To love the idea of a "sugar tax?"

[Toomanyhouseguests]

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?

Any tax on food - even one which is harmful if taken to excess - is wrong, wrong, wrong. Dame Sally should stick to her pills and potions and lay off this.

It was tried in 1962 with a big increase in Purchase Tax (which some of my fellow old farts will remember) on confectionery. It did not work, and in 1973 when VAT replaced PT it was quietly dropped.

Now, that is interesting Andrew.

For some reason people on MN are passionate about attacking people they perceive as health food freaks ("lentil weavers"). This includes vegans and people who don't like to feed their kids lots of cakes and sweets.

To me, it is obvious that if sugar were not so cheap it wouldn't be dumped into every sort of processed food as a way of creating some flavour (because the basic ingredients are poor quality). Many moons ago, sugar was a precious treat, but fruit and veg were tastier, because they couldn't be mass produced and stored almost indefinitely, so they didn't need the flavour enhancement power of salt and sugar.

I don't know what the answer is to this problem, but obviously it is a complex problem.

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

People's motivations were clearly stated in their posts.

The fact that you need to reframe what was written to better suit the "Sugar is CRACK!" script speaks volumes in terms of how the diet industry has played a not exactly insignificant role into talking the nation into obesity and poor nutrition.

Instead of taxing then why don't they make healthy food cheaper. But no they won't do that, it's just a money making scam.

Celticchick10

Healthy food aleady has a zero VAT rating compared to unhealthy foods.

Healthy foods are also signposted. They are the ones with no adverts, no slogans and no stickers (saying X-free ! or low-X! or "only x calories!" or "as featured in the daily mail as a superfood !").

People, (with access to a usable kitchen, basic cooking utensils, a reasonable amount of fuel and access to affordable shops with a wide range of food choices)....have been talked into believing that they are not really in charge of their supermarket trolly and fork.

It is one thing to point out that food manufacturers, diet industry and media have their own agenda and aim to influence/confuse people in order to best serve their bottom line. Tis another to claim CRACK! and "comparable to cocaine" addiction status for a food of plant origin.

All that does is help convince people they are pretty helpless and powerless, with little control over their food choices.

If you want a gov. based solution, much much more effective would be super tax on the diet industry and creating stiff sanctions for media that misrepresents scientific research specifically when it comes to health and diet.

It is not going to happen. But it would be a much more effective solution than taxing the current "edible villan".

I'm not at all addicted to sugar (even if I was to become obese again it would be via alcohol or potato, but I've been a stable weight for a long time now. ) I don't find it at all difficult to eat healthy diets.

I'm against taxing any staple food, because it's a terrible idea that penalises the poorest who spend the highest proportion of their money on food.

I'm not at all "addicted" to sugar.

Your continued attempts at trying to portray sugar as addictive as opiates are ridiculous.

People will take you seriously when "addicts" start prostituting themselves for candy bars. Until then, I recommend you read Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science.

I don't care much for sugar but taxing it won't stop people eating it at all.

The government will probably just rely on the extra income, could be less incentive to get people to cut back.

frefred, when did Sugar become a staple food?

Cote, I am not portraying Sugar as crack. I am telling you that your sneery response to professordent was not just uncivil, but unreasonable because there is a lot of coverage in the media right now about the affects of sugar on our metabolisms and brains. So professordent wasn't making a completely crazy, completely unsubstantiated remark that could be so easily mocked.

I am not portraying Sugar as crack.

The "check out these brain scans" article you linked to did.

From memory

"Oreos are basically crack"

Hmm I'm not a fan of tax but if sugar and sweetener tax was paid into a pot to help poor families buy more fruit and veg/subsidise box schemes I'd be all for it. It's very hard to have and teach self control. I'm currently trying to do this for myself by not having sugary products constantly on hand.

I was close...

