Leave our sugary foods/drinks alone!

rob316

I'm healthy, not overweight why can't I have a sugary drink or sweet as its supposed to be when I feel like.

The obsession with taking sugar which is a natural substance and reducing it with artificial sweeteners is wrong. Most chocolate you buy now doesn't taste right, they took the sugar out of lucozade even.

Give me my full sugar junk!

arybvtcw0eolkf

'Sup sweetheart

inter arma

That story has left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

Riesen_Meal

A 6 pack of coke went from 3 euro up to 4.20 in my local shop, I'm not fat either, why should I have to pay for fatties?

rob316

I just had a lucozade earlier and it was rotten. I heard they changed it but didn't know it now had 66% less sugar. I mean people bought it was for the sugar kick!

gozunda

rob316 wrote: »

I'm healthy, not overweight why can't I have a sugary drink or sweet as its supposed to be when I feel like.

The obsession with taking sugar which is a natural substance and reducing it with artificial sweeteners is wrong. Most chocolate you buy now doesn't taste right, they took the sugar out of lucozade even.

Give me my full sugar junk!

I don't really drink lemonade etc however I picked up a bottle off the shelf recently and I noticed that soft drinks manufacturers have replaced sugar with a concoction of artificial sweeteners and chemically created sugars. Lovely....

I wouldn't use them as weed killer tbh. A bit like the original margarine craze years ago which then turned out was quite unhealthy with some margarines being pulled off the market due to health concerns. The same thing I reckon will happen with all these highly processed plant based 'milk' alternatives which are often loaded with additives and god knows what else - but that are being promoted big time as a 'healthy alternative' Though to what? Whitewash?

The future slogan will be "I cant believe it's not real!" Because more than likley it will be some artifically derived lab based franken-food or liquid...

Your Face

Just don't go into shops and ask the staff to give you some sugar.

gozunda

Fieldog wrote: »

A 6 pack of coke went from 3 euro up to 4.20 in my local shop, I'm not fat either, why should I have to pay for fatties?

I wouldn't connect those carrying extra weight with sugared drinks though.

I've always noticed that it's the low or zero sugar products which are most widely consumed. Gives pause for thought that tbh.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

It doesn't matter if you're overweight or not. It's terrible for you and should be regulated as such.

super_furry

It's your fault for being poor. Just get a better job and improve yourself.

rob316

gozunda wrote: »

I don't realky drink lemonade etc however I picked up a bottle off the shelf recently and I noticed that soft drinks manufacturers have replaced sugar with a concoction of artificial sweeteners and chemically created sugars. Lovely....

I wouldn't use them as weed killer tbh. A bit like the original margarine craze years ago which then turned out was quite unhealthy with some margarines being pulled off the market due to health concerns. The same thing I reckon will happen with all these highly processed plant based 'milks' which are often loaded with additives and god knows what else - but that are being promoted big time as a 'healthy alternative' Though to what? Whitewash?

It's like the diet drinks, they use Aspartame instead of sugar, the stuff is literally poison. Wife used to drink diet coke by the gallon, she stopped one day and says she never felt healthier. Eating habits, digestive problems all changed. Has a regular coke couple times a week now, much better.

I don't eat butter much but I never eat those butter spreads either, always off the block for me.

Comsuming something the way its meant to be is the way to go.

rob316

super_furry wrote: »

It's your fault for being poor. Just get a better job and improve yourself.

I've no problem paying 50c extra for a full sugar version.

silverharp

Wait til Ryanair start weighing passengers and charging by the kilo

whiskeyman

Soon sugar sandwiches will be the food of the elite during matchdays, replacing the common prawn sang...

valoren

It would be brilliant if governments banned advertising of sugary drinks.
If they did then you should buy the shares of the big drink companies.
They won't have to spend the money on advertising and people will still buy the drinks anyway.

Phillip Morris, the tobacco company, was one of the best investments you could have made in the 20th century.
They made a product that costs in the cents to produce but was sold in the dollars and with litigation towards the end of the century, such companies could no longer legally advertise.

