Taxing sugar

Bottle_of_Smoke

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

So lets replace a natural product that if consumed to excess may lead to obesity with an artificial compound that if consumed to excess has a laxative effect? Look at the label for pure aspartame - is this really a better option than sugar?

Not to mention it tastes rotten

Sucrolose/stevia are grand. IF you consumed to excess on aspartame and shat yourself you'd learn your lesson about over-consumption!

Anyway I am not in favour of taxing sugar. Was just responding to the talk of job losses.

DoesNotCompute

I have a feeling the OP is trolling.

I propose that the government tax boards.ie, and give everyone in the country a free Wii and a copy of Dance Dance Revolution in an effort to get people off their lazy *rses

DoesNotCompute

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think a possible (if radical) way of reducing overweight/obesity would be to offer a % tax refund(or bonus if on the dole/student/low earner) for people who can squat/deadlift their own weight for 8 reps. Free health insurance too

If you are a healthy bodyweight this can easily be achieved after a few weeks of resistance training. Maybe a lower percentage of bodyweight for women and people over 55.

If it worked and people took part to save money there could be savings made on drug costs for type 2 diabetics/heart problem related drugs. Plus a lot of freed up hospital beds/frontline medical staff.

State gyms would have to be set up for people who can't afford it of course. Though these places could double as testing centres. You'd register and then be told - ''at some point in the coming year you will have to come in and lift the weight with perfect form under supervision of a fitness instructor''

Plus the state gyms would create jobs...

Fitzerb

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That is actually a very important point. If we did somehow reduce obesity it may come back to bite us in a few decades when there are much more people around. I suppose like donating to the third world we aim to save life in the hopes we will be better able to deal with it in the future. Perhaps just as naive of course.

There are other things to obesity though. I feel embarrassed we are such an unfit nation. When you think of continental europe where obesity is much lower ourselves and Britain stick out like a sore thumb. And we're not the greatest looking nation in the world to begin with. Plus people who are obese/overweight tend to be more likely to be prone to depression. So it would be a happier nation too.



The only ones I can see here really taking a hit are the dentists. Sweeteners/emulsifiers are becoming huge. For example Coca-Cola releasing their Coke Zero product *cough* diet coke for men *cough cough*

The industries you mentioned will easily transfer to sweeteners so I wouldn't worry about that.

If you think that too sugar is bad for you should check out what too much diet drinks do to you along with too much sweeteners. I would drink full sugar products far far quicker than any diet product.......
As a food lab tech person for their views.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fitzerb wrote: »

If you think that too sugar is bad for you should check out what too much diet drinks do to you along with too much sweeteners. I would drink full sugar products far far quicker than any diet product.......
As a food lab tech person for their views.

I don't drink them myself but its really just a preference thing. Haven't found any I like the taste of and I usually drink fizzy drinks as a wake up/energy thing. Diet drinks obviously not good for that.

Healthwise and from a weight loss POV, from what I've read I woudn't be overly concerned about sweeteners. I drink alcohol a few times a week; that's probably much worse than having a daily can of diet coke. Like sugar sweeteners are another thing the daily mail brigade can piggyback onto and come out with the likes of "chemical additives going to kill us all''

The evidence doesn't back up the scaremongering on sweeteners.

jmayo

whiteonion wrote: »

I have been hanging out on boards for a bit but now I decided to get myself an account and post threads.

I think we should put punitive taxes on sugar for health reasons. Sugar promotes bad teeth, obesity, diabetes(with all associated problems that comes with this illness).

Human beings don't need a single gram of sugar and because it is so unhealthy it should be heavily taxed. It is absurd that good food like meat and veg should be expensive while soft drinks and candy bars cost next to nothing.

We don't have candy bars in this country, just like we used to have Marathons rather than efffing snickers. :mad:

Have to say you should have waited and started a different thread.

bluewolf wrote: »

I had to laugh, our sugar lasts nearly a year, except for baking
Go through honey though

Don't worry the OP is going to have tax on honey as well.
It will be part of the bee tax.

whiteonion wrote: »

You don't need to add sugar in basic foodstuffs.
The obesity epidemic in the United States can be blamed on the High Fructose Corn Syrup which is added into a very wide variety of staple foods, sauces, drinks etc.

