incentives, ease of access etc are all factors. People smoke, drink, speed, take drugs, as they make a choice to do this and society has to both inform them to make better choices and push them in a certain direction. So called nudging and industry self regulation don't work.

Silly parents, cant even see what you and others see, that their children are fat, ugly more likely poor and uneducated, maybe they do know and would rather not be targeted by the 'worried well'.

I am uncomfortable that another party should somehow assess and commend or condemn other peoples children due to a snapshot of that childs weight, it shouldnt be seen as the pinnacle of a childs or parents worth, it is an issue that generally doesnt adversely effect others, it is a personal issue that shouldnt be seen as some form of irresponsibility if some sugar guru says you fall short of their current weight standard.

I will call out again to those within schools, 34% overweight, nah not a chance.

 

[nwgull]

Silly parents, cant even see what you and others see, that their children are fat, ugly more likely poor and uneducated, maybe they do know and would rather not be targeted by the 'worried well'.

I am uncomfortable that another party should somehow assess and commend or condemn other peoples children due to a snapshot of that childs weight, it shouldnt be seen as the pinnacle of a childs or parents worth, it is an issue that generally doesnt adversely effect others, it is a personal issue that shouldnt be seen as some form of irresponsibility if some sugar guru says you fall short of their current weight standard.

I will call out again to those within schools, 34% overweight, nah not a chance.

This is because people's perception of overweight is wrong and distorted by the increase in obesity. The classification made by BMI wasn't invented by a shitlord doctor to make people feel bad and promote the diet industry; it is based on the researched levels over which someone's excess fat is likely to increase the chances of developing health issues.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

People are so stupid. This kind of tax is nothing more that legalised theft.