Still the same business was intact and the companies showered investors with cash dividends that were guaranteed with such an addictive product. So much so that if you invested $1,000 in PM stock in the 50's it would be worth $10 million today assuming dividends reinvested.

So I say go after the companies and get them to free up some of that cash for investors. Mwuhahahaha!

Graces7

whiskeyman wrote: »

Soon sugar sandwiches will be the food of the elite during matchdays, replacing the common prawn sang...

We warbabies were raised on sugar sandwiches IF would get the sugar.. rationed for many years..

Boom_Bap

Look at the amount of fat kids there are. Just look at them bouncing along stuffing their faces with sweets and downing bottles of fizzy pop by the gallon. It's shocking.

I hope the next thing that happens is that Deli counters stop serving kids in uniforms breakfast rolls and jambons in the mornings.

_Brian

rob316 wrote: »

It's like the diet drinks, they use Aspartame instead of sugar, the stuff is literally poison. Wife used to drink diet coke by the gallon, she stopped one day and says she never felt healthier. Eating habits, digestive problems all changed. Has a regular coke couple times a week now, much better.

I don't eat butter much but I never eat those butter spreads either, always off the block for me.

Comsuming something the way its meant to be is the way to go.

Seriously.. "she used to drink diet coke by the gallon"
Not much wonder when she gave it up she felt better,



But with all the myriad of rubish in it you pick out the sweetner as the problem... Seriously, as if she could drink regular coke by the galon and be ok..


When people improve their diet they feel better..

Wanderer2010

Sugar is loaded into most processed foods and bread and alcohol etc and yet only sugary drinks are being taxed, doesn't make much sense and its in effect saying that only extra sugar in drinks causes obesity and not the extra sugar in all the other foods/drinks.

Graces7

They have gone too far now.. I just got a new packet of Rennies with the groceries. Put one in my mouth and wondered what it was... The packet says SUGAR FREE and they taste sickly sweet ..

chrissb8

silverharp wrote: »

Wait til Ryanair start weighing passengers and charging by the kilo

Hopefully, might make the big uns realise that it's not normal to be that large.

AllForIt

Obesity in children is largely due to sugar, rather than fat, lack of exercise or anything else. Once a child gets a taste for sweet stuff, non-sweat stuff like veg becomes completely bland and tasteless to them. That's a double whammy because not only are they getting all those unnecessary calories but even worse in my opinion, they are not getting the nutrition from vegetables they need for normal functioning growth. Some children never even get a chance to develop a taste for vegetables. This nutritional neglect also affects their mood and mental health and I have heard anecdotal evidence about an increase in 'cranky' young children at school where a lack of ability to concentrate for sustained period is evident.

Obesity is a hugely serious problem and the problem must be tackled. Frankly I think education is the answer rather than tax, but the problem is some parents are thick or just feckless and raising taxes will at least put it out there that we accept as a society that sugar is bad for you when consumed in above minimal amounts in the same way we all accept that smoking if very bad for you, so hopefully the message will be received by every person/parent in the land. I would also hugely increase taxes for those huge soft drinks companies like coca-cola. It's obscene how much profits they make for just producing a sugary drink.

Graces7

AllForIt wrote: »

Obesity in children is largely due to sugar, rather than fat, lack of exercise or anything else. Once a child gets a taste for sweet stuff, non-sweat stuff like veg becomes completely bland and tasteless to them. That's a double whammy because not only are they getting all those unnecessary calories but even worse in my opinion, they are not getting the nutrition from vegetables they need for normal functioning growth. Some children never even get a chance to develop a taste for vegetables. This nutritional neglect also affects their mood and mental health and I have heard anecdotal evidence about an increase in 'cranky' young children at school where a lack of ability to concentrate for sustained period is evident.

The colloquial term is "all sugared up". They get high, literally.

