I don't think so, I think it was just unlucky that any time I had it at places like schools/after school clubs, it tended to be the no added sugar version.
I associated that awful taste with Robinsons and cordials in general.
This 'sugar tax' crap is doing my head in!
- Thread starter MrRockliffe
- Start date
I associated that awful taste with Robinsons and cordials in general.
I think that Marmite serves as an excellent example. The number of people who eat Marmite is "a lot" in absolute numbers, probably in the millions (thousands of tonnes of Marmite are sold per year and any one person would only be eating small amounts). So would that make it a good thing to add lots of Marmite to lots of products because "a lot" of people like Marmite? Freedom of choice doesn't mean choosing for other people. That's not personal choice.
I like beer brewed with sweet gale rather than hops. The number of people who do would probably count as "a lot" in absolute numbers. Yet almost all beer sold in high street shops in brewed with hops, not with sweet gale. I'm not bothered by that - it's perfectly reasonable for shops to favour products that they can sell to a large majority rather than products they can sell to a small minority. If I want beer brewed with sweet gale, I usually need to go to a speciality shop or buy it online.
The government has not made it a requirement to put sweeteners in drinks, or anything else. They haven't even put any outright restrictions on how much sugar can be put in drinks. Companies could sell pure sugar syrup in a can as a drink if they wanted to. Increasing the price of a can of pop by 6p if there's a lot of sugar added to it is not "controlling people's choice of what to eat". It's not even heavy-handed. It's a rather light hand. 6p is not a lot of money nowadays.
I'm being serious. If 26g of sugar in a can of pop isn't enough for you, carry some packets of extra sugar and tip it in. A standard bag of sugar is a kilogram if I recall correctly. It's unlikely that you'd use that much extra sugar in such a short period of time that you'd need to ensure you had a Kg of sugar on you at all times. The point of this law is to reduce casual consumption of huge quantities of sugar as a result of companies using sugar in huge quantities as an artificial sweetener.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,049
- Location
- Derby
Its funny that there is a "sugar tax" and i have noticed that Coke Zero and Pepsi Max have also gone up by a few pence.. Hummmmm.....
If they kept a straight face while saying such nonsense, never play poker with them!
I just checked Iceland's site(*). 10 pack of Pepsi Max is £3.50. 10 pack of Pepsi is £4.10, i.e. 6p per can more expensive. Which is the sugar tax, so that's fair pricing. £1.10 for a can of common pop is lolworthy whatever the excuse.
* My workplace buys cans of pop from Iceland, so it was the first place that came to my mind.
Honestly, I'm surprised at you. Nowhere did I come close to making such an argument that it should be added to things against people's will. Obviously the argument is that there is a choice of products. In this case, free choice is being interfered with by the government.
And when the government starts artificially trying to stop you buying it, you'll have a better analogy.
They've done the "anything else" as you well know.
If 6p didn't make a difference to sales, then people would charge 6p more. This is supply-demand economics 101, here. Margins are VERY tight on cheap, mass-sold commodity products. Very tight. Right now, the companies are calculating that if everyone does this, then any overall dip will be very small. But here's the point - IT DOESN'T MATTER. The Government is provably changing what is sold. That is ALL that matters to me as a customer. You can theorise all you like about "6p" but the evidence is right in front of you that the government has changed what is being sold. If you don't accept that then we're done.
And even if I can accurately judge how much sugar to add to what I buy and don't mind looking like a freak... Do please tell me how I remove the aspartame and acesulfame K that is already in there? Please go ahead - I'll wait.
It was being interfered with by the businesses first, so why not blame them for you being so used to 40g of sugar per can that 26g of sugar per can isn't enough for you? And there still is a choice of products.
It used to be easy to buy cough medicine with cocaine or heroin in it and the manufacturers heavily promoted it. The government then interfered with free choice in a far more extreme way by completely banning it. Were they wrong to do so?
If the government was trying to stop people buying drinks with ludicrous amounts of sugar added to them, they could easily do a far better job of it than very slightly taxing them. It's far harder to buy beer brewed with sweet gale than it is to buy a handful of sugar.
I do not know that the government has made it a requirement to put non-sugar sweeteners in things other than drinks.
OK then, we're done. The government has slightly changed taxation in response to advice from its medical advisors. That's all. By the way, the price of the same can of pop varies from 25p to £1.10. Margins aren't as tight as you claim they are.
You can read and you can do very simple arithmetic. Reading would let you know how much sugar is in the drink and how much sugar is in each sachet. Simple arithmetic would be all that's needed to calculate how many sachets would make up the difference between the amount of sugar in the can and the amount you wanted.
Do please tell me why you think the government has made it mandatory to put aspartame and acesulfame K in every fizzy drink? Please go ahead - I'll wait.
That was a lie. I won't be waiting.
If you can't find the 35-40g of sugar version of any drink you like (despite many brands still being sold all over the place with that much added sugar), you can buy a 26g of sugar version (the "reduced sugar" ones you mentioned seeing in the 1 shop you looked in) and add more sugar to it. You can buy 1000 sachets of sugar from Amazon (and many other places) for under £10. Put some sachets in your pocket, add 4 sachets to the can (assuming 2.5g per sachet, which is a common size), job done. The government won't stop you. You can have 100g of sugar per can if you want and if that much will dissolve. It's your choice, up to the limits of chemistry.
The they can add thier own sugar argument is nonsense though angillion as both of them find the taste of sweeteners unpleasant adding more sugar will not make it taste like it used to for them as the sweeteners are there now they csnt take them out.
Interesting you both say you avoided them as kids I wonder if its an acquired taste thing?
As you've never really drank them you've never gotten he taste for them
Interesting you both say you avoided them as kids I wonder if its an acquired taste thing?
As you've never really drank them you've never gotten he taste for them
The government aren't controlling what you eat though, companies decided that they'd lose less money by changing the recipe and keeping the same price than not changing the recipe and raising the price.
Except if you read what he said, not all have added sweetners they have just reduced sugar to just underthetax bracket, therefore you could if you wanted add sugar.
This is not a goverment issue, this is a manufacturer issue, of enough consumers complain and or their sales dip. Old recipe will come back. Sugar in no way has been banned.
It seems manufactures have underestimated how much people will pay and instead jumped the gun onreducing sugar.
Which ones are they? The big brands have added sweeteners as far as im aware cause just reducing the sugar woupd make them weird. (although iirc coke always had sweeteners regardless of which one you bought)
I dont care tbh I always drink the sugar free ones I'm fortunately nornal so they work done for me
For you matter point I dont think that's the case I think you'll find consumers will simply adjust and forget all about it in a few months .
Sure there will be the small % who can't handle sweeteners but meh theyr e a smaller % than the cheapskates
I don't know he's mentioned it in most of his posts go read them. It's his claim not mien. But something I thought out would have picked up on as you are telling to him.
I agree some sweetened drinks do taste vile, but so do the sugar ones, just taste like syrup and you need a gallon of water afterwarda. Not many sodas I do like.
Diet coke, diet a&w root beer, two main ones.
Last edited:
That's a bit like saying Stalin was less authoritarian than Hitler. It may or may not be true. But what relevance does it have?
It's one group of people saying, "I don't like your choices, let me impose my views on you".
I think companies may see their profits nosedive.
Four days ago my wife bought a box of ice lollies for the children. The lollies would be normally be consumed within three days with the empty box residing in the freezer. I checked the freezer today and there are plenty of lollies still in the box, undisturbed. I asked the children if they were enjoying the ice lollies. Responses ranged from; "the're not sweet enough." "the lollies are smaller now." "Daddy I had to eat two." "I don't like it."
Looks like the sugar tax is kicking in.
Four days ago my wife bought a box of ice lollies for the children. The lollies would be normally be consumed within three days with the empty box residing in the freezer. I checked the freezer today and there are plenty of lollies still in the box, undisturbed. I asked the children if they were enjoying the ice lollies. Responses ranged from; "the're not sweet enough." "the lollies are smaller now." "Daddy I had to eat two." "I don't like it."
Looks like the sugar tax is kicking in.
Just another stealth tax, they care not about obesity.. Full sugar coke still flying off the shelves where I work, diet and zero varieties hardly move. It's actually not uncommon for us to have diet coke go out of date because it just doesn't sell.
Sugar doesn't make people fat, lack of education and laziness makes people fat.
Sugar doesn't make people fat, lack of education and laziness makes people fat.
You know it's already been ruined for 50 odd years and is hugely tested. On top of that you got any idea how many people die from sugar related issues.
Posts like that just show how poor helath education is.
Just what, there is no general sugar tax. Your lollies are not subject to a sugar tax at all.
Looks like your kids might stand less chance of growing up to become little porkers!