nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

_Kaiser_

If the argument for this latest nanny-stateism really IS "think of the children!" :rolleyes: then just introduce age limits or something. I'm in my 40s. If I want to buy a 2L bottle of Coke I should be able to
Coke however have been doubly sneaky.. the price has gone up, but the size of the bottles is down again from 1.75L to 1.5L

Agree with Pat above.. this is just another cash grab by FG under the guise of saving us from ourselves. Anyone who believes it'll make any difference to the "problem" or the healthcare system is somewhat naive.

patnor1011

AllForIt wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Your logic is fine but according to latest research artificial sweeteners do not tackle obesity they actually increase it. Hence whole sugar tax reasoning goes out of a window. It is just PR stunt to ease implementing yet another tax and to explain price increase.
They are testing waters with soda which is an obvious target yet there are other foodstuffs which contain a lot of sugar. Just wait for them to be targeted next. Along with your purse.
Obesity can be tackled in two ways. One is reduced sugar other is physical activity.

patnor1011

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

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.

Nope. I mentioned just one while there are many more.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

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

There are always a lot of studies and results many times depend on who is doing them. There are studies for and against and even that you want to believe that none found any credible links to disease or cancer it is just what it is. Your belief.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

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....

Perhaps they are. It happened quite a few times in history.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

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.

That only proves what I said previously. Most of the studies are designed to have a specific conclusion - it depends on who pays for them.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

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.

Yeah. Anti-smoking campaigners were once laughed at too. It took a long time to tear tobacco industry and lobby down. Lol cigarettes were once ‘physician’ tested, approved... How that one turned out a few decades later?

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

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.

Water is also toxic, dangerous and deadly. No hysteria there...
Aspartame was registered and classed as biochemical warfare agent and many scientists considered it as poison. Were they wrong?
So, in other words, you are ok with the idea that sugar is not reduced but simply replaced by sweetener which turns to methanol upon consumption. You think it is safe because the government told you so.

Graces7

Candy floss is pure spun sugar. A rare treat for us in those days. These days it is white! Colouring not allowed .

Nutritionally empty?

Hande hoche!

eurokev wrote: »

Watch the documentary Fed Up

Did find it better than What the health.

ceadaoin.

Over in Ireland at the moment and can't believe the amount of artificial sweeteners in everything. Even things that aren't 'diet' versions. If I want a drink that isn't water I'll only buy coke as at least I know it won't taste hideous.

dog tired

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Over in Ireland at the moment and can't believe the amount of artificial sweeteners in everything. Even things that aren't 'diet' versions. If I want a drink that isn't water I'll only buy coke as at least I know it won't taste hideous.

You should check out the health food shops. They have nice sparkling drinks without sweeteners, the Whole Earth orange and lemon is lovely.

ednwireland

I don't know about big bottles but small bottles and cans have gone up by the same amount sugar or no sugar

El Weirdo

Graces7 wrote: »

Candy floss is pure spun sugar. A rare treat for us in those days. These days it is white! Colouring not allowed .

Nonsense. My kids had pink candy floss a couple of weeks ago.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

El Weirdo wrote: »

Nonsense. My kids had pink candy floss a couple of weeks ago.

Absolutely. Candy floss is a regular treat for the grandchildren, readily available but always pink.

Hande hoche!

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Over in Ireland at the moment and can't believe the amount of artificial sweeteners in everything. Even things that aren't 'diet' versions. If I want a drink that isn't water I'll only buy coke as at least I know it won't taste hideous.

I've noticed sugar free soft drink can multi-packs being more prominent since the sugar tax. One of the local centras has started stocking Coke zero whether before it was diet or the regular stuff.

P_1

Deleted User wrote: »

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

I'm sorry, did I call you one?

I was simply highlighting a stupid point that you made that I am sick of hearing being directed at me.

[Deleted User]

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Over in Ireland at the moment and can't believe the amount of artificial sweeteners in everything. Even things that aren't 'diet' versions. If I want a drink that isn't water I'll only buy coke as at least I know it won't taste hideous.

