Survey finds majority support tax on sugary drinks

Lapua Magnum · 24-06-2014 04:47PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

A big problem with giving nutritional advice in school is that a large amount of it is terrible. The food pyramid is awful, people shouldn't eat that much starchy, high carbohydrate food. Then you have powerful lobbies such as the dairy industry influencing the policy makers. Cheese based snacks are not healthy.

Yes because the Asians are fat & obese eating all that high carbohydrate rice all the time. Sugar is bad, and carbs make you fat. Slap a sugar tax on fruit, and make everyone drink diet-coke. Let's all go on the high fat/high protein bandwagon diet and rid ourselves of glycogen so we can stare at the wall all day.

listermint · 24-06-2014 04:48PM

fleet_admiral wrote: »

Start teaching children from a young age about healthy eating and cooking, even in primary school. I went out with a girl who worked in a creche a few years ago, she always said the children got chips and some other frozen crap everyday.
Even my own son's second birthday party last october and every party he has been to since has the usual Crap like chips nuggets and fizzy drinks

TBF, it is just a 'party'

Everything in life in moderation. If it was just plain crap all the time then whats the point ? equally if you just eat rubbish all the time.. visa versa.

Amirani · 24-06-2014 04:53PM

Lapua Magnum wrote: »

Yes because the Asians are fat & obese eating all that high carbohydrate rice all the time. Sugar is bad, and carbs make you fat. Slap a sugar tax on fruit, and make everyone drink diet-coke. Let's all go on the high fat/high protein bandwagon diet and rid ourselves of glycogen so we can stare at the wall all day.

Have you been to many places in Asia? They don't eat rice all the time, certainly not 5 separate portions per day from my experience travelling there.

Also, carbs don't make you fat; too many carbs make you fat. Same goes for sugar. My whole point was against the tax proposal and increased state-intervention, so I'm a bit confused by your response.

RandomName2 · 24-06-2014 04:55PM

Lapua Magnum wrote: »

Yes because the Asians are fat & obese eating all that high carbohydrate rice all the time. Sugar is bad, and carbs make you fat. Slap a sugar tax on fruit, and make everyone drink diet-coke. Let's all go on the high fat/high protein bandwagon diet and rid ourselves of glycogen so we can stare at the wall all day.

I think the conclusion we have come to is that the "majority" favour a tax on food in general.

See this report:

"It's not so much that people are eating the wrong things" says scientist Dr. Mc Fakey, "but that they're just eating too much in general. It's like a sieve, there's not point plugging up one hole if people just get fat on pizza, chips, crisps, or smoothies, etc. So it would just be much better, in general, if we just taxed the whole shebang and encourage people to eat less. It's crazy to just tax drinks with pre-added sugar, when coffee, with sugar added after the fact, make up 82.5% of the sugary drinks consumed in Ireland."

"Moreover" added McFakey "if people realise how much their pocket is going to be affected, they'll think twice before buying, and make better decisions. The knock on effect on drinking is also positive. People will drink less if mixers are so expensive."

Dr. McFakey then exploded as she wasn't real.

Cienciano · 24-06-2014 05:23PM

Coke was mentioned a lot, has anyone noticed the explosion in "energy" drinks? Not just red bull, but loads of brands, even shops own brand. You can buy 500ml cans of it! I've seen parents walk down the road while their 4 year old kid drank from a 500ml can of some shíte energy drink.
I really can't stand the nanny state, but jesus, some parents need a kick up the hole when it comes to feeding their kids.

jimeryan22 · 24-06-2014 05:50PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Add some tax to the sugar filled version and leave the tax the same on the sugar free version ie coke/coke zero

Aspartame though.. Or pretend sugar is no better despite the hype.. It's a toxin that shouldn't be in any foods/beverage...
And MORE addictive I believe

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/artificial-sweeteners-sugar-free-but-at-what-cost-201207165030

24-06-2014 06:01PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Aspartame though.. Or pretend sugar is no better despite the hype.. It's a toxin that shouldn't be in any foods/beverage...
And MORE addictive I believe

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/artificial-sweeteners-sugar-free-but-at-what-cost-201207165030

Not this crap again. In the levels consumed in drinks aspartame is harmless there are any amount of studies showing this and disproving all the crap saying that it's harmful.

ScumLord · 24-06-2014 06:09PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

The problem with this however is they already do teach kids about this stuff in schools. Any kid who is any way attentive is going to come out of school realising that a high sugar intake is bad for you, that's if they hadn't already figured it out - it's fairly obvious.

