Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To love the idea of a "sugar tax?"

137 replies

Toomanyhouseguests · 23/06/2014 10:20

I really do try to be good, but sugar is so cheap and inviting that the kids diets are a constant, relentless battle that I always lose in the end.

I know it is nannying, but I love this idea:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27961475

The environment that I live in is a constant onslaught from outside the home of sugar. Sugar from school, sugar from neighbours, sugar from church, sugar from kids clubs etc. If that environment changed because junk wasn't so cheap, it would certainly help me! And, if I am honest, it would change some of my shopping habits. My husband loves snacks and treats as much as the kids do, but he also wants the monthly shopping budget to stay under control.

Anyone else feeling this way? Or am I the only one unable to hold the line here?

OP posts:
Suzannewithaplan · 23/06/2014 17:14

I don't think it's workable, and I don't think it'd work

DesperatelySeekingSedatives · 23/06/2014 17:32

YABU it wont make us healthier as people who eat too much bad shit will keep eating it as that's what they like to eat. and as expat said why should those who eat sugar responsibly have to pay a bloody tax on it for the greedy sods who eat loads and have no self control?

I'm honestly so sick of the answer to every bloody problem being "ahh lets whack some tax on that/increase the tax on that!" some people drink too much? increase the tax they pay on booze! some people use their cars too often? increase the price of petrol and so on. And now what, fat tax. great.

Suzannewithaplan · 23/06/2014 17:40

I think people should be able to eat what they want, perhaps more education about how to eat for better health, but ultimately if you want to lead a lifestyle which leads you to become rather fat you have a right to do so.

Obesity tends to lead to earlier death so if you are overweight the extra money which may be spent on healthcare will be saved when you shuffle off the mortal coil earlier than the thin people who hang around for ages claiming a pension

RedToothBrush · 23/06/2014 18:54

A tax on sugar wouldn't solve the problem.

It would mean there would be a shift to sugar substitutes instead. (Which isn't suitable for everyone anyway).

Several studies have shown that the problem with sugar substitutes is that they are worse than sugar, in increasing obesity. Whilst they have less calories themselves, your body gets the high, but not the calories which makes you hungrier and makes you eat more in the end.

The issue is weaning people off sweet food. Its about cutting portion sizes as we have lost all sense of what is a suitable size for a meal.

A tax on sugar is a kneejerk, quick fix solution, like any other faddy diet to loose weight. The only real solution is proper balanced eating.

Toomanyhouseguests · 23/06/2014 19:26

CotedeAzure, ProfessorDent is bette informed than you are regarding sugar's affect on the brain.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144

OP posts:
Sidthesausage · 23/06/2014 19:38

Fags and booze are highly taxed, makes sense to tax something else that costs the NHS tons of cash

paxtecum · 23/06/2014 19:56

Wouldn't it be great if the cocoa and sugar growers and workers were given a decent return, ie if all chocolate, tea, coffee, sugar etc was Fairtrade?

I

Mammuzza · 23/06/2014 20:07

I'm concerned about hidden sorbitol more than I am hidden sugar.

I would end up like a stick insect, after having shit my intenstines out.

Barstard evil stuff. It was like an army of demons had gone to work dismantelling with my belly from the inside.

My first move would be to force manufacturers to use a considerably bigger font for their ingredients lists. So I can actually read them. With sorbitol legally obliged to be in capital letters. With a special flashing sticker. That said ARSE DANGER

Dear god who invented that stuff, and who let them hide it in innocent looking mints.

Pretty much if you tax a single ingrediant, manufacturers will whack in subs... like sorbitol. And I don't think causing wieght loss by mass "the world just fell out of my bottom" episoldes is the way to go.

Me and my bum would protest any move to implement this suggestion...as an act of self preservation.

gellicleCat · 23/06/2014 20:27

@paxtecum
fairtrade is nothing to do with this

CoteDAzur · 23/06/2014 20:40

TooMany - That link is not a study. It is talking about some experimental research without telling what it is.