No the obesity epidemic in the US is down to the fact that American people

• eat too much - the portions are too big.
• eat the wrong type of food, lots of processed flavourless sh**e
• do not know how to cook and eat in sh** places like McDonalds, Boston Market (Airline food), Pizza Hut, Burgerking, etc.
• feed their children sh**e food and do not educate them how to eat better.
• don't get off their ar**s but want to drive everywhere.

Who the hell invented cheese from a can, pringles, raspberry flavoured beetroot for starters ?

BTW I always find sugar is kinda nice so no thanbks i don't want it taxed to sh**.

whiteonion wrote: »

This tax would apply to fruit juice and fruit as well. Fruit is not very healthy, anyone who ever went to the dentist knows this.

Yeah whoever heard of fruit being healthy.
Scurvy here we come ?

whiteonion wrote: »

Sugar is not necessary. Starch is not necessary. The body needs protein and fat, it does not need a single gram of carbohydrates.

Hey I thought Dr Atkins was dead ?

Either that or you work for a beef processor that wants us all eating growth promoted feedlot beef. :rolleyes:

whiteonion

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

So lets replace a natural product that if consumed to excess may lead to obesity with an artificial compound that if consumed to excess has a laxative effect? Look at the label for pure aspartame - is this really a better option than sugar?

Not to mention it tastes rotten

Table sugar is not a natural product. Sugar does not occur in such high concentrations in nature. Table sugar is a manmade product.

whiteonion

jmayo wrote: »

We don't have candy bars in this country, just like we used to have Marathons rather than efffing snickers. :mad:

Have to say you should have waited and started a different thread.




Don't worry the OP is going to have tax on honey as well.
It will be part of the bee tax.



No the obesity epidemic in the US is down to the fact that American people

• eat too much - the portions are too big.
• eat the wrong type of food, lots of processed flavourless sh**e
• do not know how to cook and eat in sh** places like McDonalds, Boston Market (Airline food), Pizza Hut, Burgerking, etc.
• feed their children sh**e food and do not educate them how to eat better.
• don't get off their ar**s but want to drive everywhere.

Who the hell invented cheese from a can, pringles, raspberry flavoured beetroot for starters ?

BTW I always find sugar is kinda nice so no thanbks i don't want it taxed to sh**.



Yeah whoever heard of fruit being healthy.
Scurvy here we come ?



Hey I thought Dr Atkins was dead ?

Either that or you work for a beef processor that wants us all eating growth promoted feedlot beef. :rolleyes:

No you don't have to eat beef made in factory farms. You can eat natural organic beef made from grass fed cattle. You can get more vitamin c from liver than from apples or pears. Alot of fruit does not contain that much vitamin c at all. You get way more vitamin c from chili peppers than from any fruit that I know of.

jmayo

whiteonion wrote: »

No you don't have to eat beef made in factory farms. You can eat natural organic beef made from grass fed cattle. You can get more vitamin c from liver than from apples or pears. Alot of fruit does not contain that much vitamin c at all. You get way more vitamin c from chili peppers than from any fruit that I know of.

I could understand if you said lets try and prevent people eating so much junk food, sweets, etc and lets get them eating healthy, but I think you are now really going off on some weird crusade where you want to stop people eating fruit and would rather have them munching on liver and chilies.

If that is what you are eating then I suggest you vary it a little and maybe throw in the odd fruit.

BTW did you know if you eat nothing but rabbit you will die.
So does it sound that a perfect diet just involves meat ?

maggy_thatcher

whiteonion wrote: »

Table sugar is not a natural product. Sugar does not occur in such high concentrations in nature. Table sugar is a manmade product.

It's a natural product that has had it's concentration increased (extract sucrose from the plant from hot water then boil off the water) -- in the same way that anything freeze-dried is just a concentrated version of the original. Most people don't eat pure sucrose, but dilute it in some form or other.

