This 'sugar tax' crap is doing my head in!

Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
I'm not sure anyone is under the illusion that fizzy drinks are full of sugar, for me the problem is all the sugar in stuff like jars of sauce. The amount of prepared and processed foods people consume these days is the problem. People just need to go back to cooking again and you will cut your calorie consumption no end.

but going bak to cooking again still means sugar lots of sauces have sugar in the recipe weather its made in the factory or your kitchen
 
Associate
Joined
3 May 2018
Posts
604
but going bak to cooking again still means sugar lots of sauces have sugar in the recipe weather its made in the factory or your kitchen

Not to mention natural out of the ground/tree foods. Fruit for example and to a lesser degree veg. For comparison...

Dark Chocolate = 47g/100g (47%)
Cake ~= 30-35g / 100g (35%)
Single average orange = 12g (+ another 5 grams of non-basic-sugar carbohydrate)
Coca Cola = 11g/100g (11%)
Single 100g apple = 10g (10%)
Peas = 6g / 100g (6%)
Carrot = 5g (5%)
Single large potato = 3g

Beer, 0g. (Sugar ferments out), but calories are as high as 400 per litre due to more complex sugars and carbohydrates.

What this means in terms of "daily allowance", for a woman, is that a single orange as one of their "5 a day" takes them to nearly 50%. If they had an apple and an orange they are close to the limit and would be unable to eat virtual any other food without busting their limit. Opening questions about how you are meant to have 5 a day of fruit and veg when it will max out or exceed your supposed recommended daily allowance of 25g women, 38g men. 100g of dark chocolate would be well over your daily allowance.

Just stop eating too much, and you'll be fine.

I would be interested in seeing a diet that meets all of the recommended daily allowances across the board. I expect it would be very difficult and probably not very appealing.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
23,738
Location
Lincs
You also need to realise the meatabolic differences on the body between Glucose, Fructose and Sucrose....it's not just all "sugar"

Fructose is the main problem, and that's whats mainly added to our processed foods and drinks.

Fructose
Fructose is a sugar found naturally in many fruits and vegetables, and added to various beverages such as soda and fruit-flavored drinks. However, it is very different from other sugars because it has a different metabolic pathway and is not the preferred energy source for muscles or the brain. Fructose is only metabolized in the liver and relies on fructokinase to initiate metabolism. It is also more lipogenic, or fat-producing, than glucose. Unlike glucose, too, it does not cause insulin to be released or stimulate production of leptin, a key hormone for regulating energy intake and expenditure. These factors raise concerns about chronically high intakes of dietary fructose, because it appears to behave more like fat in the body than like other carbohydrates.

The bit I have highlighted is it's major problem (as well as causing the liver disease Diagro is on about) in that you can consume large amounts of it but still not have the body's mechanism kick in to say you are full.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,758
Location
Midlands
Dark Chocolate = 47g/100g (47%)
Cake ~= 30-35g / 100g (35%)
Single average orange = 12g (+ another 5 grams of non-basic-sugar carbohydrate)
Coca Cola = 11g/100g (11%)
Single 100g apple = 10g (10%)
Peas = 6g / 100g (6%)
Carrot = 5g (5%)
Single large potato = 3g

The main difference with fruit vs something like Coca Cola, is that fruit contains fibre.

Fibre offsets the effects of sugar in a whole bunch of different ways, such as the speed at which food transits the digestive system - meaning that sugars are digested in a way which we've evolved to digest them. Fibre also makes you feel full, for example - you can only eat a few oranges or apples before you feel full, yet most people can sit and drink Coca Cola all day long, consuming hundreds of calories at a time without any feeling of satisfaction.

Hence the reason why a diabetic can eat an orange, but can't drink orange juice - without causing problems for their body.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
17,854
Location
London
Well the barman was wrong according to his employer. Looks like they have some education to do internally.
That link doesn't mention Youngs. But whatever way you want to swing it they're making it hard for normal people to get a proper Coke or Pepsi. I don't need to be nannied in a pub of all places.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
You also need to realise the meatabolic differences on the body between Glucose, Fructose and Sucrose....it's not just all "sugar"

Fructose is the main problem, and that's whats mainly added to our processed foods and drinks.



