Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sugar tax in the UK
Replies
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Fitness_and_FODMAP wrote: »The trouble is, they'll just replace sugar with artificial crap, which is equally, if not more damaging ... We'll see won't we
How are artificial sweeteners more damaging? If the end game is to reduce obesity, switching to artificial sweeteners, Diet Coke instead of regular for example - is often a very productive solution.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
In case you didn't see my earlier post upthread:
"One country that has already seen a positive impact on public health from a junk food excise tax is Hungary. Manufacturers of junk foods in that country pay a “value added tax” of 27% on top of the 25% tax that’s imposed on most foods. Hungary’s law levies the junk food tax based largely on sugar and salt content.
Four years after Hungary’s tax was introduced, more than 59% of consumers had lowered their consumption of the offending junk food products, according to a study conducted by the country’s National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition and the World Health Organization (WHO). Overweight or obese adults were twice as likely to change their eating habits than were people of normal weight, the researchers found. When consumers were polled, they reported that they were opting for less expensive products—but that the taxes also made them more mindful of the health risks of junk food."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arleneweintraub/2018/01/10/should-we-tax-junk-foods-to-curb-obesity/#3085d5097df6
But nowhere in that article does it say what happened to the obesity rates in Hungary. Kinda an important piece of information to be left unsaid.
I just glanced through the related report, http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/332882/assessment-impact-PH-tax-report.pdf?ua=1
Again, they note a reduction in the consumption of the products but NOWHERE do they comment on a reduction in the actual obesity. Seem much happier with the revenue generated, and less concerned with the underlying problem.
The law went into effect in 2011, probably too early to show change in obesity rates specifically identified with the implementation of the law.
The analysis does show a reduction in high calorie, nutrient poor items, especially among the obese. Doubt if anyone could call that a bad thing.1 -
girlinahat wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »girlinahat wrote: »the other side of the coin, however, is that Type 1 diabetics, who frequently use high sugar drinks such as Lucozade when they are having a low blood sugar moment, now will find they need to consume DOUBLE the amount of reduced sugar liquid to get the same level of carbs. Not difficult you might think, but try getting 200ml of lucozade into a belligerent/in denial teenager rather than 100ml.....
And how much of the sugary drink consumption is directly related to the needs of T1 diabetics who need high sugar drinks for medical reasons?
so one minority group without a choice in terms of medical need (who ordinarily would favour artificial sweeteners) are to be penalised (both financially and in terms of availability) for the actions of another group who have a choice, but choose not to exercise that choice?
It's a tax, not a ban. If this tax puts someone buying sugary items for medical reasons over the cliff financially, they already had significant problems.1 -
In reality, how often would someone with diabetes need to drink a sugary drink? Are we talking every day? Genuine question, I'm not doubting that it's an issue1
-
Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Fitness_and_FODMAP wrote: »The trouble is, they'll just replace sugar with artificial crap, which is equally, if not more damaging ... We'll see won't we
How are artificial sweeteners more damaging? If the end game is to reduce obesity, switching to artificial sweeteners, Diet Coke instead of regular for example - is often a very productive solution.
What about greasy fish and chips? McDonalds burgers and fries? They going to ban those as well? Do those contribute to obesity? Where does this all end once you start banning things? And who makes the decisions as to what to ban and not ban?
In case you didn't see my earlier post upthread:
"One country that has already seen a positive impact on public health from a junk food excise tax is Hungary. Manufacturers of junk foods in that country pay a “value added tax” of 27% on top of the 25% tax that’s imposed on most foods. Hungary’s law levies the junk food tax based largely on sugar and salt content.
Four years after Hungary’s tax was introduced, more than 59% of consumers had lowered their consumption of the offending junk food products, according to a study conducted by the country’s National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition and the World Health Organization (WHO). Overweight or obese adults were twice as likely to change their eating habits than were people of normal weight, the researchers found. When consumers were polled, they reported that they were opting for less expensive products—but that the taxes also made them more mindful of the health risks of junk food."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arleneweintraub/2018/01/10/should-we-tax-junk-foods-to-curb-obesity/#3085d5097df6
Uh-huh. It's good that there is a positive effect. But that wasn't what my statement was about. To clarify, if the government starts adding a Special tax to whatever they believe we the people don't need, where does it stop? And do you really trust the government to always have YOUR best interest in mind?
