Fook The Sugar Tax

karlypants wrote:Everything in moderation...

Including this forum if it carries on.......

Get a grip mods

y2johnny wrote:

karlypants wrote:Everything in moderation...

Including this forum if it carries on.......

Get a grip mods

A bit of harmless banter this evening Johnny that's all.

Hmmmmm

I agree with Okocha. Not only is it a personal choice what people choose to put in their body (steady all) it also affects society, therefore everyone, in terms of health spending and social care. It can not be right that in some places 70% of primary school children are obese...that is a personal tragedy for the individuals, and their health and happiness, it is also a ticking timebomb for society as a whole.

Most of the sugar in our food is grown in Norfolk and neighbouring counties so the farmers around here are a bit twitchy about this tax business. Little Phoebe might not be able to get a helicopter for her 21st if profits fall.

However it's the food processing companies that hold the key. If they stop putting so much cheap sugar in their products it's sorted, but they daren't put less than their competitors for fear of losing market share.

They are also worried about public attitudes towards sugar substitutes such as sugar-based sweeteners such as sucralose (as opposed to the justifiably maligned aspartame) which can achieve the same result without the carbs. The cost difference would be marginal (unless they use the more expensive fructose- based sweeteners)

Sucralose is pretty much risk-free according to the NHS and has been proven to be non-carcenogenic, doesn't cause tooth decay, affect blood sugars etc and is already used in many products - although a few people are still calling for further research even though it is clearly a better option than sugar. It is 100's of times sweeter than sugar by volume and is made from natural sugar.

So if they tax "natural sugar" only when it is used as a food additive, but don't tax it if it's used to produce sucralose which is then added to food, the nation's health problems could be at least partially addressed without much imposition.

Completely agree with the opening post despite its author.

To think sticking an extra 10p on a can of coke is gonna make any difference is typical of this shit-for-brains government. Completely the wrong angle to be tackling obesity from, but that's probably not the main objective anyway.

doffcocker wrote:Completely agree with the opening post despite its author.

You bitch.

doffcocker wrote:
To think sticking an extra 10p on a can of coke is gonna make any difference is typical of this shit-for-brains government. Completely the wrong angle to be tackling obesity from, but that's probably not the main objective anyway.

You shit-for-brains bellend. The report and recommendations were nothing to do with the government, in fact David Cameron says he's not even going to read it because he has no interest in it.

How many more years do we have to put up with these tossers?

I have forgotten.

karlypants wrote:How many more years do we have to put up with these tossers?

I have forgotten.

Again, this is not a government report. The government have rejected it.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

karlypants wrote:How many more years do we have to put up with these tossers?

I have forgotten.

Again, this is not a government report. The government have rejected it.

Yes I know.

Can you just answer the question?

Cheers!

karlypants wrote:How many more years do we have to put up with these tossers?

I have forgotten.

At least 20.

karlypants wrote:How many more years do we have to put up with these tossers?

I have forgotten.

It's not very nice to talk about Scott and Boggers that way kp but I suspect they will be on the forum for a long time yet. 

It's sad that 1958 has become an arse-licking bumchum wannabee.

Some people have no pride.

Natasha Whittam wrote:It's sad that 1958 has become an arse-licking bumchum wannabee.

Some people have no pride.

I'd say you are pretty much with the bumchums now

Boggersbelief wrote:

I'd say you are pretty much with the bumchums now

Laughable post. You're the one who spent Thursday night flirting with them.

I am in a gang of one. It's all I need.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

I'd say you are pretty much with the bumchums now

Laughable post. You're the one who spent Thursday night flirting with them.

I am in a gang of one. It's all I need.

I exposed then for the cliquey bunch of racist homophobes that they are.

The Chummers are on the march.

boltonbonce wrote:The Chummers are on the march.

Hahahaha

Natasha Whittam wrote:It's sad that 1958 has become an arse-licking bumchum wannabee.

Some people have no pride.

As of yet I haven't signed up to any of the gangs. I am yet to receive an offer that reflects my true value, and appreciates the the sheer awesomeness that I would bring to the table. Until that time comes I am happy to remain neutral. 

Boggersbelief wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

I'd say you are pretty much with the bumchums now

Laughable post. You're the one who spent Thursday night flirting with them.

I am in a gang of one. It's all I need.

I exposed then for the cliquey bunch of racist homophobes that they are.

 that's not the way i remember it Boggers