I'm sure you could ask any child and they'd be able to tell you sweets and coke aren't good for them, they just don't give a flying fig. You're not going to convince a kid it's a good idea not to have a chocolate bar when they won't see immediate results from it. The only way you could convince them not to have a chocolate bar now is to promise them 2 in five minutes, even then they'd want all three.

To be honest you won't start to give a damn until your in your 30s and your back starts to give you jip.

I can see the point in controlling the actions of people that have no self control and kids have next to no self control for the most part. But it's the parents job to enforce those controls on their kids. It's not the general populations responsibility and we shouldn't all be punished because some parents can't say no. All that will happen is these parents will end up spending more because they still give in when pushed.

jimeryan22 · 24-06-2014 06:12PM

Giana Tight Doe wrote: »

Not this crap again. In the levels consumed in drinks aspartame is harmless there are any amount of studies showing this and disproving all the crap saying that it's harmful.

You obviously didn't fully read the article so... It depends how much is drunk by a person as to the effects.. Actually..
Show me sources of what you've just stated please as there is far more "reputable" science saying quite the opposite.. But of course your free to believe what you like... I know this.. What do you always see in an extremely overweight persons hand most often..? Diet coke.. Not normal coke. Diet coke.... You better do some more JUST research before you go around calling people's statements crap..

jimeryan22 · 24-06-2014 06:14PM

Page after page of "proper scientific" study's into the field

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=study+of+aspartame+in+mice&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=jrGpU9noKcTY7Ab06YGwDQ&ved=0CBgQgQMwAA

Tardful Slakerly II · 24-06-2014 06:36PM

Giana Tight Doe wrote: »

In the levels consumed in drinks aspartame is harmless..

Is the dodgiest industry figure type of thing you can say. It's still a new and not entirely understood additive.

At the very least it's bad at what it does. The sweet taste triggers an insulin response without the sugar there to do so. Don't drink sweet/sugary crap and there's no issue. Soda manufacturers would rather you did though.

24-06-2014 07:50PM

Tardful Slakerly II wrote: »

Soda manufacturers would rather you did though.

My taste buds would too.

Tardful Slakerly II · 24-06-2014 08:13PM

Giana Tight Doe wrote: »

My taste buds would too.

The rest of you wouldn't, but your priorities are your own.

24-06-2014 08:20PM

Tardful Slakerly II wrote: »

The rest of you wouldn't, but your priorities are your own.

I'd rather live and enjoy the couple of soft drinks I have a week. I don't drink gallons of the stuff, nor do I shy away from a few cans a week or having a couple of soft drink mixers at the end of the night on a night out.

People must live very boring lives when you see comments like "I don't know how much a can of soft drink costs" and other such nonsense.

jimeryan22 · 24-06-2014 09:11PM

Giana Tight Doe wrote: »

I'd rather live and enjoy the couple of soft drinks I have a week. I don't drink gallons of the stuff, nor do I shy away from a few cans a week or having a couple of soft drink mixers at the end of the night on a night out.

People must live very boring lives when you see comments like "I don't know how much a can of soft drink costs" and other such nonsense.

Well I think you've missed the point.. Some people don't drink any of the types of drinks we're talking about...They didn't growing up so it has carried on into adult life... There's nothing strange or boring about that..
I personally don't and never really have when a child ever drunk soft drinks, fizzy pops, Just milk water and real juice of some sort.. And the sinful kind of course..!

DublinWriter · 24-06-2014 09:23PM

I mean, Jesus wept. Sugar is only one problem, saturated fat is another.

I watched a documentary a while back about a US school where the canteen serviced 'breakfast pizza'.

The answer is simple. Import the French/Italian/German/Belgian model of teaching kids about food and how to eat from an early age.

The Tax/Ban it solutions are lazy and don't address the root problems.

I lived and worked in Belgium for two years, a people known for beer, waffles and chocolates and never once did I encounter a fat Belgian.

jimeryan22 · 24-06-2014 09:30PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

I mean, Jesus wept. Sugar is only one problem, saturated fat is another.

I watched a documentary a while back about a US school where the canteen serviced 'breakfast pizza'.

The answer is simple. Import the French/Italian/German/Belgian model of teaching kids about food and how to eat from an early age.

The Tax/Ban it solutions are lazy and don't address the root problems.

I lived and worked in Belgium for two years, a people known for beer, waffles and chocolates and never once did I encounter a fat Belgian.

Great point.. But then with all the info on reducing cholesterol ie fat... There's not enough info saying DO NOT cut out the good fats... Omegas 3,6,9....

Tarzana · 25-06-2014 03:03PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

I mean, Jesus wept. Sugar is only one problem, saturated fat is another.

Saturated fat isn't a problem. It's been utterly demonised for years with only flimsy evidence.

