Thread: Should the UK have a soda tax? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024622
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Doctors have said all soda should be taxed at 20% to dissuade people from buying them to help us reduce our waistlines.
quote:
Britain's 220,000 doctors are demanding a 20% increase in the cost of sugary drinks, fewer fast food outlets near schools and a ban on unhealthy food in hospitals to prevent the country's spiralling obesity crisis becoming unresolvable.
('Soda' is the US catch-all term for sugary drinks like coke, I don't think we have one here in the UK and like the term)
What do you think?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
There's already a 20% tax on "soda", like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Fanta. It's called VAT.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
People will pay for their pleasures. I do not see a 20% tax reducing consumption by much.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
('Soda' is the US catch-all term for sugary drinks like coke, I don't think we have one here in the UK and like the term)
That is actually one of the most contested linguistic topics in the United States.
But rather than letting this devolve into that old debate (along the lines of the one true Chili and the one true Barbeque in the States), I will add a link to one economist's take on this kind of taxation, (specifically, that it tends to be regressive and inefficient).
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People will pay for their pleasures. I do not see a 20% tax reducing consumption by much.
Nobody seems to make that argument when they increase the tax on tobacco every year. What's the difference?
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
It's very tempting to use differential taxation to promote some good policy. I'm just a little uneasy about it, in that it takes away the freedom to take responsibility for one's own actions.
But then, on the other hand, the idea of millions of people drinking expensive tinned fizzy sugary water with added chemicals (WHY?! - is it the power of advertising or do they actually LIKE the stuff?), to the detriment of teeth, waistline and lifespan, also makes me uneasy.
Should we? really don't know. Though I like the idea of taxes paid by someone else.
Blackbeard, uneasy and going for a cup of tea
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
blackbeard, to answer your question, I drink diet, but I drink it for the caffeine. It's not as caffeinated as coffee, and I do like the taste while I think coffee generally tastes abominable.
ETA: I'm against sin taxes unless it's clear that said item costs the public a lot. For instance, if said item's use causes substantial environmental harm that is expensive to fix, perhaps a tax earmarked to fixing it would be good. Similarly with cigarettes
[ 18. February 2013, 18:33: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Doctors have said all soda should be taxed at 20% to dissuade people from buying them to help us reduce our waistlines.
It isn't up to doctors to tell us to reduce our waistlines.
If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.
Is this not all about preventative medicine? Surely cheaper and better for the patient than reacting after the event?
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
('Soda' is the US catch-all term for sugary drinks like coke, I don't think we have one here in the UK...
In Scotland we have the word jinjur which means any fizzy soft drink.
Y'r welcome ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(and I can't type)
[ 18. February 2013, 19:03: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop.
And they still are if there is a tax. At least if they are rich, and can afford to pay the tax. The poor don't get that option.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
In the UK, Soda is a completely different thing. Soda water and Cream Soda are the UK versions.
These other things are "fizzy drinks".
I am in two minds about the fizzy drinks tax. One part of me says that a tax to pay for increased health costs makes some sense - or it would if the money went to the health service, rather than to Tory Supporters pockets. If these things are bad for you, causing long term problems, then there is some justification.
This, however, would be a radical change in government medical direction - admitting that sugar is the biggest problem for health and weight, rather than fat. If they were to define fizzy drinks as "sinful", then surely this should also apply far wider, there should be a sugar tax, of which the drinks are just one significant aspect.
However, and this is the critical issue to me, I do not agree with sin-tax (or, as my work often shown, syntax). Taxing things that are bad for you can work (they do it with some significant success in Norway), but only by mutual consent. And Norway has its own set of problems, not least a very high suicide rate. Maybe because they have a society restriction on "sin".
So a good idea? TBH, any proposal this government makes to raise more money I am suspicious of. They are not doing it for the good of people, but as a means of raising money.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People will pay for their pleasures. I do not see a 20% tax reducing consumption by much.
Nobody seems to make that argument when they increase the tax on tobacco every year. What's the difference?
No difference on whether taxes make smokers consume less. I doubt they do. Taxes should go to lessen the burden of care for health problems caused by the addiction.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The primary purpose of a tax is to raise money to fund government, not to achieve a collateral purpose that some interest group of high minded wowsers that happens to have power thinks would be a good idea for the rest of us.