It might be talking about this but a close look will reveal that (1) That "intense sweetness" is from saccharine, not sugar, and (2) rats are notoriously resistant to cocaine addiction. A "retrospective analysis of all experiments over the past 5 years revealed that no matter how heavy was past cocaine use most rats readily give up cocaine use in favor of the nondrug alternative. Only a minority, fewer than 15% at the heaviest level of past cocaine use, continued to take cocaine, even when hungry and offered a natural sugar that could relieve their need of calories."

The conclusion to be drawn from this is not that sugar is as addictive as cocaine but that rats as a species are just not that interested in cocaine.

Or as in the Conclusion of the review above, titled "Cocaine is low on the value ladder of rats":

"This pattern of results (cocaine abstinence in most rats; cocaine preference in few rats) maps well onto the epidemiology of human cocaine addiction and suggests that only a minority of rats would be vulnerable to cocaine addiction while the large majority would be resilient despite extensive drug use. Resilience to drug addiction has long been suspected in humans but could not be firmly established, mostly because it is difficult to control retrospectively for differences in drug self-exposure and/or availability in human drug users. This conclusion has important implications for preclinical research on the neurobiology of cocaine addiction and for future medication development."

paxtecum · 23/06/2014 20:45

No Fairtrade is nothing to do with it.
But no one ever seems to care about the poor buggers who grow all the cocoa, coffee, sugar etc. It is often slave labour.

It epitimises the massive gulf between the rich nations who have obesity problems and the growers in the third world who hardly get paid a wage.

If it a price increase is even being considered, it shouldn't be a tax at this end of the chain. The Fair trade program should be expanded to include all growers.

JudysPriest · 23/06/2014 21:05

I've found this thread to be really reassuring. I though it was just me who thought like this on MN!

Toomanyhouseguests · 23/06/2014 21:09

CotedeAzure

mic.com/articles/88015/what-happens-to-your-brain-on-sugar-explained-by-science

Human brain scans comparing sugar and cocaine.

Any academic type studies can be refuted and picked at. That's what academics is all about. But, to sneer at professordent in such a sweeping way isn't reasonable when there is disputed research out there.

And no, I actually don't feed my family junk, nor are any of us overweight, as I stated in my OP. However, I can feel that it is a hard battle, and I personally would be glad to have a smaller sugar industry. I also would not see myself as morally superior to people who are overweight or obese.

OP posts:
CoteDAzur · 23/06/2014 21:30

How did I know you would next trot out brain scans Grin

All those show is that both cocaine and sugar are pleasurable. So you see the brain's pleasure & reward centres lighting up.

The same centres light up when people in love look at a picture of their beloved. So what - is love a dangerous drug now? Do you want to tax it? Grin

Toomanyhouseguests · 23/06/2014 21:53

I presume neither of us are neuroscientists, so I am going to park this side discussion.

What irks me on this thread is all the vitriol, contempt for other people, and foul language. And, I am not referring to you specifically Cote.

I wondered what other people would make of this BBC article, and now I know. I can see why Jeremy Hunt doesn't want to touch it with a barge pole. Everybody hates taxes and almost everybody loves sugar. Not.a.vote.winner.

OP posts:
Mammuzza · 23/06/2014 21:55

I personally would be glad to have a smaller sugar industry

I'd personally like a smaller "diet" industry. Like say "could fit on a postage stamp" size.

Put a massive special rate of VAT on any media that uses the term "superfood" while waggling unappitising berries.

Ditto when they they print a picture of a food, under the caption "Poisen ! Basically CRACK!!"

CoteDAzur · 23/06/2014 22:11

I'm not the one trotting out brain scans and non-research Hmm

"Not a vote winner" has nothing to do with this. You want everyone to be taxed so prices of crap rise, so that you buy less of it. That is the epitome of all selfish & idiotic ideas. YABVVVU.

