Time for a Sugar Tax or VAT on some foods

chewmylegoff

cells wrote: »

Yes and no I've never been very fat but I have been overweight

I used to be about 80kg at my peak which was overweight according to BMI and the mirror. Post an inital diet to go from 80kg to 70kg I've managed to stay between 68-71kg for years only having put on some weight over the last 6 months when I stopped measuring with scales. This mornings reading was 71.5kg so will consciously eat better and exercise a little until that gets to 70kg

of course I appreciate its very hard to lose weight but I think digital scales will help greatly in stopping some people gettig to that stage in the first place

There isn't a single household in this country which cannot afford the one off cost of a set of digital scales. I really don't see what justification there could be for the NHS spending somewhere north of £100 million quid buying scales for every household in the country.

What next? NHS Wii fit for every home because some bird said it helped her lose half a stone?

Generali

setmefree2 wrote: »

UK Obesity Crisis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33932930

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/17/diabetes-bring-down-nhs-charity

!!!!!! the condition leads to 135 foot amputations every week across the country.

Imho we need VAT at 20% on all foods except raw fruit , veg, meat, fish, and pure dairy products.

Sin taxes work and would lower the deficit too.

I can't speak for the UK but in the US, diets are improving without much in the way of taxation. Obesity is an area my team at work studies.

Mexico introduced a 'Soda Tax' in Jan 2014 and by Dec 2014, consumption had dropped by 14%. The tax was a peso per bottle which is ~10%. There was an increase in the consumption of bottled water.

I expect the battles around junk food and drink to get real dirty real quick. The sellers of this stuff are basically taking the fight straight out of the tobacco companies' handbook: associating junk food with sports and promoting junk science to muddy the waters.

For example, Coke fund a research foundation to the tune of $1.5mn a year. Their latest finding? It is not necessary to cut down on sugary drinks in order to lose weight, exercise is far more effective.

In an analysis, over 90% of studies looked which were paid for by the food industry showed that the food concerned was good or at least not bad (the exceptions were a study paid for by pistachio growers which failed to show that pistachios aided cyclists' recovery and a study paid for by the pork industry that failed to show that eating lean pork was as effective as eating chicken and fish at reducing blood HDL cholesterol).

Set against that, 90% of studies not paid for by the food industry showed negative impacts of eating industrialised food.

Personally, I'd be in favour of a soda tax in the UK. Simply making sodas, fruit juices and cordials VATable would be simple and cheap to implement. The big problem with those sorts of drinks is they add a huge amount of sugar to your diet without sating you in any way or really adding any nutrition.

cells

chewmylegoff wrote: »

There isn't a single household in this country which cannot afford the one off cost of a set of digital scales. I really don't see what justification there could be for the NHS spending somewhere north of £100 million quid buying scales for every household in the country.

What next? NHS Wii fit for every home because some bird said it helped her lose half a stone?

Its not about people able to afford scales or not. If they have them they will likely use them if they don't have em they obviously cant use em

I think your figure of £100m is probably about right but I reckon that will be a one off cost or at most repeated once a decade. So annually £10m or not a lot really.

Im my case I figure simply having scales keep me from overweight to on weight. Evem if I am the one in fifty it works on thats would be over a million who are less fat. So an annual cost to the NHS of about £10 to keep a fat person not fat...surely value for money expecially considering these people will probably not just be healthier but happier too


and finally the NHS is a money pit it costs exactly how much you want it to cost no more no less. Add a fiver to one years council tax bill if you are against the NHS funding it and give every house a digital scale with the next bill

Generali

cells wrote: »

Yes and no I've never been very fat but I have been overweight

I used to be about 80kg at my peak which was overweight according to BMI and the mirror. Post an inital diet to go from 80kg to 70kg I've managed to stay between 68-71kg for years only having put on some weight over the last 6 months when I stopped measuring with scales. This mornings reading was 71.5kg so will consciously eat better and exercise a little until that gets to 70kg

of course I appreciate its very hard to lose weight but I think digital scales will help greatly in stopping some people gettig to that stage in the first place

As much as I don't think that the state should give away scales this was kinda my experience too.

I used to weigh myself each time I visited Mum's. As that was generally every 2-3 weeks that was enough for me to keep a decent track of my weight. As it approached 11st I'd just eat a bit better and exercise a bit more and get it back to about 10st7lb.

