Tax on Sugar Drinks

[discodown]

i would rather pay another 30 or 40p for a bottle of coke and make sure the NHS gets more funding, coke and soft sugar drinks are not a necessity they are a luxury, in fact put a little bit more on all sugary stuff chocolate sweets etc its a good way to raise more taxes which would be hardly felt, with the Fatties paying the most:thumbsup:

You're an idiot.

 

Do you honestly think "sugar" is just going to be classified as whats in coke and fizzy drinks? Its not. Sugar is in all kinds of processed and prepared drinks

 

http://andykennyfitness.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sugar-blog.jpg

 

If this tax comes in it will be stretched far and wide and affect everyone.

 

As usual the government is using the stick when the carrot would probably be far more effective in getting people to change their habits. If farmers were rewarded for producing free range or organic, or schools or hospitals could get more funding if they could prove they were feeding the kids or patients healthier food and not just the average meal or if companies showed they were putting some effort into reducing their staffs calorie intake they could get something. With a little imagination the possibilities are endless

[Cyclone]

From your image, 6 of those are fizzy drinks, 2 are high sugar childrens drinks and 1 is an innocent smoothie. The final starbucks carton, assuming it contains coffee has no added sugar unless you add it yourself.

The innocent smoothie has no added sugar (according to the website).

http://www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/things-we-make

 

The key being 'added', it has sugar from the fruit that is in it. But not in the form of bleached sucralose shown in front of it.

 

I'm intrigued as to what is in the Starbucks carton with 18g of sugar though, it's clearly not the COFFEE that they're famous for.

[discodown]

From your image, 6 of those are fizzy drinks, 2 are high sugar childrens drinks and 1 is an innocent smoothie. The final starbucks carton, assuming it contains coffee has no added sugar unless you add it yourself.

The innocent smoothie has no added sugar (according to the website).

http://www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/things-we-make

 

The key being 'added', it has sugar from the fruit that is in it. But not in the form of bleached sucralose shown in front of it.

 

I'm intrigued as to what is in the Starbucks carton with 18g of sugar though, it's clearly not the COFFEE that they're famous for.

I selected that pic because it showed the amounts of sugar I admit its not the greatest example ever but it shows a range of fizzy drinks and some childrens drinks and the coffee and a smoothie which people tend to assume are a healthy option but which do contain lots of sugar - quite likely in the form of fructose if not added sugar.

 

The coffee is interesting because it doesn't say what it is, it could have syrups or anything in it which I assume it does because that would account for that amount of sugar because coffee and foamed milk alone wouldn't account for that amount of sugar

[smilersarah]

You're an idiot.

 

Do you honestly think "sugar" is just going to be classified as whats in coke and fizzy drinks? Its not. Sugar is in all kinds of processed and prepared drinks

 

http://andykennyfitness.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sugar-blog.jpg

 

If this tax comes in it will be stretched far and wide and affect everyone.

 

As usual the government is using the stick when the carrot would probably be far more effective in getting people to change their habits. If farmers were rewarded for producing free range or organic, or schools or hospitals could get more funding if they could prove they were feeding the kids or patients healthier food and not just the average meal or if companies showed they were putting some effort into reducing their staffs calorie intake they could get something. With a little imagination the possibilities are endless

 

oh take your head out of your backside:rolleyes: i said all sugary drinks should be taxed because they are luxuries whats so bad with that they are not essentials, ok anything that is carbonated or fruit that can be diluted??

happy now?

[discodown]

oh take your head out of your backside:rolleyes: i said all sugary drinks should be taxed because they are luxuries whats so bad with that they are not essentials, ok anything that is carbonated or fruit that can be diluted??

happy now?

No. You've not thought it through

[smilersarah]

No. You've not thought it through

 

go on then point out where i am wrong:rolleyes:

[SportsTrophy]

Food products that contain sugar, wheat & caffeine are more addictive than illegal drugs but that's not enough to stop the food giants who want self regulation. People are beginning to see who the real drug pushers are.

[Cyclone]

You digest pretty much all carbohydrates into glucose... So if sugar is addictive, it's natural that we are addicted to it.

Caffeine is highly addictive, but also easy to quit and practically side affect free. I see no downside to maintaining my addiction to it.

I've never seen wheat described as addictive before, and given the fad for gluten free diets at the moment it can't be that effective an addiction.

[discodown]

go on then point out where i am wrong:rolleyes:

I already have. You were too busy taking cheap shots at fatties and using emoticons to notice.

 

Way to go for the low hanging fruit. So long as it can be diluted then you can slap a tax on it

[smilersarah]

I already have. You were too busy taking cheap shots at fatties and using emoticons to notice.

 

Way to go for the low hanging fruit. So long as it can be diluted then you can slap a tax on it

 

not cheap shots but if the cap fits?? its common sense! sugary carbonated drinks are the worst so tax them, dilute drinks have no regulation on the amount of dilution so some idiots will mix it 50/50 almost, these drinks do the harm to kids teeth and weight and are a luxury so tax them it would hardly be felt in the pocket but a massive boost for the NHS etc.