DublinWriter wrote: »

I lived and worked in Belgium for two years, a people known for beer, waffles and chocolates and never once did I encounter a fat Belgian.

I don't believe this.

jimeryan22 · 25-06-2014 03:09PM

Tarzana wrote: »

Saturated fat isn't a problem. It's been utterly demonised for years with only flimsy evidence.

I don't believe this.

Well I think the American heart foundation diagrees...

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp#mainContent

Tarzana · 25-06-2014 03:13PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Well I think the American heart foundation diagrees...

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp#mainContent

Of course they do.

Hence the demonising I mentioned above. Read about the inaccuracies on which modern views on saturated fat were built. Actually, this board's own nutrition forum would have plenty of info on that.

Don't forget, most western governments still advocate the food pyramid, which is completely inaccurate and originated in the US with vested interests involved in its creation.

Also, this happened in the US a few years ago

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45306416/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-yes/#.U6rY-Pm-0yo

Don't blindly trust something simply because the government recommends it.

Amirani · 25-06-2014 03:52PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Well I think the American heart foundation diagrees...

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp#mainContent

Where is their evidence?

You could analyse the evidence yourself via results of scientific studies published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725

Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

jimeryan22 · 25-06-2014 04:17PM

Tarzana wrote: »

Of course they do. Hence the demonising I mentioned above. Read about the inaccuracies on which modern views on saturated fat were built. Actually, this board's own nutrition forum would have plenty of info on that.

Don't forget, most western governments still advocate the food pyramid, which is completely inaccurate and originated in the US with vested interests involved in its creation.

Also, this happened in the US a few years ago

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45306416/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-yes/#.U6rY-Pm-0yo

Don't blindly trust something simply because the government recommends it.

I totally hear you with regards to the food pyramid, and the vested interests involved... But your defo barking up the wrong tree if you take me for a person who blindly believes the government... I know like most things there's a back and forth argument for the fat thing.. And in no means conclusive.. Sure most don't even know ones brain is nearly all myelin which is fat of course..

Tarzana · 25-06-2014 04:27PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

I totally hear you with regards to the food pyramid, and the vested interests involved... But your defo barking up the wrong tree if you take me for a person who blindly believes the government... I know like most things there's a back and forth argument for the fat thing.. And in no means conclusive.. Sure most don't even know ones brain is nearly all myelin which is fat of course..

So, if it's not conclusive, why is saturated fat demonised like it's a sure thing?

jimeryan22 · 25-06-2014 04:32PM

Tarzana wrote: »

So, if it's not conclusive, why is saturated fat demonised like it's a sure thing?

Ask the person who brought it up..

Tarzana · 25-06-2014 04:38PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Ask the person who brought it up..

You brought up the American Heart Foundation's opinion on it.

jimeryan22 · 25-06-2014 05:03PM

Tarzana wrote: »

You brought up the American Heart Foundation's opinion on it.

Yeah..?? . As you said yourself THEIR opinion.. So put away your childish smiley face winks like you got one up on me..

Ray Palmer · 25-06-2014 05:03PM

I remember at one point they discovered there was an additional charge on all soft drinks in Ireland for the Boer War. The government dropped the charge and put another in place for the same amount.

I remember in in the papers in the 90s but I have never been able to find a reference to it since. If anybody can check it out I think it would be good.

It isn't a figment of my imagination as I know somebody else who remembers this too. Anybody able to search the paper archives might be able to find it.

If true effectively we already have an extra tax on sugary drinks

Hande hoche! · 25-06-2014 05:09PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I remember at one point they discovered there was an additional charge on all soft drinks in Ireland for the Boer War. The government dropped the charge and put another in place for the same amount.

I remember in in the papers in the 90s but I have never been able to find a reference to it since. If anybody can check it out I think it would be good.

It isn't a figment of my imagination as I know somebody else who remembers this too. Anybody able to search the paper archives might be able to find it.

If true effectively we already have an extra tax on sugary drinks

That's fascinating, will have to look into this.

Tarzana · 25-06-2014 05:51PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Yeah..?? . As you said yourself THEIR opinion.. So put away your childish smiley face winks like you got one up on me..

:pac:

Jonny Blaze · 25-06-2014 06:34PM

My question is, why don't they just regulate the industry if they care so much?

I mean germany have their famous purity laws for brewing alcohol.

If the health of the nation was of any real concern, the government should hold giant food conglomerates accountable for bringing unhealthy products to the market in the first place.

You look at how they are slowly starting to look down on e cigarettes etc because of this view, and there is very little evidence to suggest that these products are harmful at all, unlike fizzy drinks.

Survey finds majority support tax on sugary drinks

Comments