Actually.... In the case of our current government (in the UK), no, I don't, but that's another discussion altogether
3 -
just do what we did last time something like this happened; throw it in a harbor7
-
stompybird1911 wrote: »just do what we did last time something like this happened; throw it in a harbor
1 -
I love this idea, but only if the extra tax is used to subsidize making healthier foods like fresh produce cheaper.4
-
girlinahat wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »girlinahat wrote: »the other side of the coin, however, is that Type 1 diabetics, who frequently use high sugar drinks such as Lucozade when they are having a low blood sugar moment, now will find they need to consume DOUBLE the amount of reduced sugar liquid to get the same level of carbs. Not difficult you might think, but try getting 200ml of lucozade into a belligerent/in denial teenager rather than 100ml.....
And how much of the sugary drink consumption is directly related to the needs of T1 diabetics who need high sugar drinks for medical reasons?
so one minority group without a choice in terms of medical need (who ordinarily would favour artificial sweeteners) are to be penalised (both financially and in terms of availability) for the actions of another group who have a choice, but choose not to exercise that choice?
Fruit juice is not being subjected to the tax. T1 diabetics can easily buy juice instead.4 -
As a child in the UK I never drank sugary drinks and still don't as an adult. I still became obese. It had nothing to do with sugary drinks.
We pay tax on cigarettes and alcohol, people still buy them.
It won't change a thing.
Actually high taxation has significantly reduced the level of smokers in the UK.3 -
girlinahat wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »girlinahat wrote: »the other side of the coin, however, is that Type 1 diabetics, who frequently use high sugar drinks such as Lucozade when they are having a low blood sugar moment, now will find they need to consume DOUBLE the amount of reduced sugar liquid to get the same level of carbs. Not difficult you might think, but try getting 200ml of lucozade into a belligerent/in denial teenager rather than 100ml.....
And how much of the sugary drink consumption is directly related to the needs of T1 diabetics who need high sugar drinks for medical reasons?
so one minority group without a choice in terms of medical need (who ordinarily would favour artificial sweeteners) are to be penalised (both financially and in terms of availability) for the actions of another group who have a choice, but choose not to exercise that choice?
No they can but something else like dull sugar coke, use glucose tablets or add sugar to their drink.2 -
I bet the UK school vending machines are dull as dishwater.2
-
Do they have a convenience store within walking distance from the playground? The proprietor around here gets a hunted expression when school is let out.0
-
I bet the UK school vending machines are dull as dishwater.
Schools in the US don't stock junk food in vending machines.
https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2013/07/01/junk-food-axed-from-school-vending-machines
It's a good thing1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I bet the UK school vending machines are dull as dishwater.
Schools in the US don't stock junk food in vending machines.
https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2013/07/01/junk-food-axed-from-school-vending-machines
It's a good thing
BS - you should see the machines in my daughter's high school - I quit sending sweet snacks in her lunch because she was doubling up by eating the one I sent and buying more out of the machine. They also have soft drinks and Starbucks cold coffee mixtures as well.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I bet the UK school vending machines are dull as dishwater.
Schools in the US don't stock junk food in vending machines.
https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2013/07/01/junk-food-axed-from-school-vending-machines
It's a good thing
BS - you should see the machines in my daughter's high school - I quit sending sweet snacks in her lunch because she was doubling up by eating the one I sent and buying more out of the machine. They also have soft drinks and Starbucks cold coffee mixtures as well.
Hope you are working with other concerned parents to get rid of that *kitten*.1 -
I’m old. My favourite vending machine offerings were chocolate milk and cheesies (Hawkins). That was in the seventies.
THEY SAY if you want to eat healthy cook like your grandmother. I’m a grandmother. But I suspect that THEY mean prairie grandmas from the fifties. I have a vintage recipe book. You know how they prepared the roast? Slathered it with thick slices of bacon, well marbelled roast, lard side up. Vegetables au gratin glossy with melted butter. Mashed potatoes with gravy. Whole milk. Finish up with apple pie. Then go out and lug hay bales until the sun goes down.4 -
I’m old. My favourite vending machine offerings were chocolate milk and cheesies (Hawkins). That was in the seventies.
THEY SAY if you want to eat healthy cook like your grandmother. I’m a grandmother. But I suspect that THEY mean prairie grandmas from the fifties. I have a vintage recipe book. You know how they prepared the roast? Slathered it with thick slices of bacon, well marbelled roast, lard side up. Vegetables au gratin glossy with melted butter. Mashed potatoes with gravy. Whole milk. Finish up with apple pie. Then go out and lug hay bales until the sun goes down.
I wish I could cook like my grandmother! Her chicken was fried in pure hog lard and so good. In fact, she used lard in most things. Lots of pork, cakes, and fried cornbread and fried pies.