Chemical compounds such as Aspartame on the other hand involve taking corn and adding enzymes to it. Given it's marked as a carcinogenic in its pure form, I'd be very wary of it being used as a general replacement for sugar.

Sigi

Interesting topic, one I'm not sure should be dismissed as easily as most seem to be.

I am almost never for taxation however here it seems acceptable.Now I never have supported any sort of public health initiative that would impose costs on people, but here I make an exception.If the govt is going to provide public health care to the country then I see no reason why those that willfully destroy their bodies should not pay to offset the cost of their treatment, rather than those people who take care of themselves being forced to pay for them.

Obesity imposes huge costs on any health-care system and I see it as hugely unfair that every taxpayer must pay to help somebody deal with the consequences of their own choices.

I think a tax tax of 2c per gram of fructose contained in a product would be acceptable.(That may be too low/high).

I have no problem with what somebody chooses to do with their body. I have a problem when someone else has to pay.

As for those that claim obesity to be caused by overeating and inactivity, I would be more inclined to see those as symptoms, not the cause.The question is why they overeat?And it's not a simple matter of willpower in the majority of cases.There are several important hormonal changes that end up making people feel hungry even though they're really not.
Are they fat because they overeat, or do they overeat because they're fat?

Joe1919

We should tax salt also at about a euro a kilo. We would have made a fortune during the recent freeze up when the councils were using thousands of tonnes per day spraying it on the roads. It would of paid our national debt and we may of had enough money left over to offer the IMF and ECB a loan.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Joe1919 wrote: »

We should tax salt also at about a euro a kilo. We would have made a fortune during the recent freeze up when the councils were using thousands of tonnes per day spraying it on the roads. It would of paid our national debt and we may of had enough money left over to offer the IMF and ECB a loan.

Erm . . that's a joke . . right?

maggy_thatcher

Sigi wrote: »

I think a tax tax of 2c per gram of fructose contained in a product would be acceptable.(That may be too low/high).

A bag of 1kg of apples contains approximately 80g of fructose (+20g of glucose). A tax of 2c per gram of fructose would mean that this bag would go up by €1.60. The phrase "an apple a day keeps the doctor away (but it keeps the dentist busy)" comes to mind.

Do you really want people to stop eating fruit & vegetables?

Corsendonk

Sigi wrote: »

Interesting topic, one I'm not sure should be dismissed as easily as most seem to be.

I am almost never for taxation however here it seems acceptable.Now I never have supported any sort of public health initiative that would impose costs on people, but here I make an exception.If the govt is going to provide public health care to the country then I see no reason why those that willfully destroy their bodies should not pay to offset the cost of their treatment, rather than those people who take care of themselves being forced to pay for them.

Obesity imposes huge costs on any health-care system and I see it as hugely unfair that every taxpayer must pay to help somebody deal with the consequences of their own choices.

I think a tax tax of 2c per gram of fructose contained in a product would be acceptable.(That may be too low/high).

I have no problem with what somebody chooses to do with their body. I have a problem when someone else has to pay.

As for those that claim obesity to be caused by overeating and inactivity, I would be more inclined to see those as symptoms, not the cause.The question is why they overeat?And it's not a simple matter of willpower in the majority of cases.There are several important hormonal changes that end up making people feel hungry even though they're really not.
Are they fat because they overeat, or do they overeat because they're fat?

Why are you proposing taxing fructose, a natural sugar found in fruit and vegetables? Or have you got your sugars confused?

maggy_thatcher

Corsendonk wrote: »

Why are you proposing taxing fructose, a natural sugar found in fruit and vegetables? Or have you got your sugars confused?

If a tax was implemented on sucrose, then companies would take the American option and switch to HFCS (up to 90% fructose). If a tax was implemented on fructose then fresh fruit and vegetables would be hit hard.

If we did have to introduce a nanny-state like punitive tax on some form of sugar it would have to be on some very restricted types.

Personally I think that it's a non-runner.

Corsendonk

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

If a tax was implemented on sucrose, then companies would take the American option and switch to HFCS (up to 90% fructose). If a tax was implemented on fructose then fresh fruit and vegetables would be hit hard.

