Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Sugar tax and offers ban 'would work' says report watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It's all about education. No one actually knows 1). how their body works, at all, and 2). what it is they put in it relative to what they actually should. They're completely dodging the real issues...
    I feel this sugar tax thing is too aggressive and sure it will put poorer people off sugar a bit, but adding 20% on to a 50p or £1 chocolate bar really going to completely dissuade you? I think not.
    Then there is also the problem of drawing the line of sugary food. Sure, some food is clearly sugary... but there are many where it isn't clear cut. Putting down such a line would probably be arbitrary.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder how lord Sugar feels about this
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't they just ban everything but cardboard tasting nutrient paste and be done with it then?

    On the plus side for the government it'll be more money into their pockets.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    'Cutting buy one get one free deals' ... ?!!! NOOOOOooooo..... !!!! :eek3::eek4::eek4::nooo::nope::nodots:
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    Welcome Squad
    At least the number of those diagnosed with diabetes will go down. Unless you've inherited dominant diabetic genes ofc then there's no way around it ..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    In Britain a quarter of people are obese and 61% are overweight or obese, so I think at this point it's probably fair to say it's more than 'some people'.

    It's a serious public health problem, and the thing about it is that's it *not* because people are lazy or lacking self control - so many factors about modern society contribute to the epidemic: sedentary lifestyles, cheap processed foods, family cars - all things that are very very difficult to avoid.

    I reckon anything that makes people think about the amount of sugar in their diet is helpful, as well as anything that might stop food companies adding sugar. It's not just sweets and fizzy drinks, it's 'hidden' sugar too in things like ready meals and pasta sauces that you wouldn't even think about normally.
    They add sugar to baked beans. It's just because it's a bulking agent. They can add more water and maximise their profits whilst minimising the costs. McDonald's add sugar to salad. With a full sugar drink or sweets you know what you're getting. You know it's full of sugar. But with something like beans you don't expect it so you don't check. Fresh, frozen and tinned vegetables need to be made cheaper. We also need to teach kids how to make cheap, simple healthy meals.

    We need to reduce the number of cars on the road so people can walk or cycle to work or school. This provides exercise which would help in the obesity crisis.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    How about we start to treat society in such a way that the individuals have to actually *shock horror* take responsibility for themselves. No, they don't have to take responsibility for kids starving in Africa, nor people who get upset when you address them by the wrong pronouns, nor feminists who think that the world revolves around them. Just themselves. Wouldn't that be a good place to start?
    That sounds like a nightmare. We need to look after everyone. Selfishness is one of the most deplorable qualities possible in a person.

    In a society like you envisaged, who cares for the children who can't stay with their parents? Those who need to be taken into care? Who looks after the elderly with dementia and need 24 hour intensive support? Who helps the most vulnerable people in our society if we are all supposed to look after ourselves and nobody else? Those who are unable to care for themselves would end up paying. No child should be neglected or abused. Those that are should receive the proper support. This is impossible in a world where nobody looks after anyone else.

    We live in one world and it is the responsibility of all of us to look after each other.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    For me bans aren't what we should do.

    We should simply remove sugar from things that it doesn't need to be in, like Coke for example when we have all Coke Zero, Diet Coke etc

    You really get used to them after a few cans.

    I think we should do the same with palm oil too.

    Simply making things cost a bit more won't stop people buying these products and many products have twice the recommended daily allowance like Tropicana orange juice has twice the rda of added sugar in a serving.... Seriously wtf? It's sweet already with natural sugar in it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Last night I was actually starting to think I might be coming around to this Sugar Tax malarkey. I need to think it through a bit more, but if there could be some link with the NHS it would be a good thing. I mean, obesity and unhealthy diet is without doubt one of the biggest problems in the UK.

    Look at every single health organisation and disease related charity website. Each one has the same recommendation: eat more fruit and veg a day, cut out the processed stuff. Poor diet is linked to almost every major killer in the UK, especially cancer, heart disease, plus others like alzheimer's.

    In addition, the NHS is suffering from funding cuts.

    If we can create a major shift in the UK's eating habits, it would, in time benefit all of us. Directly with our own health, and indirectly by taking pressure off of the NHS.

    Basically, it just made me think. If increasing the cost of low quality foods is one way to put more focus on healthy, nutritious food, it might well be a good thing.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Sugar tax is a bad idea, because companies will just pass the cost onto consumers.

    Instead we should force the companies into reducing sugar content (also salt and saturated fat) of their products. And heavily fine those that do not comply.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    That sounds like a nightmare. We need to look after everyone. Selfishness is one of the most deplorable qualities possible in a person.