Then I moved here. The scales we in kg and I didn't really have regular access to any. Slowly me weight got up to 80kg. I then did the sums and found I was somewhere north of 12st7lb and rising. I peaked at about 85kg, a little less, and am on the way back down. Not putting the weight on in the first place is a darn sight easier than losing it.

cells

Generali wrote: »

I can't speak for the UK but in the US, diets are improving without much in the way of taxation. Obesity is an area my team at work studies.

Mexico introduced a 'Soda Tax' in Jan 2014 and by Dec 2014, consumption had dropped by 14%. The tax was a peso per bottle which is ~10%. There was an increase in the consumption of bottled water.

I expect the battles around junk food and drink to get real dirty real quick. The sellers of this stuff are basically taking the fight straight out of the tobacco companies' handbook: associating junk food with sports and promoting junk science to muddy the waters.

For example, Coke fund a research foundation to the tune of $1.5mn a year. Their latest finding? It is not necessary to cut down on sugary drinks in order to lose weight, exercise is far more effective.

In an analysis, over 90% of studies looked which were paid for by the food industry showed that the food concerned was good or at least not bad (the exceptions were a study paid for by pistachio growers which failed to show that pistachios aided cyclists' recovery and a study paid for by the pork industry that failed to show that eating lean pork was as effective as eating chicken and fish at reducing blood HDL cholesterol).

Set against that, 90% of studies not paid for by the food industry showed negative impacts of eating industrialised food.

Personally, I'd be in favour of a soda tax in the UK. Simply making sodas, fruit juices and cordials VATable would be simple and cheap to implement. The big problem with those sorts of drinks is they add a huge amount of sugar to your diet without sating you in any way or really adding any nutrition.

Difficult to draw conclusion from those results imo

What about the people who substitute a can of cola for a pack of chocolates or biscuits

Lots of times people just want a cheap easy snack. I doubt many people buy a cola for its hydration. So if they go into a store and buy something worse you've not helped them even though the soft drinks sales are down


my guess is that a lot of people but especially fat people have a diet skewed to low proteins (as a percentage). Not sure how they can be encouraged to fix that (if you eat more proteins you will eat less carbs/sugars).

Generali

cells wrote: »

Difficult to draw conclusion from those results imo

What about the people who substitute a can of cola for a pack of chocolates or biscuits

Lots of times people just want a cheap easy snack. I doubt many people buy a cola for its hydration. So if they go into a store and buy something worse you've not helped them even though the soft drinks sales are down


my guess is that a lot of people but especially fat people have a diet skewed to low proteins (as a percentage). Not sure how they can be encouraged to fix that (if you eat more proteins you will eat less carbs/sugars).

Using Mexico as an example throws up a number of problems, not least of which is that drink the water is a risk that the locals aren't generally prepared to take. Health outcomes in Mexico are better if you send your kids to school with a bottle of coke than a bottle of tap water!

I'm not aware of any studies showing that soda has been replaced with sugar from other sources or has not been.

There are 64g of sugar in a bottle of coke. You can show the effect of the extra sugar if you put a bottle of coke and a bottle of diet coke in a bucket of water. The regular coke sinks because of the weight of the sugar!

By comparison, an entire packet of Hob Nobs has a little under 80g sugar in it and I reckon stuffing that lot down would leave you feeling pretty stuffed and probably a little queezy whereas the coke would be down you over the course of a 30 minute meal.

I disagree. I think people do drink soft drinks with a meal or whatever rather like they'd have a cup of tea: because they're thirsty and because they consider it an everyday treat.

cells

Generali wrote: »

Using Mexico as an example throws up a number of problems, not least of which is that drink the water is a risk that the locals aren't generally prepared to take. Health outcomes in Mexico are better if you send your kids to school with a bottle of coke than a bottle of tap water!

I'm not aware of any studies showing that soda has been replaced with sugar from other sources or has not been.

There are 64g of sugar in a bottle of coke. You can show the effect of the extra sugar if you put a bottle of coke and a bottle of diet coke in a bucket of water. The regular coke sinks because of the weight of the sugar!