If we did have to introduce a nanny-state like punitive tax on some form of sugar it would have to be on some very restricted types.

Personally I think that it's a non-runner.

Fructose levels vary by cultivar so you would have to batch sample and submit analysis. It could also be seen as a barrier to trade. I totally agree its a non runner.

Bottle_of_Smoke

It just wouldn't do anything but penalise people who need excess calories for their lifestyle.

The media are such w*nkers for this crap. If boards existed 20 years ago we'd be discussing a fat tax but now people love fat for use in low carb diets.

You can't tax your way out of obesity because eating lots of any macronutrient (protein/fat or carbs) won't make you fat so long as you burn up the calories through your lifestyle. People competing in cycling championships or swimmers could consume 6000-8000 calories a day. Though they're in great shape.

Corsendonk

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It just wouldn't do anything but penalise people who need excess calories for their lifestyle.

The media are such w*nkers for this crap. If boards existed 20 years ago we'd be discussing a fat tax but now people love fat for use in low carb diets.

You can't tax your way out of obesity because eating lots of any macronutrient (protein/fat or carbs) won't make you fat so long as you burn up the calories through your lifestyle. People competing in cycling championships or swimmers could consume 6000-8000 calories a day. Though they're in great shape.

Congestion charge outside schools on cars to discourage them driving their kids to the front door would prob have a better result on kids health and the parents.

mikemac

Taxing won't work but better education can be done.
Definitely in schools when they are young

In our local school, they banned crisps, biscuits, sweets and fizzy drinks from Monday to Thursday for lón and sos. Friday is an exception.

Come to think of it, back when I was in national school years and years ago we were not allowed fizzy drinks. They're empty calories anyway, pure junk

All this works fine, lots of national schools do this.

Corsendonk

feelingstressed wrote: »

Taxing won't work but better education can be done.
Definitely in schools when they are young

In our local school, they banned crisps, biscuits, sweets and fizzy drinks from Monday to Thursday for lón and sos. Friday is an exception.

Come to think of it, back when I was in national school years and years ago we were not allowed fizzy drinks. They're empty calories anyway, pure junk

All this works fine, lots of national schools do this.

Same in the local national school near me. Its the low level of exercise that kids have in their daily schedule today as well as the abundance of calories but everyone seems focused on diet.

Each year the traffic chaos outside the local school is worse with parents dropping the kids off outside rather than letting the kids walk or cycle to school. Most of the kids live within 15-20 min cycle or walk but parents have various excuses such as dangerous roads or potential child abduction for not letting the kids make their own way to school. I rarely see a parent walking or cycling their kids to school.

The school had to ask the parents to park in the church carpark 100m away from the school because they thought their would be a serious car accident but that only lasted a couple of weeks with the parents before they went back to dropping the kids right outside the school door.

I can understand the rush people were in to get to work in the mornings but now you have one or more parent not working so they have the time to walk the kids to school. Plus its alot more cheaper than the running of a car to short hop to school everyday.

cynder

feelingstressed wrote: »

Taxing won't work but better education can be done.
Definitely in schools when they are young

In our local school, they banned crisps, biscuits, sweets and fizzy drinks from Monday to Thursday for lón and sos. Friday is an exception.

Come to think of it, back when I was in national school years and years ago we were not allowed fizzy drinks. They're empty calories anyway, pure junk

All this works fine, lots of national schools do this.

My lady's school has that ban too, but my lady is the exception to the rule, she is diabetic and has a supply of coke and biscuits there. Also she can have chocolate bars if she needs one.


We live over an hours walk from the school so i drop her off, but she is very athletic, she wins all the girls sprints and plays camogie and is on the schools swimming team. She also goes horse riding 2-3 times a week and spends 1 day at eh weekend mucking out stables and taking people on treks she is 11.

She always has a supply of sugar with her (chocolate/coke lucozade).

