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?

And sugar consumption hasn't really gone up since the 19th century either, what has changed is the amount of calories people require through lack of exercise.

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

You are a food manufacturer.

There is a new sugar tax.

You can replace sugar with artifical sweetners, not have to massively jiggle a best selling recipe, or completely retool the production plant. You can also "halo" your products with "no hidden sugar" lable. Your ad campaign can carry on with just "no hidden sugar!" as an extra hook, using the readymade stratagies left over from the "fat free" feenzy.

or

you can start producing healthy foods with no or little sugar (or replacement shit) in them, retool the plant, come up with, test, trial loads of new recipies and start from scratch with your ad campaigns.

Realistically, which one do you think they will pick ?

Maybe a government subsidy on fresh fruit and veg might be an idea. But I don't suppose they would.

None of this stuff would touch the sides. Those that don't buy much fruit and veg probably won't care if it's subsidised and cheaper.

Sugar tax will just drive natural sugar out, and artificial in, which is worse.

Viviennemary because it would just be subsidising the relatively well off, and substituting fruit (mostly just sugar too!) doesn't really help anyone. Substituting veg requires the skills, time, inclination and money to be able to cook them into meals, which again doesn't favour those most in need.

"Diet Websites For The Gullible should be an official directory"

I suspect there already is such a directory.

Can't find another explanation for the onslaught of ill-informed websites mass-producing braindead tidbits to share on Facebook, for example. Sugar is poison, sugar causes cancer, meat doesn't get digested and instead rots in your colon, detoxing, etc. It's making me lose faith in the education system, if not in humanity in general.

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

Because there is an existing demand for the products they make and sell. Why would manufacturers go to the risk and expense of creating a new market when one exists already that they can continue to service simply by replacing an expensive, taxed ingredient with a cheaper one?

It doesn't take a genius to tax the artificial sweeteners as well.

Eating fruits is not a bad thing. It is a very good thing.

You see, that is the danger in demonising something that a million years of evolution has told us to enjoy, seek out, and consume. Because it signals food that is actually good for us.

Even if you taxed both the cost will be passed onto the consumer. It won't change eating habits.

You're a genius, OP. Of course everyone should be taxed because you can't keep your hand out of the cookie jar

How about you learn to cook from scratch and eat/serve deserts only as treats, and leave the rest of us in peace to continue eating whatever we like in moderation?

Why don't you feel in control of what you buy op?

"You're a genius, OP. Of course everyone should be taxed because you can't keep your hand out of the cookie jar hmm"

This is what I mean by "uncivil."

In the UK, 64% of adults are classed as being overweight or obese.
ref: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25576400

This really isn't a personal problem. It's a nationwide problem.

Yes it is but I doubt taxing and subsidies are the solution. The people's eating habits you want to change probably won't.

Poor OP. Are your feelings hurt by my use of the term "cookie jar"?

I don't see anything uncivil in my last post. Are you offended by my completely correct assessment of the situation - i.e. you advocating taxing all of us for sugar and sugar substitutes because you can't change your shopping habits unless all junk food becomes prohibitively expensive?

In a funny sort of way, asking for a tax on sugar is like paying someone to be your willpower.
The more you pay the more self control you get. Like outsourcing your determination

Try arguing your point Cote. Stick to the topic. Actually persuade me and anyone else reading that you know what you are talking about and are correct, rather than being aggressive and rude. So far, I find you unpleasant, but you haven't changed my point of view at. all.

Yes you could change what you buy without a tax but it's interesting you feel it's harder to do so without it.

Yes, gelllicleCat. You are right.

I just don't have a problem with that. I personally have no qualms about the state nannying us into good choices over added, processed, sugar the way that they did over smoking, drink driving, illegal drugs, etc.

I did a food shop last week that was solely ready meals as we were having a new kitchen fitted. It was a weeks worth of evening meals, lunches were the same as always plus fruit and cleaning products and smellies. It cost me about 5/8 of a usual weekly shop where we cook from scratch every evening.

I don't know about a sugar tax but I was shocked that cooking from scratch was that much more expensive. We have, of course returned to normal food this week as that food is disgusting in comparison but the prices should at least be the same, if not cheaper for the healthy route.

"Try arguing your point Cote."

Was it not clear the first five times I said that you cannot expect the whole world to be taxed just because you can't control your family's junk food consumption?

That is exactly what you said, after all:

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. My husband loves snacks and treats as much as the kids do, but he also wants the monthly shopping budget to stay under control.

its not just about you though, is it ?
you want your views imposed on everyone else by use of the law in an indirect way to make it seem almost benign.

well, its not

I don't raise my kids in a vacuum. They are out in the world.

I put my hands up. My life would be simpler if they didn't come home with a quarter pound of boiled sweets after every birthday party; if teachers didn't use candy as classroom rewards; if 30 times a year they didn't get a pack of Haribos when it's a classmates birthday; if there wasn't a cake sale at least once a month; if the school fetes didn't have "gambling for candy" tables; etc. Frankly it would be nice to be able to do some home baking with them a little more often and say yes to a soft serve ice cream or the like while we are out sometimes. Sure, I could say no to all the outside the home stuff, but it is pretty hard to police and so much a part of the culture that it would be harsh.

And yes, I did admit that higher prices on junk might curb our junk food intake a bit. I didn't say it was raging out of control, just that I admit it would affect my buying choices to some degree and therefore it's easy for me to imagine that other people might feel the same way.

Cote 2/3 of UK adults are overweight. This is not a personal problem.

We all pay for this in our national insurance payments.