LirW

AllForIt wrote: »

Obesity in children is largely due to sugar, rather than fat, lack of exercise or anything else. Once a child gets a taste for sweet stuff, non-sweat stuff like veg becomes completely bland and tasteless to them. That's a double whammy because not only are they getting all those unnecessary calories but even worse in my opinion, they are not getting the nutrition from vegetables they need for normal functioning growth. Some children never even get a chance to develop a taste for vegetables. This nutritional neglect also affects their mood and mental health and I have heard anecdotal evidence about an increase in 'cranky' young children at school where a lack of ability to concentrate for sustained period is evident.

Or no matter how hard you try to make it attractive to them, they're just little pr1cks and simply don't eat it like pretty much anything else you serve them. When you pack them veg and fruit in funny shapes and decorated and they basically go for a 5k walk every day.
Whenever I see people claiming their kids eat stuff like seaweed crisps I'd love to know how because the older one here wouldn't even touch anything that's green.

Yes, a badly introduced diet is very bad for children's health but they certainly don't make it easy, some of them at least.

Graces7

LirW wrote: »

Or no matter how hard you try to make it attractive to them, they're just little pr1cks and simply don't eat it like pretty much anything else you serve them. When you pack them veg and fruit in funny shapes and decorated and they basically go for a 5k walk every day.
Whenever I see people claiming their kids eat stuff like seaweed crisps I'd love to know how because the older one here wouldn't even touch anything that's green.

Yes, a badly introduced diet is very bad for children's health but they certainly don't make it easy, some of them at least.

Lovely when you see a small child in a supermarket trolley chewing an apple or a bread roll.

That is when to start them.

LirW

Graces7 wrote: »

Lovely when you see a small child in a supermarket trolley chewing an apple or a bread roll.

That is when to start them.

They go from good and eating apple to refusing anything but chicken nuggets in a heartbeat. I have a little picky sh1t here, the other one is grand and eats pretty much anything. Headwreck it is.

Graces7

LirW wrote: »

They go from good and eating apple to refusing anything but chicken nuggets in a heartbeat. I have a little picky sh1t here, the other one is grand and eats pretty much anything. Headwreck it is.

Hate to ask but who first gives them chicken nuggets! lol! Dreadful things!

Ubbquittious

What bates me dead is how they are able to use phosphoric acid as a food ingredient. An industrial chemical with no nutritional value at all. Seriously nasty stuff

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't matter if you're overweight or not. It's terrible for you and should be regulated as such.

His body, his choice

I just hope they leave club orange and coke alone, so that when I do want an occasional soft drink that tastes like they used to, it is posible to get one. They have even ruined san pellegrino now. A premium soft drink being sweetened partially with non-sugar sweeteners is a complete joke. A complete mess of a recipe now. Utterly unsatisfying. Just like the rest of them. If somebody got a 2 litre bottle of 7 up, filled it to about one litre with the old recipe and the rest with water and a bit of artificial sweetener, that is what the new recipe is. They should at least come out and admit it doesn't taste as good as before, say it to our faces.

SEPT 23 1989

The magnolia brigade just want to drag you into their horrible stale version of life

Fcuk them enjoy it

_Brian

Sugary fizzy drinks are among the most calorie dense nutritionally empty thing a kid can consume, they really are pointless and some kids are let have them ad lib, increasing the price will hopefully lessen their availability.

“Adults” here whinging about their treats are near as bad, either pay the extra or don’t and change your treat. It’s adukts resting this rubbish as treats that engrain into kids that it’s a treat to have, maybe if more adults show a better example the kids follow.

People are picking out individual ingredients to whinge about and probably drink regularly when alcohol is as much a poison as anything else they are pointing out.

Education is the key but a whole lower socioeconomic group won’t be told how to feed master Tom or princess Brittany and so continue to shove all Sorts of rubbish into them, making these trash foods more expensive will hopefully lessen their availability.