Sugar isnt that bad, i know, for my daughter it is a life saver..........

mikemac

Near me I think they'd drive the child into the classroom if they could

Good luck walking down the footpath when school is over, it's strictly single file only as the footpath is clogged with parents and their cars.
I've been beeped at by a car mounting the footpath and I was in the way as I was walking to the shops! :mad:

And on safety, it's actually more dangerous. Children cross the road but they can't see over jeeps and SUV's so it's difficult for them to see if the road is clear.
So parents might be terrified over their child getting abducted or hurt walking home but they are in fact making the situation less safe for students

Anyway, I'm going offtopic.

cynder

Corsendonk wrote: »

Congestion charge outside schools on cars to discourage them driving their kids to the front door would prob have a better result on kids health and the parents.

I walked 4 miles to school; and 4 miles back at age 8 it didn't do me any good. Pissing down and a ton of books on my back. I was anemic and underweight. Needless to say i suffered sciatica since i was 15.

cynder

Off the top of my head if you want to eat food without any sugar or sweeteners your gonna live on a diet of :

water
chicken + other meats
eggs &
cheese

These are foods that require NO INSULIN. There may be a limited number of other foods.

smiles302

I think a tax on sugar hasn't quite been thought the whole way through...

An empty calorie tax might be easier to define? Fizzy drinks, sweets, processed-the-crap-out-of-food etc.

Or more tight regulation on what can be labelled healthy food. Generally get rid of the stupid packaging on the low fat, crazy high in salt, tasteless ready made meals in the frozen food section.

Or sugary cereals implying they are the best breakfast around.

I think education is the best way forward, but the easiest way to educate people about food would be to stop advertising companies from being allowed to pull the wool over their eyes.
There should be simply guidelines of a max amount of salt and sugar, and clearly labelled amount of protein, fats and carbs in anything that has the word healthy (etc) on the packaging.

recedite

The mechanics of taxing sugar would involve a small surcharge on sugar itself and all products containing more than x% added sugar (inc fructose syrups etc)
Only the "empty calorie" type drinks and snacks would be caught by it. Fruit would not be affected, except that it would become better value compared to the chocolate bar alternative.

As salt was mentioned, a good move would be to copy Finland's example. They replaced normal salt on the supermarket shelf and even in the Mc Donalds restaurants with Pansalt, which is a mixture of sodium and potassium salts. Hypertension and stroke is now much reduced in the population, thus saving money in their National Health Service.
You can buy something similar here as an option, if you look hard enough; its called Lo Salt.

edit; BTW the benefit is not due to reduced sodium intake, it is due to maintaining a more natural balance in the sodium/potassium levels in the body.

rocky

I propose a tax on books that promote incorrect nutrition advice. Yes Taubes I'm looking at you and your insulin chapter !

recedite

One thing this thread shows is that a sugar tax, while beneficial, would require some intellectual effort and administrative work from politicians and other admin civil servants.
An indiscriminate Universal Social Charge, on the other hand, provides easy money to pay their fat salaries.

fitzy.

Hungary have decided to give the idea a go...

Hungary to tax unhealthy food from September

MTI – Econews
Tuesday 07:00, July 12th, 2011
Hungary's Parliament approved a bill that will introduce a "chips tax" on food high in sugar, salt, carbohydrates and caffeine from September 1, 2011.

The law will levy a HUF 5 per liter tax on sugary drinks with fruit content under 25%. Makers of energy drinks will pay HUF 250 per liter of product.

The tax will be HUF 100 per kilogram for pre-packaged cakes and HUF 200 per kilogram for salty snacks. Makers of food flavorings will pay HUF 200 per kilogram.

Drinks with more than 8g of sugar per 100ml and with a fruit content under 25% will be subject to the tax. Concentrates and syrups will be exempt.

The tax must be paid on snacks with a salt content over 1g per 100g. Flavorings and additives are to be taxed if their salt content is over 5g per 100g. Baby food, ketchup and mustard will be exempt, as will soups and sauces.

In the case of foreign-made products, the tax will be paid by the importer.

Businesses that sell fewer than 50 liters or 50 kilograms of products subject to the tax a year will be exempt.

Revenue from the tax will be used for public health matters.