It's a bad thing if the incidence of taxation has economic or social bad collateral effects, but it's a misuse of government clout to impose taxes that have no real connection with the need to raise money.
What do they want children to drink? Home brewed beer? And why should those who are not fat have to pay extra because other people are?
Worthy or not, what's it got to do with government?
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The primary purpose of a tax is to raise money to fund government, not to achieve a collateral purpose that some interest group of high minded wowsers that happens to have power thinks would be a good idea for the rest of us.
That's one of the unending debates on government, isn't it? Clearly the tax power can be used to influence behavior. Should the government consider that a tool in its arsenal to make the country a better place, or not?
I worry about the unintended consequences of such schemes. Consider this scenario that I have been hinting around for a few posts now:
I live in a diverse neighborhood, where the north side tends to be lower income, and the south side tends to be higher income. It is a 15 minute drive to the nearest grocery store, so we might qualify as a food desert. There are two markets. One on the north side is a classic urban neighborhood market, that has staples and lots of junk that would be taxed heavily under a fat tax regime. There is no fresh food to be found. The other market is a specialty Italian market. We love it, but it tends to be pretty pricy, so it probably isn’t an option for some of the other folks who live on the north side.
So picture the person who has no car and who has to shop on food stamps or a limited budget. That person cannot easily make it to a grocery store, and cannot afford to go to the specialty market. Their best (perhaps only) option is the urban market.
And now doctors want to enact a fat tax and make many of the items in that market cost 20% more?
If we want the obesity epidemic to end, we have to find a way to help the poor eat better. If there were a way to encourage the local chain of small and reasonably priced organic markets to open a store in my neighborhood, I would be all for it. But just slapping a tax on "bad" foods is going to create problems that the doctors might not have foreseen.
[ 18. February 2013, 20:07: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do they want children to drink?
Water? Milk?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I agree with Og and tgc regarding being poor makes eating healthy more difficult.
However, that is where soda becomes even more of the problem. Water is the least expensive beverage. In most of the countries represented on these boards, it is safe.
Sugar laden drinks should be occasional, not staple.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.
Is this not all about preventative medicine? Surely cheaper and better for the patient than reacting after the event?
That's one euphemism for it I suppose!
However, you could apply your argument to all food because if a person eats enough of pretty much anything they will put on weight. Would you want all food taxed so that people could reduce their waistlines?
As an aside, I have noticed that now the smoking ban is in full flow, the attention of the media and busybodies in general appears to have turned towards fat people. Are they now going to be hounded as much as smokers were I wonder? There has been a rather unpleasant streak develop in my country's culture of late.
[ 18. February 2013, 20:29: Message edited by: Sleepwalker ]
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People will pay for their pleasures. I do not see a 20% tax reducing consumption by much.
I don't either. Not when retail markup and differences in pricing between brands easily make for a lot more wiggle room than 20% for the retailer and consumer.
Another concern with these ad-hoc taxes/levies that various interest groups clamour for on a regular basis is that the government usually has to fritter away most of the revenue in the process of administering a small program which can't be run efficiently. Small retailers will be the big losers, as well as the extra workload associated with tax collection they will get sucked into a race to the bottom which only the bigger players can possibly win.
Above all, there's the ever-present problem that if you're poor, you can't afford high quality food. Trying to eat the same foods as you would on a higher budget just leaves you underfed, the only option to get the quantity needed is to go for lower-quality mass-produced food. When I was living on nothing but a student allowance from the government, the only way I could afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables was to go to the market at the end of a Saturday when I could get the dregs left over at a discount - it didn't take long to realise that even using canned tomatoes for cooking and going without in sandwiches is better than settling for 'fresh' tomatoes which have sat there for hours being pawed, squeezed and rejected every few minutes.
Above all, I like a cold bottle of Coke or ginger beer on a hot day, and I have no trouble enjoying those as part of a balanced diet and maintaining a high level of physical activity. I don't see any reason to pay 20% extra for nice things which I can handle with responsibility just because there are others who can't, especially if that 20% is only going to get spent on the process of collecting it and not on anything useful like improving public services.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
It would be great if the government used the proceeds of the soda tax to increase the availability of healthier food at a reasonable price, but somehow I don't see that happening.
