Sugar Tax : Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:39 pm  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21228122 Is it a good idea? Would it work? Is it "nanny state gone mad"? I must confess to suppressed despair recently, seeing many hugely obese people twenty years my junior struggling to waddle around the hospital. I told myself that I didn't know the background to their cases and shouldn't judge without that knowledge but I still couldn't shake off the thought of how many there were.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21228122 Is it a good idea? Would it work? Is it "nanny state gone mad"? I must confess to suppressed despair recently, seeing many hugely obese people twenty years my junior struggling to waddle around the hospital. I told myself that I didn't know the background to their cases and shouldn't judge without that knowledge but I still couldn't shake off the thought of how many there were.

Re: Sugar Tax : Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:58 pm  

On the one hand, I'm not enamoured of the state attempting to micro-manage every aspect of daily life.

On the other, the rise of the fatty can't be denied and I'm inclined to believe the apocalyptic predictions of the strain it will put on the NHS if it continues unchecked. Given that, perhaps it's time for those people who seem unable to help themselves to be taken in hand?

I was struck by the hatchet job that Jane Moore did on Weight Watchers on TV last night - the basis of her objection to the company appeared to be that people lose weight whilst on the diet, then put it back on when they stop; I'm not comfortable with the abrogation of personal responsibility that view represents and we do seem to be drifting towards a situation where being fat is attributable to pretty much anything other than laziness, lack of self-respect or greed, which I'm sure is the case in many instances.

It's a quandary.

Re: Sugar Tax : Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:57 pm  

Why is placing a tax on sugar any more 'micro management' than taxing income.

Discouraging people from eating sugar and rotting their teeth is probably better than discouraging them from work.

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:44 am  

bren2k wrote: On the one hand, I'm not enamoured of the state attempting to micro-manage every aspect of daily life. On the other, the rise of the fatty can't be denied and I'm inclined to believe the apocalyptic predictions of the strain it will put on the NHS if it continues unchecked. Given that, perhaps it's time for those people who seem unable to help themselves to be taken in hand? I was struck by the hatchet job that Jane Moore did on Weight Watchers on TV last night - the basis of her objection to the company appeared to be that people lose weight whilst on the diet, then put it back on when they stop; I'm not comfortable with the abrogation of personal responsibility that view represents and we do seem to be drifting towards a situation where being fat is attributable to pretty much anything other than laziness, lack of self-respect or greed, which I'm sure is the case in many instances. It's a quandary. I did a short piece last night on marketing and, in effect, why people can try to eat well, but still get hoodwinked by massive companies' marketing. Low-fat yogurts is another one: people see'low fat' and think those are healthy, but many such things are crammed full of sugar. The recent discussion by the Fabians/Labour over placing a cap on the amount of sugar that could be included in breakfast cereals: I mean, I know that the majority of cereals, no matter how much they are portrayed as healthy, contain sugar (and salt). But it was still a shock to discover that some cereals – particularly those marketed specifically at children – contain more than 30% sugar. Loathe though I am to invoke any idea of 'morality', there is not a single, solitary shred of moral justification for that. And for all that we talk about personal responsibility, why not corporate responsibility too? If responsibility is good, then it should be good per se, large companies shouldn't be exempted from it. And it is worth repeating that the sort of companies we're talking about employ people with Phds etc to do their marketing; to work out how to sell to people without Phds. Someone with serious qualifications in psychology planning the layout of a supermarket in order to maximise the spend of anyone who walks through the doors. What about the responsibility there?

bren2k wrote: On the one hand, I'm not enamoured of the state attempting to micro-manage every aspect of daily life. On the other, the rise of the fatty can't be denied and I'm inclined to believe the apocalyptic predictions of the strain it will put on the NHS if it continues unchecked. Given that, perhaps it's time for those people who seem unable to help themselves to be taken in hand? I was struck by the hatchet job that Jane Moore did on Weight Watchers on TV last night - the basis of her objection to the company appeared to be that people lose weight whilst on the diet, then put it back on when they stop; I'm not comfortable with the abrogation of personal responsibility that view represents and we do seem to be drifting towards a situation where being fat is attributable to pretty much anything other than laziness, lack of self-respect or greed, which I'm sure is the case in many instances. It's a quandary. I did a short piece last night on marketing and, in effect, why people can try to eat well, but still get hoodwinked by massive companies' marketing. Low-fat yogurts is another one: people see'low fat' and think those are healthy, but many such things are crammed full of sugar. The recent discussion by the Fabians/Labour over placing a cap on the amount of sugar that could be included in breakfast cereals: I mean, I know that the majority of cereals, no matter how much they are portrayed as healthy, contain sugar (and salt). But it was still a shock to discover that some cereals – particularly those marketed specifically at children – contain more than 30% sugar. Loathe though I am to invoke any idea of 'morality', there is not a single, solitary shred of moral justification for that. And for all that we talk about personal responsibility, why not corporate responsibility too? If responsibility is good, then it should be good per se, large companies shouldn't be exempted from it. And it is worth repeating that the sort of companies we're talking about employ people with Phds etc to do their marketing; to work out how to sell to people without Phds. Someone with serious qualifications in psychology planning the layout of a supermarket in order to maximise the spend of anyone who walks through the doors. What about the responsibility there?

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:48 am  

Mintball wrote:

...Loathe though I am to invoke any idea of 'morality', there is not a single, solitary shred of moral justification for that. ...

Ooh no, it's immoral not to provide "choice" and it's the consumer's fault if they choose to buy those products.

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:09 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Ooh no, it's immoral not to provide "choice" and it's the consumer's fault if they choose to buy those products.

As I discovered last night, analysing the ingredients and marketing of a new product, you can dedicatedly read the list of ingredients – and still not immediately realise the complete picture.

In that case, it was a 'breakfast biscuit' that is very much marketed as healthy – everything shrieks that, from the packaging to the ingredients. Oh yes, one type of wheat, followed by five more grains – all listed individually – so that by the time you get to 'sugar', you think it's far lower down the ingredients list than actually third spot. And then, in sixth, there's dextrose as well. And that's without mentioning three different raising agents.

I'm sure it's all quite deliberate.

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:18 am  

It's like breaking a code.

"No artificial sweeteners" usually means it's full of sugar.
"No added sugar" usually means it's artificially sweetened.

Talk about "accentuate the positive" ... it's all smoke and mirrors.

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:22 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

It's like breaking a code.

"No artificial sweeteners" usually means it's full of sugar.
"No added sugar" usually means it's artificially sweetened.

Talk about "accentuate the positive" ... it's all smoke and mirrors.

Absolutely.

As I mentioned, 'low fat' often also means, 'full of sugar to compensate for the loss of flavour caused by the loss of fat, but we all know that natural fats are the worst thing on planet Earth'.

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:29 am  

Mintball wrote:

Absolutely.

As I mentioned, 'low fat' often also means, 'full of sugar to compensate for the loss of flavour caused by the loss of fat, but we all know that natural fats are the worst thing on planet Earth'.

Yesterday, I saw a Warburton's Wholemeal loaf (I am deliberately avoiding calling it bread) labelled "Low Fat".

What wholemeal bread would be other than Low Fat?

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:20 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Yesterday, I saw a Warburton's Wholemeal loaf (I am deliberately avoiding calling it bread) labelled "Low Fat".

What wholemeal bread would be other than Low Fat?

It's that deskilling, isn't it? People look at 'low fat' and have been trained to think that that's the apotheosis of healthy eating. That they don't realise that most proper, traditional UK breads would hardly ever have much (if any) fat in them It's indicative of what Raymond Blanc says about how we (and the US) have become divorced from our culinary heritage.