With approaching 25% of kids overweight or obease we should be applauding every single individual action that’s taken to somewhat help. My OH works with some of these kids and when a mother is coming in reporting giving skips to a 12 week old kid, what chance has that kid to develop a taste for anything but trash and it’s already essentially guaranteed to be obease just like both it’s prents are.

Parents need to step up their game and live the lives they want their kids to live. If you eat trash and drink your head off every weekend then that’s the example your setting for your kids, they lead a more sedintary life then we ever did and your condemning them to a life of overweight and obeasity with all the negative mental and physical health problems that go with it.

ceadaoin.

Graces7 wrote: »

Lovely when you see a small child in a supermarket trolley chewing an apple or a bread roll.

That is when to start them.

Yeah my daughter ate everything I gave her as a toddler. Unfortunately they grow up and get to know their own minds. Now the list of things she "doesnt like anymore" grows bigger by the week.

She's fit and healthy, gets plenty of exercise and only drinks water with the very occasional watered down juice so I'm not worried about force feeding her. That will only create more issues down the line.

I agree with others, education is the key to fighting the obesity epidemic, not taxation.

biko

The government only wants to protect* you





*control

patnor1011

_Brian wrote: »

Sugary fizzy drinks are among the most calorie dense nutritionally empty thing a kid can consume, they really are pointless and some kids are let have them ad lib, increasing the price will hopefully lessen their availability.

“Adults” here whinging about their treats are near as bad, either pay the extra or don’t and change your treat. It’s adukts resting this rubbish as treats that engrain into kids that it’s a treat to have, maybe if more adults show a better example the kids follow.

People are picking out individual ingredients to whinge about and probably drink regularly when alcohol is as much a poison as anything else they are pointing out.

Education is the key but a whole lower socioeconomic group won’t be told how to feed master Tom or princess Brittany and so continue to shove all Sorts of rubbish into them, making these trash foods more expensive will hopefully lessen their availability.

With approaching 25% of kids overweight or obease we should be applauding every single individual action that’s taken to somewhat help. My OH works with some of these kids and when a mother is coming in reporting giving skips to a 12 week old kid, what chance has that kid to develop a taste for anything but trash and it’s already essentially guaranteed to be obease just like both it’s prents are.

Parents need to step up their game and live the lives they want their kids to live. If you eat trash and drink your head off every weekend then that’s the example your setting for your kids, they lead a more sedintary life then we ever did and your condemning them to a life of overweight and obeasity with all the negative mental and physical health problems that go with it.

I am not sure who do you want to applaud for this one as while some sugar is removed from soda drinks, they are actually more sweet than before. That is due to artificial sweeteners being hundred times more sweet than poor old sugar. There was a study made by some university in the US recently which pointed to the fact that artificial sweeteners are actually much worse than sugar. That is why obese people are gaining weight while drinking "diet" soda.

There should be pressure on manufacturers to cut sugar say in half and do not simply substitute it with artificial sweeteners. All that sugar tax rhetoric about how we need to fight against obesity is ridiculous when we are being stuffed with something which is way more dangerous than sugar.

The only drinks without artificial sweeteners I was able to find are Sanpellegrino Grapefruit variety and Club orange. I mix them with sparkling water 50/50 and they still taste great.

My blood sugars were in the diabetes range for around six months last year so I had to cut everything out.. Sugar, white bread, potatoes, everything.

You would not eat your sugary snacks if you went through the sheer inconvenience of that. Sugar tastes utterly disgusting to me now.


"I'm healthy." has nothing to do with raising your chances of becoming diabetic. Irish people don't even get health checks regularly so how would you know.

Shenshen

I've no problem at all with them taxing sugar. I'd love it if the money raised through sugar tax went directly to the health system, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

I'm happy to pay a bit more, but I do get resentful if I don't get the choice. I detest the taste of artificial sweeteners, so if I do want something sweet, be it snack or drink, I do want that to be sweet because of sugar content. Fruit sugar or refined.
I'm not particularly happy about the fact that I now can't drink Sprite or 7Up any more cause it's laced with sweeteners, and I am concerned that others may go the same way.

TerrorFirmer

patnor1011 wrote: »

I am not sure who do you want to applaud for this one as while some sugar is removed from soda drinks, they are actually more sweet than before. That is due to artificial sweeteners being hundred times more sweet than poor old sugar. There was a study made by some university in the US recently which pointed to the fact that artificial sweeteners are actually much worse than sugar. That is why obese people are gaining weight while drinking "diet" soda.

There should be pressure on manufacturers to cut sugar say in half and do not simply substitute it with artificial sweeteners. All that sugar tax rhetoric about how we need to fight against obesity is ridiculous when we are being stuffed with something which is way more dangerous than sugar.

The only drinks without artificial sweeteners I was able to find are Sanpellegrino Grapefruit variety and Club orange. I mix them with sparkling water 50/50 and they still taste great.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. How are artificial sweeteners much worse or actually dangerous?

Fat people gain weight while drinking diet drinks because it stimulates their cravings to eat more crap....not from the drinks themselves.

For most normal people, or children, the only difference is there's no empty, nutrition less calories in artificially sweetened drinks.

For example, say you went out one night and had ten rum and diet cokes, versus ten rum and cokes. That's literally a different of about 1,200 calories.

If you drank one can of coke a day, that'd be about 1, 400 additional calories a week. There are kids who would do this.

Irish Guitarist

Diet drinks are more unhealthy than normal drinks but it's easier to convince the public a sugar tax is for health reasons than an aspartame tax. In reality it's just an excuse to get more tax money.

patnor1011

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I don't get what you're trying to say here. How are artificial sweeteners much worse or actually dangerous?

Fat people gain weight while drinking diet drinks because it stimulates their cravings to eat more crap....not from the drinks themselves.

For most normal people, or children, the only difference is there's no empty, nutrition less calories in artificially sweetened drinks.

For example, say you went out one night and had ten rum and diet cokes, versus ten rum and cokes. That's literally a different of about 1,200 calories.

If you drank one can of coke a day, that'd be about 1, 400 additional calories a week. There are kids who would do this.

Forget counting calories. Zero calories claim is just marketing ploy aimed at people like you and actually far from reality.
I am not going to link all places which talk about how artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar as there is simply way too many of them so put simple "artificial sweeteners study 2018" in google. It will make your head spin and it comes from places like ScienceDaily, Forbes, usanews and not some nutcase conspiracy websites.
Artificial sweeteners in concentration as is available right now are not just worse than sugar, they are outright deadly.
The only people benefiting from sugar tax are manufacturers which now do have a perfect excuse to simply substitute sugar with artificial sweeteners in unbelievable quantities and to put it everywhere. The main reason here is profit as they are much cheaper than sugar.
I never liked soda as it was too sweet to my liking and I had to "cut" it with water to be able to drink some. What concerns me is the fact that we are being forced to accept huge quantities of something which was originally designed to be used sparsely and occasionally by people who could not touch sugar.
There are no studies done about prolonged intake of artificial sweeteners in excessive quantities. And we have no idea what this will do with children.

How does one collect sugar tax on an item where there is no sugar yet it is now sweeter than before?

dog tired

I find sweeteners absolutely vile. San Pellegrino, a premium soft drink that's quite expensive even has sweeteners now. Consumers don't have a choice anymore.

TerrorFirmer

patnor1011 wrote: »

Forget counting calories. Zero calories claim is just marketing ploy aimed at people like you and actually far from reality.
I am not going to link all places which talk about how artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar as there is simply way too many of them so put simple "artificial sweeteners study 2018" in google. It will make your head spin and it comes from places like ScienceDaily, Forbes, usanews and not some nutcase conspiracy websites.
Artificial sweeteners in concentration as is available right now are not just worse than sugar, they are outright deadly.
The only people benefiting from sugar tax are manufacturers which now do have a perfect excuse to simply substitute sugar with artificial sweeteners in unbelievable quantities and to put it everywhere. The main reason here is profit as they are much cheaper than sugar.
I never liked soda as it was too sweet to my liking and I had to "cut" it with water to be able to drink some. What concerns me is the fact that we are being forced to accept huge quantities of something which was originally designed to be used sparsely and occasionally by people who could not touch sugar.
There are no studies done about prolonged intake of artificial sweeteners in excessive quantities. And we have no idea what this will do with children.

How does one collect sugar tax on an item where there is no sugar yet it is now sweeter than before?

That exact google brings to me to multiple articles based on findings presented recently at an expo which simply find that sweeteners can have negative impacts similar to normal sugar products when consumed in large quantities.

It does not say they are worse, it does not say they are dangerous, it does not say they are 'outright deadly'.

It seems to suggest that in higher concentrations it can have negative impacts on the body, in similar ways than normal soft drinks do via different mechanisms which are not yet fully understood or studied.

No-one would dispute that's a strong possibility but it doesn't support what you're claiming these articles in fact do say.

In fact a quote:

"It is not as simple as 'stop using artificial sweeteners' being the key to solving overall health outcomes related to diabetes and obesity," added Dr Hoffman.

"If you chronically consume these foreign substances (as with sugar) the risk of negative health outcomes increases. As with other dietary components, I like to tell people moderation is the key if one finds it hard to completely cut something out of their diet."

There also have been quite a lot of studies into Aspartame and none have really found any credible links to major disease to date.

So I would like to hear your evidence as to why it is 'outright deadly' or is it based on hysteria rather than fact?

cagefactor

Lucozade is absolutely disgusting now. The calorie free one is ok for a drink but the original is rotten. Sales must have plumetted because id the formula change

AnnoyedWithRTE

Deleted User wrote: »

My blood sugars were in the diabetes range for around six months last year so I had to cut everything out.. Sugar, white bread, potatoes, everything.

You would not eat your sugary snacks if you went through the sheer inconvenience of that. Sugar tastes utterly disgusting to me now.


"I'm healthy." has nothing to do with raising your chances of becoming diabetic. Irish people don't even get health checks regularly so how would you know.

The recent film What the Health raised the question as to whether sugar or other carbohydrates cause diabetes.

The notion is understandable. Blood sugar levels are high in diabetes, so a common idea has held that eating sugar somehow triggers the disease process. However, the major diabetes organizations take a different view. The American Diabetes Association1 and Diabetes UK2 have labelled this notion a “myth,” as has the Joslin Diabetes Center,3 which wrote, “Diabetes is not caused by eating too much sugar.” These and other organizations have worked to educate people about the causes of diabetes and the role that foods play in the disease process.

silverharp

AnnoyedWithRTE wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

My blood sugars were in the diabetes range for around six months last year so I had to cut everything out.. Sugar, white bread, potatoes, everything.

You would not eat your sugary snacks if you went through the sheer inconvenience of that. Sugar tastes utterly disgusting to me now.


"I'm healthy." has nothing to do with raising your chances of becoming diabetic. Irish people don't even get health checks regularly so how would you know.

The recent film What the Health raised the question as to whether sugar or other carbohydrates cause diabetes.

The notion is understandable. Blood sugar levels are high in diabetes, so a common idea has held that eating sugar somehow triggers the disease process. However, the major diabetes organizations take a different view. The American Diabetes Association1 and Diabetes UK2 have labelled this notion a “myth,” as has the Joslin Diabetes Center,3 which wrote, “Diabetes is not caused by eating too much sugar.” These and other organizations have worked to educate people about the causes of diabetes and the role that foods play in the disease process.

I'd bet they are compromised organisations , a lot of money in treating chronic diseases also food industry incentivised to say nothing to see here. Despicable , the smoking industry scandal of this century

Ronaldinho

silverharp wrote: »

I'd bet they are compromised organisations , a lot of money in treating chronic diseases also food industry incentivised to say nothing to see here. Despicable , the smoking industry scandal of this century

This!