By comparison, an entire packet of Hob Nobs has a little under 80g sugar in it and I reckon stuffing that lot down would leave you feeling pretty stuffed and probably a little queezy whereas the coke would be down you over the course of a 30 minute meal.

I disagree. I think people do drink soft drinks with a meal or whatever rather like they'd have a cup of tea: because they're thirsty and because they consider it an everyday treat.

Lots of studies show that people eat calories. By that I mean a typical person eats 2000 calories you cant trick your body by replacing a coke with a bottle of water. So if soda sales are down x percent you can be certain sales of other foods are up x percent.

the replacement food (and its quantity) is important. The one positive is that the replacements are highly likely to be more protein/fat than soda which is all sugar.

I see your point about meals with sodas that are included eg all fast food outlets like Mcdonalds etc. But a soda tax wouldn't impact there imo as the fast food joints will absorb the cost into the price of the whole meal. Maybe they should offer yogurt drinks as a cold option which are high protein low sugar no fat.

happylucky

The thing is, in UK (not third world, reliable drinking water supply etc, dietary info on packaged food) everyone pretty much knows that eating lots of chocolate, soda, crisps, takeaways etc will lead to increase in body fat. Not talking about occassional dips, but in substitution for healthy food on a regular basis I mean. And everyone pretty much knows that healthier options = fruit, vegetables, whole grains, lean protein etc. Don't they ?

Also, when anyone can't fit into their trousers any more, then by definition I guess they know they've gone up a dress size and need to quit the cake! Digital weighing scales not required

So I don't think input taxes should be necessary; it's passing financial accountability for the impact of sustained consciousness decision making back to the decision maker that should be happening. Make people responsible for their lives and give them the liberty to do that without too much governmental interference.

That said, implementing would be so politically fraught it would be probably never happen...so sadly I would have to agree with expansion of the nanny state to support sugar tax as the best option.

Generali

cells wrote: »

Lots of studies show that people eat calories. By that I mean a typical person eats 2000 calories you cant trick your body by replacing a coke with a bottle of water. So if soda sales are down x percent you can be certain sales of other foods are up x percent.

the replacement food (and its quantity) is important. The one positive is that the replacements are highly likely to be more protein/fat than soda which is all sugar.

I see your point about meals with sodas that are included eg all fast food outlets like Mcdonalds etc. But a soda tax wouldn't impact there imo as the fast food joints will absorb the cost into the price of the whole meal. Maybe they should offer yogurt drinks as a cold option which are high protein low sugar no fat.

Have people specifically researched how people replace calories from soda drinks? I'm sure that someone, somewhere has given it a go, there is masses of research on obesity out there. 'Curing' obesity really is the Holy Grail for pharma, big and small alike. If you can invent a pill that half the population will take for the rest of their lives.....KERCHINGGGGGGG

I suspect, as with so many problems where economics and societal problems intersect is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. We all know that if you stuff your face with fat and sugar you're going to end up fat but many of us do it anyway and most of us eat and drink this crap to some extent.

These fad diets may have muddied the waters a bit but when it comes down to it, if you strip carbs out of your diet you are also taking out an awful lot of calories too. Ditto if you eat cabbage soup twice a day or whatever.

Generali

happylucky wrote: »

The thing is, in UK (not third world, reliable drinking water supply etc, dietary info on packaged food) everyone pretty much knows that eating lots of chocolate, soda, crisps, takeaways etc will lead to increase in body fat. Not talking about occassional dips, but in substitution for healthy food on a regular basis I mean. And everyone pretty much knows that healthier options = fruit, vegetables, whole grains, lean protein etc. Don't they ?

Also, when anyone can't fit into their trousers any more, then by definition I guess they know they've gone up a dress size and need to quit the cake! Digital weighing scales not required

So I don't think input taxes should be necessary; it's passing financial accountability for the impact of sustained consciousness decision making back to the decision maker that should be happening. Make people responsible for their lives and give them the liberty to do that without too much governmental interference.

That said, implementing would be so politically fraught it would be probably never happen...so sadly I would have to agree with expansion of the nanny state to support sugar tax as the best option.

People simply aren't used to being accountable for their own lives any more.

From cutting back the stinging nettles where your kid plays football to stopping you putting on weight, the first reaction is, 'What is the Government doing about xxxx?'