I heard a radio programme a few months back - might have been the Food Programme on Radio 4? - that gave details of an initiative to subsidize fruit and veg in local shops in deprived areas. Does anyone remember the details?
BTW - water is not the cheapest drink in all circumstances. In many UK shops it's cheaper to buy a 2 litre bottle of soda (not major brands) than it is to buy a 500ml bottle of water. Guess what the teenagers choose.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do they want children to drink?
Water? Milk?
I thought milk was supposed to be fattening these days. We're always exhorted to use the green top sort. Besides, drinking milk neat, rather than in tea, coffee or on cornflakes is a bit of an esoteric taste.
Yes, it's very worthy to drink only water, but as a sole refreshment, that is a bit puritanical, a bit like expecting other people to make sacrifices. Most of us like sometimes to drink something with a flavour. In my experience, children don't usually like tea much until about 10 or coffee until their late teens. And national views vary on these things. English people used to disapprove of French children being given wine. Yet I remember an exchange student back in the 1960s being quite shocked at English children drinking tea by the mug full, and being told it was provided as a matter of course in schools.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
tangent...
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And Norway has its own set of problems, not least a very high suicide rate. Maybe because they have a society restriction on "sin".
nah. We have an epic suicide rate, too, and we're very embracing of our many sins. plenty of people blame exactly that - high suicide rate because we don't restrict various "sins".
it's the bloody darkness and cold.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
BTW - water is not the cheapest drink in all circumstances. In many UK shops it's cheaper to buy a 2 litre bottle of soda (not major brands) than it is to buy a 500ml bottle of water. Guess what the teenagers choose.
Water out of a tap is considerably cheaper than bottled water though. If you're not at home, there would usually be somewhere in a town you could fill up a bottle you already have without needing to go into a shop and buy what is (let's be honest here) usually just tap water with a fancy label. Bottled water is about the convenience, not the water.
Some country towns in eastern Australia have actually banned the sale of bottled water because of the high amount of waste littering their streets. They provide plenty of water fountains in public areas for people to use for drinking or filling up a bottle. Interestingly, these are all towns in states where there is still no deposit system for recyclable drink containers. South Australia may have its problems, but the streets being covered with plastic bags and drink containers is not one of them.
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
tangent...
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And Norway has its own set of problems, not least a very high suicide rate. Maybe because they have a society restriction on "sin".
nah. We have an epic suicide rate, too, and we're very embracing of our many sins. plenty of people blame exactly that - high suicide rate because we don't restrict various "sins".
it's the bloody darkness and cold.
I don't know much about Alaska, but in Norway you could probably add high consumption of alcohol into the mix of factors involved when it comes to suicide.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I don't know much about Alaska, but in Norway you could probably add high consumption of alcohol into the mix of factors involved when it comes to suicide.
that's certainly our favorite sin.
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
quote:
......I don't know much about Alaska, but in Norway you could probably add high consumption of alcohol .....
Which raises another point. Alcohol in Norway is EXPENSIVE, due to deliberate policy to reduce consumption, but it's still consumed - whether to a lesser extent than if would be if cheaper, I couldn't say.
So by analogy, a mere 20% on a can of fizzy pop wouldn't reduce consumption to zero, and perhaps wouldn't reduce it by much.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I suspect adultery's more popular here. Should the government tax that, and if so, how?
It certainly causes more social damage than alcohol, fizzy drinks and obesity.
[ 18. February 2013, 22:18: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suspect adultery's more popular here. Should the government tax that, and if so, how?
It certainly causes more social damage than alcohol, fizzy drinks and obesity.
Let's just tax the ones you are more likely to get.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I'm opposed to sin taxes generally, especially because they just tend to be punitive and do disproportionally affect the poor and working class (for whom the taxed items, like cigarettes, are a relatively affordable pleasure).
Is the proposed tax in the UK meant to subsidize the NHS for treatment of obesity-related illness? That would be the only thing that would make sense to me, but still it seems odd to pick on only sugary drinks - especially when genetics plays a huge factor in both obesity and diabetes, sugary drinks or not.