Toomanyhouseguests Mon 23-Jun-14 10:20:28
I really do try to be good, but sugar is so cheap and inviting that the kids diets are a constant, relentless battle that I always lose in the end... If that environment changed because junk wasn't so cheap, it would certainly help me! And, if I am honest, it would change some of my shopping habits.

CoteDAzur · 23/06/2014 22:12

What Mammuzza said.

Read Bad Science.

Toomanyhouseguests · 23/06/2014 22:55

Sigh, the folks suggesting sugar is a problem aren't just goofy TV diet gurus, but people like Dame Sally Davies the chief medical officer for England.

OP posts:
CoteDAzur · 23/06/2014 23:03

Lots of added sugar in processed food is a problem. Just don't eat it.

The solution is to cook your own food from scratch, not to tax the entire world so your compulsive candy-eating can be too expensive to sustain.

WitchWay · 23/06/2014 23:24

Demonising any particular food group is just ridiculous & unsustainable.

Portions. Eat everything, but not too much of anything.

Exercise - nothing expensive or fancy - walking is exercise. Move around more.

WorraLiberty · 23/06/2014 23:24

OP, I'm not sure how long you've been on Mumsnet

But if you look at the amount of threads from October to December about over consumption of chocolate, you might (or might not) be surprised.

It's not uncommon to see many threads where the OP says, "I've just had to replace the tin of chocolates I bought for Xmas, because I've eaten them all".

Cue loads of laughing, back slapping and YANBU.

Then other posters will come along and say they're on the 2nd/3rd/4th tin that they've had to replace.

It's the same every Easter. Loads of threads where posters say they've eaten their kid's Easter eggs...cue lots more back slapping, laughing and the usual "Ohh but you're just being kind to their teeth".

No amount of tax will change that sort of attitude/lack of willpower/sense of entitlement.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know the answer is not to 'punish' the people who do actually eat everything in moderation.

BackOnlyBriefly · 23/06/2014 23:29

A sugar tax is evil because it ignores the plight of children whose parents have enough money to ignore it.

If you really cared it wouldn't be a tax you were asking for, but a law banning sugar.

All those poor little rich kids treated as less important just because their parents are well off.

Mammuzza · 24/06/2014 00:05

Sigh, the folks suggesting sugar is a problem aren't just goofy TV diet gurus, but people like Dame Sally Davies the chief medical officer for England.

Any overegging, from whoever, that basically hands people a ready made excuse to change nothing..."ohhh, it's like crack! it's addictive! you can't help yourself !" will compound the proboem and fail utterly to be part of the solution.

It is actually quite simple to avoid too much sugar, or too much of anything that gets added to pre-made or processed foods. In the main, buy stuff that doesn't have an advert. It's often one ingredient food.

Go easy on the traditional processed foods.

Go even easier on the newer processed foods.

Avoid anything that where when you look at it, you couldn't actually guess what foodstuff was used to make it.

Drink water. Not stuff in bottles that look like they are trying hard to be seen as either healthy, or exciting.

You will save money, you will eat less sugar (and assorted other crap), you will have far better nutrition.

You don't have to be all dramatic, evangelical and "this is the first day of the rest of my life!" about it. Each week up the non processed stuff a bit, and buy a bit less of the processed stuff. Keep going, slow and steady, until you hit a balance that provides decent nutrition, has slowly got you used to cooking rather than reheating, but doesn't leave you feeling grumpily treat-free.

If people laid off the "crack" bollocks significant numbers might feel less helpless and powerless in the face of changing their diets.

Toomanyhouseguests · 24/06/2014 07:50

So, how addicted to sugar are some of you?

I don't give a toss when taxes go up on tobacco or alcohol because we don't smoke at all and we drink very little alcohol in our house.

I feel the same about sugar, I actually don't think we are buying enough of it that it will hurt much, and in so far as it does make us cut back, well, all the better.

Are you all so passionately committed to libertarian ideals, or do you just hands off your sugar?

OP posts: