1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sugar Tax, Yes or No?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Orionaut, Oct 26, 2015.

  1. Orionaut

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 2, 2012

    Posts: 6,523

    So should there be a tax on sugar?

    The way I see it, I would not want to see a tax on the sugar that people chose to put in their tea/coffee or on their cornflakes. They can see that it is sugar and they know what they are doing with it.

    But I would like to see a very large tax put on the sugar that is deliberately hidden inside other foods and often in the most unlikely of places.

    Kellogs all bran for example is nearly 20% added sugar! Why?? The Baps that MacD's come in also have a very high sugar content, far more than is needed for proving the dough. Again, Why??

    What stunned me about the film “Supersize me!” was at the end of the month when Spurlock was shown the amount of fat and sugar that he had eaten during the course of the month experiment. The bucket of fat didn’t surprise me, I was expecting that. What shocked me was the huge bucket of sugar! It had got to be more sugar than I have eaten in a decade! (I don’t drink soft drinks I don’t eat breakfast cereal, I only rarely eat chocolate and I only rarely eat fast food or eat out. And I haven’t actually bought a bag of sugar in 15 years)

    (I would also like to see a tax on vegetable fat that is being used as a hidden ingredient too)

    I have always been very cynical about the use of added sugar and vegetable fat in processed food. The way I see it, these are the cheapest ingredients available for the food processors (Apart from water, which is also used!) and if they can pad out their products with the cheap ingredients they stand to make more profit on the finished article.

    What is more, the food processors know that high fat/sugar combinations are apatite super stimulator’s, Even when people have had enough, they still want to eat more! “Junk Food” isn’t just not particularly good for you, it is actively engineered to make you want to eat more of it than you should!

    The purpose of any taxation here is not so much to penalise the final consumer, nor is it to raise money (The ideal result from a purely public health POV is surely that no tax is raised because all sugar consumption ceases (See also Alcohol and tobacco taxes))

    But what I would be looking for is a situation where Sugar and Vegetable fat are no longer the cheapest ingredients available so the processors simply stop using them to pad out their products.

    (It would be nice to be able to tax added water too (See churned chicken and ham (A nice Guardienista link, there were plenty of Mail ones available, but I felt a Guardian link would keep the mail haters happy! :p) but I am struggling to come up with a precise definition that would work in practice)

    Whilst this will make these products more expensive, it will probably not make them that much more expensive and it is likely to make them much more nutritious! (And therefore better value for money)

    In the long run, everybody would win.

    What say you??
     
  2. bledd

    Don

    Joined: Oct 21, 2002

    Posts: 46,121

    Location: Parts Unknown

    Check out 'That Sugar Film'
     
  3. spoffle

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 4, 2012

    Posts: 16,124

    I feel like you don't really know the subject well enough to form the opinions you have.

    Additionally, high fat food will fill you up, not stimulate hunger causing you to eat more.

    Do you actually know what the problem with dietary fat is?

    Focusing so much on sugar and fat, and calling for it to be taxed to hell does little in the way of productivity.

    Ensuring people understand how to consume a balanced, nutritionally rich diet is far more important than taxing what you deem to be bad into oblivion in the hope that it goes away isn't sensible.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2015
  4. SimBoy

    Gangster

    Joined: Aug 10, 2015

    Posts: 118

    Couldn't agree more - seems the 'normal' knee jurk reaction these days to either ban something or tax it (use it as an excuse to raise additional tax revenue).

    This problem really goes back to the appauling dumbed down education system in this country these days - making people oblivious to what's good or bad for them in terms of home economics and cooking.

    As a rule of thumb - everything in moderation :D

    (except when overclocking your rig - then it's all out extreem! :eek:)
     
  5. Quartz

    Soldato

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 7,144

    Location: Aberdeen

    No, there shouldn't be a sugar tax. Just campaign to make people more aware. Just like salt and fat.
     
  6. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,441

    Location: Wales

    no why should i pay more because people over eat?

    they'll over eat on any food, not just sugar.
     
  7. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,441

    Location: Wales



    by hidden you mean printed on the packet in a big table?


    where you getting that from?

    from the mcdonalds web site there is 10g of sugar i na quarter pounder, most of that will be the sauce
     
  8. randal

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 1, 2006

    Posts: 12,059

    No, it's a lazy solution to people unwilling to help themselves.

    Now charging people for healthcare when they've obviously abused their bodies with said sugary foods, I might be able to get behind that.

    edit - I might be temtped to support it if it means ending the using of High Fructose/Glucose syrups in everything.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2015
  9. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 22, 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    Yes - it's a no brainer. All the evidence suggests a tax on sugar leads to healthier societies, see Mexico as an example. Sadly free trade agreements with the US mean they are having to lower their sugar tax.

    Let's be honest, we all know the only reason Cameron and Osborne are against a sugar tax in this country is because of intensive lobbying from the Food/Sugar industries.
     
  10. spoffle

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 4, 2012

    Posts: 16,124

    Just like what about fat?
     
  11. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,441

    Location: Wales

    surely all that's needed is a good literacy campaign as its written on the package so if people cared the problem must simply be they cant read.
     
  12. meandu229

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Apr 16, 2007

    Posts: 2,064

    I've learnt more about sugar in the last 3 months than in my lifetime thanks to various shows/films. I now really take the amount of sugar I eat into consideration (not just chocolate but ready mixed sauces etc also).
    Its crazy the amount of sugar that is hidden away in sauces and other convenience foods its not always easy tell whats got high sugars and what not. But education should be the first place to go as people will still just pay for sugar like they do alcohol and cigarettes.
     
  13. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,441

    Location: Wales

    thing is its not "hidden" at all unless you've never cooked.

    if you've actually been raised cooking food you understand how much sugar is needed in these sources cakes, cookies etc because you've made them.
     
  14. NoNameNoNumber

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 25, 2009

    Posts: 4,721

    Fat people should be taxed. Not people who like sugar... Simples- burn more energy than you eat. I'll be skiney forevvvvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrr :D
     
  15. spoffle

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 4, 2012

    Posts: 16,124

    Why do you think the sugar is hidden?
     
  16. Dave85

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jan 18, 2004

    Posts: 8,374

    Location: Sunny Scotland

    Just the latest in a line of stupid ideas to tax people to death in this country. just stop meddling in peoples lives. It's about time they remembered they work for us not to babysit us.
     
  17. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,011

    Sounds like a sweet idea.
     
  18. meandu229

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Apr 16, 2007

    Posts: 2,064

  19. spoffle

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 4, 2012

    Posts: 16,124

    That's not hiding, that's just ignorance to the names of sugars. The general rule is that anything ending is ose is a sugar.

    What you're saying is akin to claiming the contents of say, a mandarin dictionary, is hidden based on your inability to understand it.

    Dextrose, glucose and fructose for example are all sugars but they're different compounds so are named separately. It's got nothing to do with trying to obfuscate what's in it because they are quite literally telling you exactly what's in in it.
     
  20. F2kSel

    Hitman

    Joined: Sep 22, 2008

    Posts: 679

    Location: Stoke

    Notice it's always rich people who want to raise these taxes, for them it's nothing.
    Who's going to help them loose weight as they'll still be able to afford fag,booze,sugar ect.