And sure enough all that hog lard caught up to her. She passed away just 2 weeks shy of her 100th birthday! Her sister was 102!5 -
When the budget got short and I wondered how to most efficiently feed us, the importance of lard comes clear. Fatten up those piglets on kitchen scraps and you will be eating high off the hog come fall.3
-
As a child in the UK I never drank sugary drinks and still don't as an adult. I still became obese. It had nothing to do with sugary drinks.
We pay tax on cigarettes and alcohol, people still buy them.
It won't change a thing.
Actually high taxation has significantly reduced the level of smokers in the UK.
Actually an integrated set of measures, of which punitive tax is one, have contributed. I'd like to see the profiling and association with various initiatives to see which ones have affected in what ways.
Specifically the availability of vaping appears to have made a big difference, but I'm conscious that the tobacco industry is more supportive of taxation than anything else. That in itself should indicate that punitive measures may not make a big difference in isolation.0 -
This thread was about sugar tax in UK.
Also was nearly 3 years old until Gustava revived it with links to business promotions.
Have flagged same.
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »This thread was about sugar tax in UK.
Also was nearly 3 years old until Gustava revived it with links to business promotions.
Have flagged same.
I am glad to have zapped it. I read almost a page before realizing it's a zombie thread, so it felt good to zap the spam that bumped it to the top.
Now I'm wondering how many more people in the UK have trimmed down due to the soda tax... hmmm.0 -
I am thrilled with this news. The government has finally begun to make the right decisions for its people. Everyone has long known that sugar has a terrible effect on our bodies. Perhaps this Sugar tax will help eliminate many companies that make sugary drinks. Of course, such monopolies as Coke will remain because they have a huge budget and don't care about the laws being passed against their business.
Well, this news is 3 years old. Any of those companies go out of business? 😀2 -
neugebauer52 wrote: »A brilliant way to make extra money for the coffers, but will government use it for those disadvantaged / aged / sick / education / healthcare? And if you are hooked on sugar, you will find the money for your daily dose - like any other drug or alcohol.
It doesn't matter. The tax is designed to make sugar more expensive, which will reduce sugar consumption. They could set the money on fire and it will still achieve that goal.0 -
I don't know why it's impossible to have a level headed conversation on this topic. ☹️2
-
NorthCascades wrote: »I don't know why it's impossible to have a level headed conversation on this topic. ☹️
I have my own pet hypothesis that it is hard to have a detachment because food is viewed as a moral issue on some level. Much of our moral disgust seems to be much the same pathways used for gustatory disgust, just rewired under evolution to handle social dilemmas. I think this makes disagreements around food, even the aesthetic parts, hard to separate from disagreements about moral issues.
For this particular issue, there's definitely a false equivalence between a food tax and a tobacco tax that raises its own moral concerns. It is easy to say taxes disincentivize something like smoking and be okay with using that tool because for health, it looks rather clear that zero smoking is ideal, so discouragement is always a good. It's a bit foggier about food - while we can agree there is such a thing as too much food, and too much sugar, we also have the area where we know too little food is even worse - starvation kills much faster than over consumption - indeed I don't think we even have a true antonym for starvation that includes the idea of it leading to death. So there's going to be more push-back on something restricting food affordability, particularly when there are still people who go malnourished from poverty.2 -
I dont think the malourishment/poverty argument applies here - all foods are not going to be more expensive just high sugar foods like soft drinks
Here in Australia (apologies if I already said this 3 years ago, too lazy to scroll back)- we effectively have a high sugar foods tax - because GST (equivalent of UK VAT) does not apply to essential foods and services.
Things like soft drinks are not included in the essential foods criteria hence do have GST applied to them.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I don't know why it's impossible to have a level headed conversation on this topic. ☹️
I have my own pet hypothesis that it is hard to have a detachment because food is viewed as a moral issue on some level. Much of our moral disgust seems to be much the same pathways used for gustatory disgust, just rewired under evolution to handle social dilemmas. I think this makes disagreements around food, even the aesthetic parts, hard to separate from disagreements about moral issues.
I saw a TED Talk years ago about the 7 dimensions of morality. It was social science, the guy was talking about practices and feelings that are almost universal across humans.
One was a reverence for cleanliness and purity. You can see a lot of manifestations of this in the world, the guy suggested that we evolved this attitude template because there are invisibly small things in the world that can make us sick or worse, and you get a lot of them through ways that are often considered unclean.
If this is all true about humans, it doesn't seem like a stretch to go from you can see germs but they can get you, to some foods are dangerous.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions