Leave our sugary foods/drinks alone!

SEPT 23 1989 · 10-05-2018 08:12PM

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

Fcuk them enjoy it

_Brian · 10-05-2018 08:29PM

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. · 10-05-2018 09:19PM

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 · 10-05-2018 09:25PM

The government only wants to protect* you

*control

patnor1011 · 16-06-2018 03:14AM

_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.

16-06-2018 03:28AM

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 · 16-06-2018 01:15PM

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 · 16-06-2018 01:35PM

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 · 16-06-2018 01:39PM

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 · 16-06-2018 03:41PM

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 · 16-06-2018 03:51PM

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 · 16-06-2018 04:26PM

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 · 16-06-2018 04:28PM

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 · 16-06-2018 04:53PM

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 · 16-06-2018 05:35PM

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 · 16-06-2018 05:52PM

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 · 16-06-2018 05:55PM

Watch the documentary Fed Up

P_1 · 16-06-2018 05:58PM

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.

17-06-2018 05:25AM

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 · 17-06-2018 05:30AM

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.

Graces7 · 17-06-2018 09:07AM

Fond memories of pink candy floss at fairs in my long ago childhood,, ie over 70

there was almost no obesity and almost no chemicals in food.

I tend to eat the same pattern now.

Phoebas · 17-06-2018 09:28AM

patnor1011 wrote: »

Oh but they are deadly. Most if not all of them but mainly aspartame - one of the most widely used. No hysteria involved.

It's very easy to go on to the internet and find people who agree with your own bias.

I tend to mistrust hyperbolic claims that something is 'outright deadly' and look to trusted organisations like the NHS who have reviewed the evidence.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/aspartame-facts/
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/aspartame

TerrorFirmer · 17-06-2018 10:33AM

patnor1011 wrote: »

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.

You are literally cherry picking isolated studies to support your opinion even though they fly in the face of the position of major health bodies and general acceptance among health professionals that it is not dangerous.

There are, despite what you claimed, lots of studies on Aspartame - none found any really credible links to disease or cancer.

You can say you're not into tinfoil hats, but when you're effectively claiming that major health organizations across the globe are all wrong....

I could link to studies conducted by by professionals that claim the US Government pulled off 9/11, backed up with facts and anecdotes and various findings and compelling information.

The thing is, when 98 professionals are saying one thing, and 2 outliers another, people who want to believe their conspiracy latch onto the views of the latter.

You can believe what you like, but statements like Aspartame is 'toxic', 'dangerous' and 'deadly' is simply hysteria whether you want to believe it or not.

RandomName2 · 17-06-2018 12:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

A gram of zinc will kill you. Let us put additional tax on anything containing zinc.

Wait, zinc in moderation is actually positively good for you? But how will that get increased revenue?

Graces7 · 17-06-2018 07:26PM

Surely replacing sugar with a nutritionally empty chemical is defeating the real object? To train out a "sweet tooth"?

OldMrBrennan83 · 17-06-2018 07:29PM

This post has been deleted.

AllForIt · 17-06-2018 10:33PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Fond memories of pink candy floss at fairs in my long ago childhood,, ie over 70

there was almost no obesity and almost no chemicals in food.

I tend to eat the same pattern now.

What is candy floss, I mean what is it made from? I would have though it's 100% nutritionally void. I'd reckon a 99 would be much better for you.

Graces7 wrote: »

Surely replacing sugar with a nutritionally empty chemical is defeating the real object? To train out a "sweet tooth"?

Your absolutely right. Psychologically yes fixating on sweet stuff isn't the best policy if attempting to get of the addiction. However that does not mean it won't work (using artificial sweetener) because the reason sugar is so attractive is not because simply 'the yummy taste' but the physical reaction one's brain feels when the sugar enters the system. The same thing does not happen when you eat artificial sweetener which is why it never 'feels' as good as real sugar. If one doesn't get the brain hit then one can see the addiction was never really about the taste at all.

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We should be self responsible but if you were the minister in charge of the health budget and you had a report on you desk that went into the reasons why ppl need to avail of health services (such as because of obesity caused by sugar) and asked to explain why there isn't enough money and why ppl are sitting on trolleys - what would you think then - just hope ppl will be self responsible when they clearly wont out of some precious self serving idea that onc can do what they like.

If we are to say ppl can eat drink what we like then absolutely fine - but then the minster of health would have no choice but to raise taxes hugely to pay for the health service as a result - and it wouldn't be his/her fault that happened - it would be populaces fault.

OldMrBrennan83 · 17-06-2018 10:35PM

This post has been deleted.

Hande hoche! · 17-06-2018 11:12PM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's an element of copying the Brits too.

OldMrBrennan83 · 17-06-2018 11:20PM

This post has been deleted.

Leave our sugary foods/drinks alone!

Comments