You linked to an article

Title along the lines of "Sugars effect on your brain, explained by scientists"

the actual quote

So basically, Oreos are legal crack

"Cote, I am not portraying Sugar as crack"

You tried to equate sugar to cocaine, posted MRI photos of the brain on sugar & cocaine ffs. Do you not know that "crack" is?

"your sneery response to professordent was not just uncivil, but unreasonable"

This is what I wrote to ProfessorDent:

CoteDAzur Mon 23-Jun-14 17:04:05
Oh please. Comparing sugar to cocaine is a bit rich, isn't it?

That's not uncivil and it certainly not unreasonable. You need to grow thicker skin if you intend to stick around here, and especially if you are going to make laughable allegations like sugar is as addictive as cocaine, here are some MRI scans etc, not to mention advocating taxes on food ingredient most of us enjoy in moderate amounts because you can't stop feeding your family junk.

Cba to read around it as not a sugar addict (I smoke, that's one more than I can afford ) But, surely, the first response to this would be an increased use of artificial sweeteners in food?

I'm a lot less comfortable about sweeteners than I am about sugar! There is even evidence that they trigger insulin response - as there's no additional glucose to process, this can lead to metabolic disorders including metabolic obesity. Plus, as PP have pointed out, at least half of them cause diarrhoea in many consumers.

"there is a lot of coverage in the media right now about the affects of sugar on our metabolisms and brains"

There is lots of coverage in crappy tabloids and diet websites for the gullible, yes. What, do you really think that will stop people from questioning and correcting you?

Diet Websites For The Gullible should be an official directory

It wouldn't be a good idea. It would lead to a rise in artificial sweetners. Also the diet industry is already promoting low fat foods and packing them with sugar and chemicals. Which a lot of experts say is very wrong.

Toomanyhouseguests Tue 24-Jun-14 07:50:36
Are you all so passionately committed to libertarian ideals, or do you just hands off your sugar?

Apart from being fairly libertarian, I simply don't think this is the solution to a problem - in fact I suspect it will make it worse, and I believe it will only create other dietary problems anyway.

Sugar is NOT a bad thing. Only a LOT of sugar is. And that requires changing habits related to being used to sweet things in your diet - which also includes foods with sugar substitutes too.

About 5 years ago, I used to drink huge volumes of sugary carbonated drinks. I was advised to cut back for health reasons, so I kicked the habit. I also try and avoid sugar substitutes if I can (I don't drink 'diet' drinks). It took a while, and now I notice how sweet food is lot more as my taste buds aren't so used to it.

Already there is that no added sugar thing in food marketed to children and as healthy food in general. I bet it's not, it'll be something else added to make it taste sweet enough.

I agree with all those who are concerned about an increase in artificial sweeteners. It is already difficult to avoid them in soft drinks, even those that are not marketed as sugar-free. I would rather my family knowingly eats moderate amounts of sugar than unknowingly eats artificial sweeteners.

And I disagree with any measure that makes food of any kind more expensive. Because those who can afford it will carry on buying it, and those who can't afford it will end up worse off by some indirect, unforeseen or ignored by those who don't give a shit about the poor effect.

Plus, as PP have pointed out, at least half of them cause diarrhoea in many consumers.

It wasn't just "diarrhoea". It was a demon created bottom Tsunami of pain and near death !

It wasn't so much that I thought I was going to die, more like I got to the point where death seemed preferable.

And I once ate raw prawns in thailand and paid the price.

It's not like I am a stranger to digestive upsets of the volcanic kind.

This is why I want ingrediant lists in much larger fonts. I never want to accidentally ingest that shite ever again and I struggle to read some lables, even with my glasses on. I am not a fecking pixie, with tiny pixie eyes. I am a fully grown woman. I need font sizes that are easily readable for humans. For the sake of my colon.

Don't you generally think junk food eating is too acceptable for kids though? I've got overweight dc in my extended family and I feel desperately sad for them. It's not only sugar though, that's just one part.

Sugar became a staple food during the 18th century.

Does less sugar have to mean artificial sweeteners? How about savoury flavours instead?