I personally drink a lot of diet pop. It is my simple pleasure. I tend to prefer carbonated drinks, but as a "taster" I have a strong aversion to bitterness and an equally strong sweet tooth. Filtered water and sparkling water are too bitter for me to drink, and my tap water tastes like chlorine. Back home in Detroit, my tap water was great, so I drank it; growing up in the country, our well water was better than great, so I drank LOTS of that - I was allergic to milk until my mid-20s, and fruit juices often make my stomach sour. At work, in San Francisco, I drink the tap water (rather than the bottled or filtered water that's available), although I do mostly drink pop that I bring with me.
Aspartame's a whole other issue (as are pretty much all artificial sweeteners). Some people get headaches from it, and others are just conspiracy theory types, so you can easily find movements to ban the stuff. I seem to have no adverse effects from it, although maybe an autopsy some 3 or 4 decades from now (God willing) would reveal some bad cumulative effect I'm not able to discern. But it's not like in the 21st century you can keep yourself pure of toxins anyway. My point here is that whatever it is you happen to enjoy, someone else is certain it's ruining your health and they want to tell you to stop enjoying it, or even to ban it.
Where there's nationalized health care (i.e., in properly civilized countries, unlike the US), the public does have a bit more of an interest in each other's health, and we should have an interest in each other's health, but not in this way. Since our individual health is a complex web of genetic, environmental, dietary, lifestyle and other factors, and since the latest wisdom about what's good for you and what's not will be completely different in 10 years or less, it seems wrong to tax today's pet sin on the basis that everyone else has to pay for your health care when said sin makes you sick. Unless they can demonstrate that there really are direct lines from a habit to the health problem that has no other significant causes, then taxing the habit is punitive in my opinion.
[ 18. February 2013, 23:48: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
So the tax will be on the sugar in the soda and not the... syrup, carbon dioxide, or whatever else is in it?
If the answer is yes, then the same question must be asked about candy: why not tax it because of the sugar? For that matter, why not tax sugar itself in the supermarkets?
If the answer is no, then it is hypocritical for proponents to claim that their concern is about calories.
This would be a kind of sumptuary tax, and I'm o.k. with them as long as they are moderate. Trouble is, they don't tend to stay that way. If the proponents of this tax are like those of tobacco taxes, they will keep ratcheting up their nannyism year after year as if it was a brand new idea and won't be satisfied until they have put bottlers out of business. If there were some way for us to enshrine in law that a 20% tax is the appropriate rate and, after it is enacted, the advocates will move on and get a life somewhere else for at least a generation, I'd vote yes if only for the entertainment value.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
BTW, does pop in the UK actually contain sugar, or is it high fructose corn syrup as in the US?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Where did this idea that Norway has a high suicide rate come from? The World Health Organisation doesn't seem to think so. They reckon its lower than either the UK or the US. The highest rates seem to be in the far east and in some parts of eastern and southern Europe. Is it a misremembering of the old nonsense that Sweden has a high suicide rate? (Which it doesn't)
And they drink a lot less than the British do (though we are nowhere near the champion drinking countries like France, Ireland and Czeckia)
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
When I was living on nothing but a student allowance from the government, the only way I could afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables was to go to the market at the end of a Saturday when I could get the dregs left over at a discount...
So how come I can buy onions for less than a pound for a 4-kilo bag from a corner shop, carrots at 62p a kilo from a late-night garage (I did last night), large cabbages for less than a pound each,and potatoes at about 2.50 for a 5-kilo bag from a big supermarket? (And much cheaper if I had a car and so could by bigger bags). And the streetmarkets are cheaper than the shops. That might make for a boring diet but there is no way its more expensive than processed food.
I really don't think its true that fresh vegetables are more expensive than low-quality ready-made foods. They are more inconvenient for a lot of people and less comforting for many, but that's not quite the same thing. Obviously that's all worse if you have kids. I'm happy to wait while my vegetables are cooking. Not so easy if you have got two grumpy kids who are driving you up the wall. A microwaved tray of some ready-meal thingy is a lot easier then (though really not particularly cheaper)
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And national views vary on these things. English people used to disapprove of French children being given wine. Yet I remember an exchange student back in the 1960s being quite shocked at English children drinking tea by the mug full, and being told it was provided as a matter of course in schools.
