Turn on thread page Beta
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    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 :mad: When I actually have good income I'm gonna have to limit booze :erm:
    Not really - because people are still totally disconnected from their bodies and not nourishing them them through eating the right food. Not eating sugar doesn't mean they'll then start filling up on the green stuff. They won't, overall food habits won't change so the health of nation won't significantly improve.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    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.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    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 bureaucracy would be insane
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Can we just invade and take over government, and get this bill chucked out.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Odd socks)
    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
    That's a really good point. Surely a more logical step would be to reduce the tax on healthier foods? That will help farmers by increasing uptake in their produce. And the reduction in NHS requirement from healthier people would go someway to addressing the loss of funding from the tax the Government would have had for that food.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    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?
    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.

    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    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.
    Charge smokers and alcoholics for cancer treatement?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by She-Ra)
    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?
    If they do not smoking/drinking and don't go to support sessions to stop drinking/smoking, then yes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    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?
    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!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    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?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    By the way, if anyone wants to watch the CT go to war with each other, watch this thread :afraid: :hide:
    There's nothing wrong with artificial sweeteners though
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by She-Ra)

    Charge smokers and alcoholics for cancer treatement?
    Why? They already pay for it all financially. They pay more tax and they don't live as long so less state pension etc and all the other expenses from keeping an aging population alive.

    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.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    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?
    Perhaps all the people who can no longer eat many foods, despite themselves being sensible people capable of moderation?

    Wouldn't you rather pay a tiny bit more, instead of having certain foods be illegal unless you get an inferior version without sugar?
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    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.
    I was asking the question, not suggesting that's what should happen. I absolutely respect the NHS and the service it provides. What I was suggesting is that you can't offer treatment for one chronic disease that is a result of an addiction and not for another.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by She-Ra)
    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.
    In that case, I fully support NHS funding for support of that... However, if they do not go to support groups and at least actively make a concerted effort to change, then no, the NHS should not fund them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnnytheFox)
    "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.
    On the contrary, I think the evidence tends to show people are price sensitive. You may not realise it consciously of course.

    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    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?
    Wow, holy authoritarian Batman! You want the government to ban sugary things? So a bag of sugar would be illegal?

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    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.
    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"!

    (Original post by She-Ra)
    Charge smokers and alcoholics for cancer treatement?
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    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.
    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
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    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
    Yes, it would be, however, the affects of that sugar tax is hitting a lot more consumers than those who actually need the healthcare due to the problems of sugar.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    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!
    These other four points in the original story are more on the right lines:
    • Significantly reduce advertising high sugar food and drink to children
    • Targeting supermarkets and take-away special offers
    • Sugar reduction in everyday food and drink
    • Ensure the sale of healthier foods in hospitals and other public bodies
    All of those should take the spot light off of sugary unhealthy foods, allowing more attention to be put on the healthier foods.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.