The bit I have highlighted is it's major problem (as well as causing the liver disease Diagro is on about) in that you can consume large amounts of it but still not have the body's mechanism kick in to say you are full.


We're not American sucrose is whsts added to our food.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,758
Location
Midlands
Added sugar in processed foods in the UK is mostly sucrose (under about a billion different names), but sucrose is 50/50 fructose and glucose, which part of the problem for sure (as it's what makes processed food taste so amazing)

The main thing added in American food is high fructose corn syrup, essentially provides the same effect - but for far cheaper, essentially a way of using their vast stocks of corn starch to be used as sweeteners, mostly only for cost reasons. I believe the reason we don't use HFCS is because of the import duty on it, compared to sucrose.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
23,738
Location
Lincs
We're not American sucrose is whsts added to our food.

Actually, we both use the same, HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup - we call it Glucose-Fructose Syrup made from beets rather than corn), which like Sucrose is a compound of both Glucose and Fructose (50%:50%), but with about a 10% higher level of Fructose and 16% less Glucose (55%:42%), which is why it's sweeter than Sucrose - as Fructose is the sweetest variant

Many people have misconceptions about regulations concerning high fructose corn syrup in the European Union, or EU. Contrary to common opinion, high fructose corn syrup isn't banned in Europe. Referred to as isoglucose or glucose-fructose syrup in this region, use of high fructose corn syrup is restricted because it's under a production quota.

The production quota for high fructose corn syrup is intended to ensure fair agricultural/economic development across all territories in the EU and is not related to the health concerns many public health authorities have regarding the proliferation of high fructose corn syrup in the food supply. The EU quota was first established in 2005, then amended in 2007, and further amended in 2011. The 2011 alteration was to allow for the production of more high fructose corn syrup, as current demand in the EU outpaces supply.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
28 Jan 2003
Posts
39,857
Location
England
So what’s the deal with this sugar tax then?

Is it a one and done thing, pat on the back and let’s see what we can tax next? Or is there say a 5/10 whatever year target for this to actually have an impact on reducing obesity levels and if it’s not reached what then? Will they admit they were wrong and it doesn’t work
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
So what’s the deal with this sugar tax then?

Is it a one and done thing, pat on the back and let’s see what we can tax next? Or is there say a 5/10 whatever year target for this to actually have an impact on reducing obesity levels and if it’s not reached what then? Will they admit they were wrong and it doesn’t work

The government actually admit they were wrong about something, when has that ever happened?

Drug prohibition, 100 years later on with millions dead, medical experts begging for legalisation and untold economic disaster and the government still hasn't admitted they were wrong logically or morally...
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
So what’s the deal with this sugar tax then?

Is it a one and done thing, pat on the back and let’s see what we can tax next? Or is there say a 5/10 whatever year target for this to actually have an impact on reducing obesity levels and if it’s not reached what then? Will they admit they were wrong and it doesn’t work

well the results so far have been amazing, far better than any tax incentive in the past as far as im aware.

companies cut and rejigged products rather than consumers chaning habits
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,056
I would say it has met it's objectives, it was never about collecting money. It was about forcing companies to reduce the needless sugar content in their products. I would say its been a resounding success.

It's the same with minimum alcohol pricing, its got rid of all the cheap high strength products that and none of the good stuff has been particularly effected.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
I would say it has met it's objectives, it was never about collecting money. It was about forcing companies to reduce the needless sugar content in their products. I would say its been a resounding success.

It's the same with minimum alcohol pricing, its got rid of all the cheap high strength products that only alcoholics drink. None of the good stuff has been particularly effected.


sherry is still a good bet for getting ****** on the cheap.

and bizarrely port
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
I would say it has met it's objectives, it was never about collecting money. It was about forcing companies to reduce the needless sugar content in their products. I would say its been a resounding success.

It's the same with minimum alcohol pricing, its got rid of all the cheap high strength products that and none of the good stuff has been particularly effected.

Way to move the goalposts after the fact.