Yes. Lots of variation. I hardly ever drink fizzy sweet drinks. A lot of that is cultural. Round here they are for children. Grown-ups drink tea at home or with meals, or else beer and wine. Or water of course. Coffee is a more social thing rather than the liquid part of a meal. You might have a cup after a meal, or for the taste, but you are unlikely to drink it with a meal or because you are thirsty. I used to drink loads of lemonade and so on when I was a kid and more or less stopped in my late teens. The last time I remember buying any was some months ago when I bought some ginger beer (the spiciness counteracts the excessive sweetness)
So of course this would be disproportionately a tax on children.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
BTW, does pop in the UK actually contain sugar, or is it high fructose corn syrup as in the US?
Sugar.(Or rather sucrose, seeing as the stuff in corn syrup is sugar but just a different kind) Its cheaper here.
The stuff that gets into everything here is "milk solids" and "milk protein". On all sorts of lists of ingredients of all sorts of unlikely things.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I realize this is a UK thread, but the issues have come up here as well (and we call all of these fizzy sugar drinks "pop", the word "soda" identifies an American).
Might it be possible to fund public health, especially re diabetes and metabolic syndrome from the funds generated from such a tax? Might it also be quite reasonable for diabetics to have public and private insurers to assess them and refuse to provide some non-life threatening medical care in situations of behavioural obesity, like not subsidizing insulin, and forcing dietician care and attendance at exercise classes to lose the weight.
It has been occurring with smoking for decades that elective surgeries and respiratory physical therapy will not be provided to smokers who do not agree to attend cessation programs. Why not treat the dietarily dangerous similarly? This is akin to finding fault for an accident isn't it? We make those at fault pay fines and surcharges for their fault. I'd wonder if it couldn't be applied for health non-compliant sugar drinkers.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Surely it would make more sense to tax sugar directly (and high fructose corn syrup etc) and then its up to the manufacturer how much they put in the product. There is then the pressure to reduce sugar content to remain competitive.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
When I was living on nothing but a student allowance from the government, the only way I could afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables was to go to the market at the end of a Saturday when I could get the dregs left over at a discount...
So how come I can buy onions for less than a pound for a 4-kilo bag from a corner shop, carrots at 62p a kilo from a late-night garage (I did last night), large cabbages for less than a pound each,and potatoes at about 2.50 for a 5-kilo bag from a big supermarket? (And much cheaper if I had a car and so could by bigger bags). And the streetmarkets are cheaper than the shops. That might make for a boring diet but there is no way its more expensive than processed food.
I really don't think its true that fresh vegetables are more expensive than low-quality ready-made foods. They are more inconvenient for a lot of people and less comforting for many, but that's not quite the same thing. Obviously that's all worse if you have kids. I'm happy to wait while my vegetables are cooking. Not so easy if you have got two grumpy kids who are driving you up the wall. A microwaved tray of some ready-meal thingy is a lot easier then (though really not particularly cheaper)
Lucky you, living in an area where there are fly-by-night street vendors you can get cheap stuff from. Not everyone can live in an area where there are market gardens with excess stock.
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Is the proposed tax in the UK meant to subsidize the NHS for treatment of obesity-related illness? That would be the only thing that would make sense to me, but still it seems odd to pick on only sugary drinks - especially when genetics plays a huge factor in both obesity and diabetes, sugary drinks or not.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Might it be possible to fund public health, especially re diabetes and metabolic syndrome from the funds generated from such a tax? Might it also be quite reasonable for diabetics to have public and private insurers to assess them and refuse to provide some non-life threatening medical care in situations of behavioural obesity, like not subsidizing insulin, and forcing dietician care and attendance at exercise classes to lose the weight.
I'm not seeing any evidence of a serious proposal that has been costed by the Treasury Department, just a frothy edict from an interest group wanting to remind the rest of society they still exist. My guess is that such a tax would be revenue-neutral at best, all the revenue collected would be frittered away on paying for the process of collecting it.
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Aspartame's a whole other issue (as are pretty much all artificial sweeteners). Some people get headaches from it, and others are just conspiracy theory types, so you can easily find movements to ban the stuff. I seem to have no adverse effects from it, although maybe an autopsy some 3 or 4 decades from now (God willing) would reveal some bad cumulative effect I'm not able to discern.
You might want to have "diet drinker" put on your medical records, so they'll be able to identify you by your dental records. Artificial sweeteners are even nastier for dental health than real sugar, make sure you at least wash it down with water afterwards (ideally fluoridated tap water, swish it round your mouth on the way) if you can't use a mouthwash straight afterwards.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Surely it would make more sense to tax sugar directly (and high fructose corn syrup etc) and then its up to the manufacturer how much they put in the product. There is then the pressure to reduce sugar content to remain competitive.
