Sugar tax and offers ban 'would work' says report

So it's had the desired effect whether they have learned anything or not. Job done. Probably like how I would buy more booze if it wasn't so dam expensive When I actually have good income I'm gonna have to limit booze

When there are problems like this, why is the cost and responsibility always passed onto the public though? Why can't the Government just legislate an acceptable percent of sugar in food. It'd be harder for the food producers, but who cares?

When there are problems like this, why is the cost and responsibility always passed onto the public though? Why can't the Government just legislate an acceptable percent of sugar in food. It'd be harder for the food producers, but who cares?

not just the public, a middle class family for instance isn't going to be affected much by a slight increase in the price of sugary foods. to a poor family living on £50 a week however every slight price increase, without a corresponding price decrease in other healthier foods will hit them hard.


Posted from TSR Mobile

When there are problems like this, why is the cost and responsibility always passed onto the public though? Why can't the Government just legislate an acceptable percent of sugar in food. It'd be harder for the food producers, but who cares?

Or, if someone is obese, and they do not change their habits, charge them for their healthcare. Either through their own insurance, or their own funds.

That would be a massive help.

But....the government is likely to be best mates with the majority of food corporates - it's not in their interest. In the States food companies actually test out the exact amount of sugar that is required in an item to help a child or person to become addicted - governments know this.



Charge smokers and alcoholics for cancer treatement?

When there are problems like this, why is the cost and responsibility always passed onto the public though? Why can't the Government just legislate an acceptable percent of sugar in food. It'd be harder for the food producers, but who cares?

I would support the introduction of a sugar tax. Although, when they say sugar do they mean refined sugar as well as artificial sweeteners? Because some artificial or 'natural' alternatives to refined sugar are also not particularly healthy. If all that happens is that producers replace sugar with artificial sweeteners I don't think that's going to be a great outcome.

And I'd definitely support the reduction in advertising to children.

When they say cutting BOGOF deals, is that for products high in sugar only or for everything?

Charge smokers and alcoholics for cancer treatement?

When there are problems like this, why is the cost and responsibility always passed onto the public though? Why can't the Government just legislate an acceptable percent of sugar in food. It'd be harder for the food producers, but who cares?

Anyway that goes against the spirit of what the NHS is. But sure, if you want to attack the NHS that would be a good way fo goign about it and chipping away at it.

if someone is obese, and they do not change their habits


Over-eating is always at an emotional level - people over eat because of a whole host of emotional and mental reasons. Eating needs to be tackled at an emotional level - eating sugary stodgy snacks is usually down to wanting to feel better about something, feel energised, feeling lifted. obesity is at the extreme end of that.

"Yeah, I was gonna gorge myself on that multipack of Mars bars, but now they're around 15p more expensive than they were last week, think I'll just stick to carrots." - no-one, ever.

When there are problems like this, why is the cost and responsibility always passed onto the public though? Why can't the Government just legislate an acceptable percent of sugar in food. It'd be harder for the food producers, but who cares?

The issue is increased calorie intake. It doesn't really matter whether its from.

'Sugar' is just the latest boogeyman. Before it was fats and cholesterol.

Supermarkets will just pass the cost onto the consumer.

Charge smokers and alcoholics for cancer treatement?

Or, if someone is obese, and they do not change their habits, charge them for their healthcare. Either through their own insurance, or their own funds.

On the contrary, I think the evidence tends to show people are price sensitive. You may not realise it consciously of course.



Wow, holy authoritarian Batman! You want the government to ban sugary things? So a bag of sugar would be illegal?



Quite. If obesity is the problem, then surely a calorie tax would be more appropriate. But that would effectively be "make all food more expensive"!





You could argue that is what a sugar (or calorie) tax is doing, assuming the money would be diverted to treatment and prevention of the health effects of obesity.

And some people might eat a lot, but excrete most of it through exercise, so they don't face the bad consequences of being overweight.

Perhaps a "fat tax" would be the solution. Every year, people have to line up at their local weighing centre and have their BMI measured. They would then pay tax based on their value, a but like council tax on their property. Sounds fine to me

Because that would be socialism. Do you want your children nationalized?

Agreed though, just target at source.But that would put the burden more heavily on businesses that provide the food, why do that when you can put the burden on the public and the lower classes?

IN the Victorian good old days sellers would put chalk in bakery products to limit flower costs. Instead of taxing high chalk containing crap food just stop people from being able to put in the dam chalk!