My mindset is that the only non-water drinks that still exist are coke, pepsi and club orange and I hope the other drinks are seeing their sales slowly drop and ideally the businesses go bust. San Pellegrino changing their so called premium soft drinks to a nasty unsatisfying concotion with less than half the sugar it used to have was the last straw. Imagine a premium brand of chocolate cut their sugar or cocoa mass content in half and expected you to consider them a premium product? Absolute cheek - surely they should have passed the tax onto the consumer instead who would probably have been content to pay it? And as for lucozade - it currently has almost as much sugar as coke etc. but it also has artificial sweeteners: could they not just have left those out?

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My mindset is that the only non-water drinks that still exist are coke, pepsi and club orange and I hope the other drinks are seeing their sales slowly drop and ideally the businesses go bust. San Pellegrino changing their so called premium soft drinks to a nasty unsatisfying concotion with less than half the sugar it used to have was the last straw. Imagine a premium brand of chocolate cut their sugar or cocoa mass content in half and expected you to consider them a premium product? Absolute cheek - surely they should have passed the tax onto the consumer instead who would probably have been content to pay it? And as for lucozade - it currently has almost as much sugar as coke etc. but it also has artificial sweeteners: could they not just have left those out?

It seems like a scam to me, these companies are reducing costs by replacing sugar with artificial sweeteners but the price of the product doesn't come down or even increases in some cases. It's ridiculous.

In the US they have la Croix, it's a lightly flavoured sparkling water with no sweeteners (or sugar). Is there similar here? I'd definitely buy it. All the flavoured waters seem to be artificial sweetened.

TallGlass

Lucozade is done for if they don't fix the mix. It tastes really bad.

Used to love a bottle of it now and again. Seemingly the government think I am a raging sugarholic.

I imagine sugar drinks are just the start, phase two will be chocolate products, gradually moving onto all food stuffs.

Then maybe further down the line they will move onto other nutrients and minerals like salt.

[Deleted User]

P_1 wrote: »

I'm sorry, did I call you one?

I was simply highlighting a stupid point that you made that I am sick of hearing being directed at me.

Never be a teacher. You can't explain anything without coming across as condescending and frankly, extremely unlikable.

If you think the general population knows the ins and outs of diabetes, fair enough. But most don't, and people don't expect to be called stupid for something that was said for decades. The fact is that if you have pre-diabetes, you shouldn't be having any extra simple carbs or sugar. And nobody realises they have pre-diabetes without a health check, and Irish people don't do that.

dog tired

How can they get a tax out of drinks that doesn't have sugar?

dog tired

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It seems like a scam to me, these companies are reducing costs by replacing sugar with artificial sweeteners but the price of the product doesn't come down or even increases in some cases. It's ridiculous.

In the US they have la Croix, it's a lightly flavoured sparkling water with no sweeteners (or sugar). Is there similar here? I'd definitely buy it. All the flavoured waters seem to be artificial sweetened.

Baby drinks doesn't have sweeteners.

RandomName2

I'm honestly concerned about fake sweeteners being in products I buy. It doesn't take a genius to discern that they're not likely to be good for you- things that taste metallic generally aren't.

If I buy a Diet drink, that's fine, it's my decision, but fake sweeteners being sneaked into non-diet drinks in order to avoid this tax isn't okay. :mad:

Shenshen

What I'm secretly hoping for is that some company will come out with a reduced sweetness range of drinks. Just fruit juice mixed with sparkling water, for example.
Lower in sugar, but no added sweeteners to spoil the taste.

erica74

Shenshen wrote: »

What I'm secretly hoping for is that some company will come out with a reduced sweetness range of drinks. Just fruit juice mixed with sparkling water, for example.
Lower in sugar, but no added sweeteners to spoil the taste.

You can get stuff like that in healthfood shops, a little bit more expensive than Coke and whatnot.

[Deleted User]

You don't even really need extra flavour.. I moved from Coke to cans of Schweppes Soda Water and I love it.

joe40

Shenshen wrote: »

What I'm secretly hoping for is that some company will come out with a reduced sweetness range of drinks. Just fruit juice mixed with sparkling water, for example.
Lower in sugar, but no added sweeteners to spoil the taste.