The following article is a little off topic but is a good illustration of how some food/pharma companies are basically cnuts: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/05/insys-subsys-whistleblower-lawsuits/

eurokev

Watch the documentary Fed Up

P_1

Deleted User wrote: »

My blood sugars were in the diabetes range for around six months last year so I had to cut everything out.. Sugar, white bread, potatoes, everything.

You would not eat your sugary snacks if you went through the sheer inconvenience of that. Sugar tastes utterly disgusting to me now.


"I'm healthy." has nothing to do with raising your chances of becoming diabetic. Irish people don't even get health checks regularly so how would you know.

Diabetic here. You don't get diabetes from eating sugar. This really boils my fcuking piss. Type 1 is genetic when your pancreas simply stops producing insulin. Type 2 is when your arteries are too clogged for the insulin to pass through.

Please stop with this uneducated horseshíet

Another thing as a result of this is that we have now lost Lucozade as an effective treatment for hypoglycemia. Though that should be on the companies who, in a massive misstep decided to reduce sugar from the recopies rather than simply leaving them be and giving us the bloody choice to pay the tax if we wanted.

P_1

P_1 wrote: »

Diabetic here. You don't get diabetes from eating sugar. This really boils my fcuking piss. Type 1 is genetic when your pancreas simply stops producing insulin. Type 2 is when your arteries are too clogged for the insulin to pass through.

Please stop with this uneducated horsesh

Another thing as a result of this is that we have now lost Lucozade as an effective treatment for hypoglycemia. Though that should be on the companies who, in a massive misstep decided to reduce sugar from the recopies rather than simply leaving them be and giving us the bloody choice to pay the tax if we wanted.

Aye, I'm a proper arsehole advising people to not eat sugar.

patnor1011

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

That exact google brings to me to multiple articles based on findings presented recently at an expo which simply find that sweeteners can have negative impacts similar to normal sugar products when consumed in large quantities.

It does not say they are worse, it does not say they are dangerous, it does not say they are 'outright deadly'.

It seems to suggest that in higher concentrations it can have negative impacts on the body, in similar ways than normal soft drinks do via different mechanisms which are not yet fully understood or studied.

No-one would dispute that's a strong possibility but it doesn't support what you're claiming these articles in fact do say.

In fact a quote:



There also have been quite a lot of studies into Aspartame and none have really found any credible links to major disease to date.

So I would like to hear your evidence as to why it is 'outright deadly' or is it based on hysteria rather than fact?

Oh but they are deadly. Most if not all of them but mainly aspartame - one of the most widely used. No hysteria involved.
Aspartame consists of the amino acids phenylalanine (50%), aspartic acid (40%), and a methyl ester (10%) that promptly becomes free methanol after entering the stomach. If you think that 0 calorie is acceptable while doping children with methanol in quantities like never before is not deadly, then I really do not know what else to say. Aspartame is "the" money maker for food producers that is why they put it in everything they can. It is not about just cost of it itself, imagine what they save on logistics when bag of it can replace 200 bags of sugar. "Sugar tax" is smoke and mirrors talk to pose as "something is being done" or "look how we want to help". I asked this before - How does one collect sugar tax when there is no sugar added anymore?

People need to spend bit more time on this subject than just going through a few googled links on the first page when searching. Then you will find some eye openers like this one:
H. J. Roberts, M.D., in Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic
It is a little bit expensive reading but worth every cent.

I am not crazy nutcase with a tinfoil hat. I do have quite a lot of health problems which made me research and question nearly everything I want to put in my mouth as if I don't, I suffer.
I am simply questioning the sanity of replacing sugar en masse with a chemical which was designed as a compromise for diabetics to be used occasionally. I am all for massive reduction of sugar in our diet not just from soda but I do not understand the logic between switching it for something way more dangerous and claiming that we do this just to help people. What really pisses me off are claims about helping to tackle childhood obesity.
You and anyone else are free to go with the flow and be a part of this experiment but my children are checking labels on everything. They do not like the taste anyway.