Survey finds majority support tax on sugary drinks

bluewolf wrote: »

How many people did they poll, 10?

Load of rubbish

Probably. I Love these nonsense headlines Survey shows..... ect, ect. What was the scientific construct behind the survey? Is it independently verifiable? Now survey 10,000 people nationwide and I'll take notice. But survey the first 100 passersby on Grattan street and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it tbh. Maybe the State might be better served by recommending more PE/Gym classes in school and ensuring schools have adequate facilities to do so. Wouldn't it be better to ingrain health and fitness into education from an early age. Rather than impose some ridiculously lazy 'solution' via a sugar tax.

Myrddin wrote: »

Aren't we so lucky to have such caring & visionary politicians expressing concern for our health like this? Lucky for us, our politicians are all in such great shape that they see the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, & it's for that reason, that we're staring down the barrel of yet another new tax. It's is of course, nothing to do with generating more money to squander on overpaid/under-worked bureaucrats, & instead, all the new tax revenue generated for this will go straight back into the health system so that everyone benefits.

Of course, the Dail bar will follow suit & ban all sugary drinks 'on sale' there, and won't continue to allow our trim & healthy politicians to swill on sugary drinks/beers to their hearts content before 'doing a bit' & making national decisions. No, this is all a step in the right direction. I for one, welcome our new health conscious overlords.

Of course the intesesting thing about this thread is the rabble rabble Government are bad mkay rabble rabble nannystate crap; it's wide of the mark - the survey was carried out on behalf of the IHF, a national charity, with the intention of including the call for the tax increase in their pre-budget submissions.

Dept. of Finance probably get's thousands of various submissions each year on all sorts of issues (some with merit, others off the wall).

But yes lets treat the news article as Government proclamations and policy.

rabble rabble fuc**ng nanny state bas**rds

Zamboni wrote: »

I would be willing to bet that even doubling the PE time in schools would have a near zero effect on obesity levels.

Is it better to tax a bottle of Coke, or is it better to have a child working out at 65-75% MHR the very next day after consuming said Coke? I think most would agree the latter is the better approach. The solution to obesity is not through the lazy man tax route. But rather through education and accessibility. And by accessibility, I mean access to the relevant facilities & infrastructure that support and foster health & fitness. Many areas of this country are bereft of such facilities and infrastructure. Now wouldn't it be interesting to survey such areas to ascertain the levels of childhood obesity. Do higher levels of obesity exist in areas where such infrastructure is lacking? But the Government doesn't want to take a long term root and branch approach. Much better to bring in the oul tax, shure that'll sort it all out and it will be grand like.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Is it better to tax a bottle of Coke, or is it better to have a child working out at 65-75% MHR the very next day after consuming said Coke? I think most would agree the latter is the better approach. The solution to obesity is not through the lazy man tax route. But rather through education and accessibility. And by accessibility, I mean access to the relevant facilities & infrastructure that support and foster health & fitness. Many areas of this country are bereft of such facilities and infrastructure. Now wouldn't it be interesting to survey such areas to ascertain the levels of childhood obesity. Do higher levels of obesity exist in areas where such infrastructure is lacking? But the Government doesn't want to take a long term root and branch approach. Much better to bring in the oul tax, shure that'll sort it all out and it will be grand like.

And most would be wrong. The answer to obesity is not access to exercise.
Restricting access to vast quantities of calories with little nutritional value is the key.
People are too hung up on the taxation prospect of this - The fact is that soft drinks are pure sh1te. The diet versions are even worse.
You'd probably halve diabetes, obesity and ADHD by banning the stuff

Myrddin wrote: »

Yeah I'm sure the sentiment reads like that, but no matter what side your on...unless the revenue a tax like this will generate goes back into the health system, and actually does some good, I personally am against it. If that puts me in the 'rabble rabble gubbermint' category in your eyes, then so be it. The fact of the matter is, this tax won't do anything other than make it more expensive for people to continue doing the things they already do.

You missed the point. The Government haven't proposed this.

In fact, the Government, last year essentially put this idea way down on it's agenda eventhough I suspect Minister Reilly would like to bring it forward.

My biggest issue with the idea is that it doesn't go far enough. There should be a tax on all consumables with added sugar with a view to attempting to make the price of the products more accurately reflect their cost. This isn't about telling people what to do so much as paying for the future costs.

Do those who think that personal responsibility is the answer to obesity really think that the incredible increase in obesity over the past forty years has been due to a sudden reduction in the levels of personal responsibility exhibited by western societies? It's a bit more complicated than that.

Sure, a bit more exercise would help but not very much. It takes about 25 miles of running to burn a pound of weight and if you've run for any distance in your life you'll know that your appetite doesn't usually remain unchanged after a run.

I expect that the survey is a bit of a push poll (there's no way for example that 87% of the population understand just how bad fizzy drinks are for us - witness this thread)but that doesn't mean that the idea is bad.

Eat less and move more is a nice handy slogan that sounds good but the most important thing that we need to do is to change what we eat and if we can't do that at least make a more appropriate contribution to government coffers.

Zamboni wrote: »

And most would be wrong. The answer to obesity is not access to exercise.

Dear me, do you seriously think exercise and an active lifestyle play no role in controlling obesity? Exercise is a core component to any solution and claiming it is not is nonsensical. Now read back and you will also note that I specifically mentioned education and accessibility as being key in fighting obesity.

Zamboni wrote: »

Restricting access to vast quantities of calories with little nutritional value is the key.

No it is not key, it might help, but it certainly is not key. You can restrict access all you want. It still won’t stop an inactive kid becoming unfit and possibly overweight if they’re sitting on their arse all day getting no exercise. Kids today lead a virtually sedentary lifestyle. So regardless of whether you are consuming a diet of high or low nutritional value, once you are consuming above your daily calorific threshold and not active, you will gain weight. So you need to understand that regardless of the nutritional value of the food you consume, if you consume too much of it and don’t get off the couch, you are on the road to obesity.

Zamboni wrote: »

People are too hung up on the taxation prospect of this - The fact is that soft drinks are pure sh1te. The diet versions are even worse.

Soft drinks are crap, but they alone are not the cause of childhood obesity. The causes like the solution, are multifaceted.

Zamboni wrote: »

You'd probably halve diabetes, obesity and ADHD by banning the stuff

You’re getting into my professional realm. But I’ll be brief and won’t bore you. The causes of NIDDM – Non Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus(Type 2) is multifactorial. Bad diet, obesity and yes you’ll be disappointed to hear – a lack of exercise/sedentary lifestyle can play a significant role in its development. You fight it effectively through a multifaceted approach and not some stupid exercise in tokenism that puts a tax on a sugary drink.