Fruit juice is still just a sugary drink with most nutrients and fibre removed.

patnor1011

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't even really need extra flavour.. I moved from Coke to cans of Schweppes Soda Water and I love it.

That is where I am heading too. With my health condition, I can't afford to drink or eat anything with artificial sweeteners not even by mistake. I just trawled through local Musgraves and found last 3 cases of San Pellegrino old recipe. They are going to be my last purchase of said brand.
When I ran out (which take quite long time as I mix them with sparkling water 1:3) then I will have club orange occasionally as oranges sometimes cause problems for me.
Sparkling water with some lemon or something.

Shenshen

erica74 wrote: »

You can get stuff like that in healthfood shops, a little bit more expensive than Coke and whatnot.

Most of the time, I'd have a fizzy drink when going on a longer car journey. So I'd buy what's available on the way, health food shops unfortunately usually aren't.

But yes, generally speaking, I'd love to have a big drinks company making these types of drink more generally available now.

Shenshen

joe40 wrote: »

Fruit juice is still just a sugary drink with most nutrients and fibre removed.

Exactly! That's what I'm looking for!

topper75

joe40 wrote: »

Fruit juice is still just a sugary drink with most nutrients and fibre removed.

Fructose is hardly likely to be damaging though as dextrose, sucrose etc. What nutrients are removed by the way?

joe40

Fructose is still a sugar. High fructose corn syrup is the ingredient used a lot in America which is getting very bad press.
I'm no expert on this but my understanding is that when you eat the fruit you are getting the sugars with the fibre. It is tied up in the cells of the fruit. This can affect the speed at which the sugar is absorbed into the blood which impacts insulin production.
With a fruit juice you are getting the sugar without the fibre which is then handled/absorbed by your body in a different way. Fruit skins eg apples would also have nutrients that are removed by the juicing process.
For me fruit juices should be treated like any other sugary drink, fine in moderation but not consumed in excess.

xckjoo

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 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.

Can I get a source on that because I never heard of clogged arteries as a cause for T2? Not saying you're wrong, just want to read-up.

TallGlass

joe40 wrote: »

Fructose is still a sugar. High fructose corn syrup is the ingredient used a lot in America which is getting very bad press.
I'm no expert on this but my understanding is that when you eat the fruit you are getting the sugars with the fibre. It is tied up in the cells of the fruit. This can affect the speed at which the sugar is absorbed into the blood which impacts insulin production.
With a fruit juice you are getting the sugar without the fibre which is then handled/absorbed by your body in a different way. Fruit skins eg apples would also have nutrients that are removed by the juicing process.
For me fruit juices should be treated like any other sugary drink, fine in moderation but not consumed in excess.

Frustose. Yes and no, is the answer but mainly your correct. Frustose is a simple sugar, it's mono like glucose and lactose. Its one sugar and easily digested by the body. As opposed to dis or poly. Poly been the preferred energy source as a carb, it takes longer to digest or a requires more steps by the body to release the energy, the body wants it in a simple mono state. Also that doesn't mean that poly sugars isn't problematic in weight management.

The insuline spike from the drink is caused by the concentration of the drink. You'd easily have 4/5 oranges in a drink maybe more, some drinks might add in other simple sugars also. The main thing is you wouldnt sit and eat that many so quickly. It raising the blood sugar quite quickly in that sense.

And yes your missing stuff like fibers of the fruit if you go for a smooth option. Plus the blending or extracting could cause a loss or damage to some of the benefits if you where to just have an orange.

A simplistic way of looking at dieting, don't take more kcals in than going out.

This is my problem with the this blanket tax, it's a serious form of miscommunication by the government, that sugars are bad. Which is ridiculous. It's also causing a rise in new chemical additions to drinks, which seemingly from reading no one really knows about, they could be more addictive than sugar and cause more problems down the line.

I just think it's a poorly thought out move.