    In a society like you envisaged, who cares for the children who can't stay with their parents? Those who need to be taken into care? Who looks after the elderly with dementia and need 24 hour intensive support? Who helps the most vulnerable people in our society if we are all supposed to look after ourselves and nobody else? Those who are unable to care for themselves would end up paying. No child should be neglected or abused. Those that are should receive the proper support. This is impossible in a world where nobody looks after anyone else.

    We live in one world and it is the responsibility of all of us to look after each other.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The point is that before we can do all that we should start by being able to take responsibility for ourselves. You need to be able to do that before you can have kids or start caring for others. It's a pretty old idea that Buddhists have been saying right back to the dhammapada. Not exactly rocket science love.

    It's is also not the responsibility of us all to take care of people we aren't remotely beholden to. The only people we should be responsible for are the people we know and love.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    The point is that before we can do all that we should start by being able to take responsibility for ourselves. You need to be able to do that before you can have kids or start caring for others. It's a pretty old idea that Buddhists have been saying right back to the dhammapada. Not exactly rocket science love.

    It's is also not the responsibility of us all to take care of people we aren't remotely beholden to. The only people we should be responsible for are the people we know and love.
    Who loves the loveless?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Who loves the loveless?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    People who take care of them out of the kindness of their heart. It's not their responsibility though.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    People who take care of them out of the kindness of their heart. It's not their responsibility though.
    If we take responsibility for only ourselves then these people will be left to rot. We each have a responsibility to everyone else in the world. Leaving the care of the most vulnerable to the kindness of strangers is a guarantee that they will receive no care.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I wish people would stop peddling this nonsense to excuse their poor dietary habits. A calorie is not simply a calorie.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    If we take responsibility for only ourselves then these people will be left to rot. We each have a responsibility to everyone else in the world. Leaving the care of the most vulnerable to the kindness of strangers is a guarantee that they will receive no care.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This is all just prattle because you're using the term "responsibility" in a way which doesn't actually mean anything. You haven't logically defined what you mean by "responsibility". It's all just sloppy LiveAid bollox. Are we born with this responsibility to everyone else in the entire world? How and why are we beholden to everyone else in the world? Do you really place so little trust in the human spirit that you believe that if you don't put social pressure on people to help the vulnerable, their wouldn't be anyone who'd help them altruistically?

    What do you actually mean by "responsibility"?

    A thought experiment: If we discovered a planet much like our own, thriving with life as intelligent and compassionate as humans, which needed help, would we be responsible for them? What if a space ship passed just at the edge of the earth's atmosphere which was about to explode and we could only help them by spending millions on rescuing them. Would that be our responsibility too? Or is our responsibility just confined to this earth? If so, why? Why isn't it just confined to our own countries, or our own villages, or even just our own families and friends?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Why don't they just ban everything but cardboard tasting nutrient paste and be done with it then?

    On the plus side for the government it'll be more money into their pockets.
    You do know the government is against it right?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    This is all just prattle because you're using the term "responsibility" in a way which doesn't actually mean anything. You haven't logically defined what you mean by "responsibility". It's all just sloppy LiveAid bollox. Are we born with this responsibility to everyone else in the entire world? How and why are we beholden to everyone else in the world? Do you really place so little trust in the human spirit that you believe that if you don't put social pressure on people to help the vulnerable, their wouldn't be anyone who'd help them altruistically?

    What do you actually mean by "responsibility"?

    A thought experiment: If we discovered a planet much like our own, thriving with life as intelligent and compassionate as humans, which needed help, would we be responsible for them? What if a space ship passed just at the edge of the earth's atmosphere which was about to explode and we could only help them by spending millions on rescuing them. Would that be our responsibility too? Or is our responsibility just confined to this earth? If so, why? Why isn't it just confined to our own countries, or our own villages, or even just our own families and friends?
    In the Victorian era, there was no welfare state. Children grew up in poverty as a result. When the tories left office in 1997 a third of children were living in poverty. When labour left office, this had dropped to less than a fifth. We have a responsibility to everyone else because we are human.

    If we have the ability to help another, we should do. Regardless of who they are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    How about we start to treat society in such a way that the individuals have to actually *shock horror* take responsibility for themselves. No, they don't have to take responsibility for kids starving in Africa, nor people who get upset when you address them by the wrong pronouns, nor feminists who think that the world revolves around them. Just themselves. Wouldn't that be a good place to start?
    Great idea. Let the moronic masses become even more moronic by choosing not to let their children go to school, let people take whatever drugs they want without restriction or assistance. Let people gorge themselves on whatever food they want, let abusive parents continue mistreating their children, let further people become homeless and pollute the streets.. etc etc.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Who the hell do the government think they are? If I want to eat sugar let me be. It's none of their concern. ****ing authoritarian bags of ****.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.