If you don't want to collect money you don't impose a tax, you impose a maximum proscribed sugar content instead.

So far the sugar content of coca cola has not changed.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,056
Way to move the goalposts after the fact.

If you don't want to collect money you don't impose a tax, you impose a maximum proscribed sugar content instead.

So far the sugar content of coca cola has not changed.

So you pay the tax on coca cola if that's what you want.... but it was never about raising revenue for the treasury. It was estimated to bring in £520 million in its first year and then reduce to £500m and £455m in years 2 and 3. £500 million is pocket change these days. Given the shifts in the industry I doubt it will bring anything close to that and I expect there will also be compliance issues with imports.

People hate paying tax so if you want to discourage people from buying a certain product without just banning it then you tax it, its pretty much regulation 101. Almost every product but Coca Cola has changed its recipe so it falls outside the scope of the levy. I think you can objectively say it has met what it set out to do. Smoking is another good example of this, taxing the hell out of tobacco products has done more for reducing smoking than any other measure.

Directly off Gov.uk
Policy objective
A levy on soft drinks will contribute to the government’s plans to reduce childhood obesity by removing added sugar from soft drinks. The levy encourages producers of added sugar soft drinks to:

  • reformulate their products to reduce the sugar content
  • reduce portion sizes for added sugar drinks and importers to import reformulated drinks with low added sugar to encourage consumers of soft drinks to move to healthier choices
If they do this, producers and importers of added sugar soft drinks can pay less or even escape the charge altogether.

BTW I never said I was for or against the tax. But when you look at the aims of the levy its pretty clear its already met if not exceeded its objectives which is to reduce the levels of sugar in soft drinks.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
Way to move the goalposts after the fact.

If you don't want to collect money you don't impose a tax, you impose a maximum proscribed sugar content instead.

So far the sugar content of coca cola has not changed.

Well no the goal was never to collect money it was to use a tax to change society.


Minimum proscribed sugar content would be an epic mind feild and far more complicated.

For one simple point added sugar or natural sugar?

And then if you say added sugar how do you define added sugar not natural sugar if I change the reciptax wad the simplest solution
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
So you pay the tax on coca cola if that's what you want.... but it was never about raising revenue for the treasury. It was estimated to bring in £520 million in its first year and then reduce to £500m and £455m in years 2 and 3. £500 million is pocket change these days. Given the shifts in the industry I doubt it will bring anything close to that and I expect there will also be compliance issues with imports.

People hate paying tax so if you want to discourage people from buying a certain product without just banning it then you tax it, its pretty much regulation 101. Almost every product but Coca Cola has changed its recipe so it falls outside the scope of the levy. I think you can objectively say it has met what it set out to do. Smoking is another good example of this, taxing the hell out of tobacco products has done more for reducing smoking than any other measure.

Directly off Gov.uk


BTW I never said I was for or against the tax. But when you look at the aims of the levy its pretty clear its already met if not exceeded its objectives which is to reduce the levels of sugar in soft drinks.


Exactly its one if those rare situations what govenrment policy has worked better than expected.
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Jan 2003
Posts
39,857
Location
England
So you pay the tax on coca cola if that's what you want.... but it was never about raising revenue for the treasury. It was estimated to bring in £520 million in its first year and then reduce to £500m and £455m in years 2 and 3. £500 million is pocket change these days. Given the shifts in the industry I doubt it will bring anything close to that and I expect there will also be compliance issues with imports.

People hate paying tax so if you want to discourage people from buying a certain product without just banning it then you tax it, its pretty much regulation 101. Almost every product but Coca Cola has changed its recipe so it falls outside the scope of the levy. I think you can objectively say it has met what it set out to do. Smoking is another good example of this, taxing the hell out of tobacco products has done more for reducing smoking than any other measure.

Directly off Gov.uk


BTW I never said I was for or against the tax. But when you look at the aims of the levy its pretty clear its already met if not exceeded its objectives which is to reduce the levels of sugar in soft drinks.

It states the plan is to reduce child hood obesity, bit early to claim its working.
 
Back
Top Bottom