Budget 2016

wotsthat

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't understand sugar tax. I don't gain weight from drinking fizzy drinks - are they such a HUGE part of people's everyday lives?

.... I have to watch pies, sausage rolls, pasties, bread goods, sweet treats in general (cheesecakes/bags of sweeties) ....

I've never understood the bizarre idea that everybody's drinking sugar-laden fizzy drinks and that's why people are fat, so it needs taxing.

There's probably more sugar in a litre of fruit juice than 3 cans of pop.

I've written a diet book - I'm expecting it to be a best seller - it's a bit short though.

Eat less - move more.

DiggerUK

I don't think the tax on sugar, will cause the same upset as the tax on salt in 19th century India.
But it is going to be a very nice earner.......what doesn't have sugar in it?..._

wotsthat

It's only sugar in drinks and fruit juices and milked based drinks are excluded. If you like a large Costa chai latte your 20 teaspoons of sugar are unaffected.

DiggerUK

wotsthat wrote: »

It's only sugar in drinks and fruit juices and milked based drinks are excluded. If you like a large Costa chai latte your 20 teaspoons of sugar are unaffected.

Very true, but the budget has to go through parliament, and the healthistas won't let this one go..._

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

I've written a diet book - I'm expecting it to be a best seller - it's a bit short though.

Eat less - move more.

That's a myth perpetrated by companies like Coca Cola.

US soda companies spent $100,000,000+ promoting this myth by the means of paying for studies that happen to complicate the simple. The problem seems to be sugar AFAICS.

Check out Marion Nestle's blog as a great starting point for all that is wrong with the promotion of sugar rich foods and dodgy science paid for by Big Food and especially Big Soda.

kabayiri

wotsthat wrote: »

I've written a diet book - I'm expecting it to be a best seller - it's a bit short though.

Eat less - move more.

Can I write the foreword?

"Read this!"

There...done

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

That's a myth perpetrated by companies like Coca Cola.

US soda companies spent $100,000,000+ promoting this myth by the means of paying for studies that happen to complicate the simple. The problem seems to be sugar AFAICS.

Check out Marion Nestle's blog as a great starting point for all that is wrong with the promotion of sugar rich foods and dodgy science paid for by Big Food and especially Big Soda.

Isn't the problem the retuning of our natural palate when we are very young via sugary products?

I saw a bit of a program where the celebs taking part were adopting a low sugar/sugar free diet. The argument was that we don't taste things properly because we now expect an intense sugar hit.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I love Jamaica Ginger, which is I think the sugariest of all fizzy pop, but it's a rare treat. I keep a couple of tins in the fridge, but don't think I've opened one this year in fact. I suspect most of us on here remember fizzy pop being a special thing in childhood; my brother and I could never agree whether (Spar own brand) Cherryade or Limeade was best.

The thing is, for an alarming number of people, fizzy drinks are now a daily staple, not a rare treat. I see schoolkids coming out of Greggs every day clutching Coke bottles and greasy pastries (not sure if this is breakfast, lunch or a snack). I have an overweight friend who drinks 1-2 l of Coke a day.

So hopefully the "sugar tax" isn't so much about the actual revenue raised, but also the association of sugar with booze and fags; nice in the short term but ultimately bad for you.

chucknorris

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I love Jamaica Ginger, which is I think the sugariest of all fizzy pop, but it's a rare treat. I keep a couple of tins in the fridge, but don't think I've opened one this year in fact. I suspect most of us on here remember fizzy pop being a special thing in childhood; my brother and I could never agree whether (Spar own brand) Cherryade or Limeade was best.

The thing is, for an alarming number of people, fizzy drinks are now a daily staple, not a rare treat. I see schoolkids coming out of Greggs every day clutching Coke bottles and greasy pastries (not sure if this is breakfast, lunch or a snack). I have an overweight friend who drinks 1-2 l of Coke a day.

So hopefully the "sugar tax" isn't so much about the actual revenue raised, but also the association of sugar with booze and fags; nice in the short term but ultimately bad for you.

That was my alcohol substitute, but when I realised the huge amount of calories in it, I switched to the virtually calorie free 'light' version of it.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Isn't the problem the retuning of our natural palate when we are very young via sugary products?

I saw a bit of a program where the celebs taking part were adopting a low sugar/sugar free diet. The argument was that we don't taste things properly because we now expect an intense sugar hit.

I think that's probably part of the problem but I suspect that it's more complicated too.

A very, very large part of the problem comes from soda companies spending vast sums of money to make being fat our fault rather than theirs. Lest we forget, Coca Cola was named because it had coca in it. Coca can be refined into cocaine quite trivially AIUI. These days they use caffeine to get you hooked.

If you are overweight then somewhere between 80 & 90% of the problem is likely to be your diet (if there isn't another medical condition) and the rest is likely to be a lack of exercise. Stop drinking pop (and beer) and eating junk food and you're likely to lose most of any excess weight you may have (if you don't have an underlying medical condition).

Very few people can do enough exercise to lose significant amounts of weight as their appetite simple goes up. If your appetite rises you will eat more.

The solution:

Eat mostly vegetables, not too much. What you eat should be grown on a plant not made in a factory.