That will just shift the goalposts, there are other ways of making a nice sweet taste without adding cane sugar or corn syrup. The latest targets for the ban nannies in Australia (schools pronounce that they have 'banned' Coke despite them having no power to regulate students' lunches) is a range of carbonated fruit juice drinks which are 99% natural fruit juice and 1% carbonated water to add the fizz. They don't have anything added which could be subject to a punitive tax, yet they still have a 10.4% sugar content which comes in only slightly below Coke at 10.6% because it's fruit juice and it's naturally that way. It's all natural, but no less sweet.
Add in the fact it's sold in 250 mL skinny cans like the style you see used for energy drinks (they fit in school lunch boxes nicely and will still be cold at lunchtime if put in the freezer overnight) and you can see why they are so ridiculously popular.
[ 19. February 2013, 05:30: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Doctors have said all soda should be taxed at 20% to dissuade people from buying them to help us reduce our waistlines.
It isn't up to doctors to tell us to reduce our waistlines.
If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.
Well, so long as they can charge you more for greatly increasing the chances of you being sick, I'm fine with that.
After all, that's the basis on which insurance premiums work. "We'll repair your house/car when it's broken... we think there's a greater risk of you needing repair, so here's your premium".
Why not medicine? No? Don't like that idea? In which case, doctors have every right to tell you how to reduce the chance of ending up in their consultation rooms or on their operating table.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do they want children to drink?
I'm stunned the human race managed to survive into the industrial revolution, what with all the children who died of thirst before then. And here was I thinking diseases had been the primary cause of child mortality.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
BTW - water is not the cheapest drink in all circumstances. In many UK shops it's cheaper to buy a 2 litre bottle of soda (not major brands) than it is to buy a 500ml bottle of water. Guess what the teenagers choose.
This is just evidence of the remarkable success of somehow persuading people that the best source of water is a bottle, not a tap.
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Doctors have said all soda should be taxed at 20% to dissuade people from buying them to help us reduce our waistlines.
It isn't up to doctors to tell us to reduce our waistlines.
If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.
At least one judge takes the view that if obesity leads to other problems, then doctors are responsible for doing everything possible to reverse the obesity - even booking an appointment with a weight loss surgeon for the patient.
quote:
In his verdict, Justice Stephen Campbell said when Dr Varipatis first saw his patient in 1997, Mr Almario was "morbidly obese and suffered from a constellation of other inter-related conditions, all affected by his obesity, including the liver disease".
He upheld that the doctor was legally responsible for the disease progressing to cirrhosis, liver failure and eventually liver cancer.
"I am satisfied that but for the negligence of the defendant, the liver disease would not have progressed to cirrhosis and one could have expected a great improvement in his health generally, had bariatric surgery been successful, and a healthful weight been achieved by Mr Almario following surgery," Justice Campbell noted.
Posted by dv (# 15714) on
:
Politicians are just looking for new forms of taxation all the time. It justifies their existence and pays for their perks (including subsidised bars in the House of Commons).
Charging extra for pop will not make a blind bit of difference to the amount consumed. A 2 litre bottle of crap lemonade costs about 20p at present in many supermarkets. Adding another 20% tax will have no effect on consumption.
Taxation is already too high and government is already meddling in areas that are not its concern. It should concentrate on providing better basic services and stop pretending it can micro manage everything. Clearing up the patient-killing mess that is the NHS would be a better place to start.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
To be fair and to show the hidden values, it should be a sugar content tax and be on all drinks which have over a certain percentage of sugar. The thing about that is that it would hit many "healthy" middle class options such as fruit based juices and drinks.
Jengie
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Not wanting to drink water at meals is a cultural thing, I think. In France, I think most people still regard soda as more of a treat, and drink water with most of their meals.
When I have anglo-saxons round to dinner, I feel obliged to offer juice (not soda, because I don't drink it and I don't want it hanging around the house afterwards). When it's French people, I just stick the water-jug on the table (I use a filter jug because our tap water is full of chlorine and I think it tastes nasty) and no one thinks that's odd.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Not wanting to drink water at meals is a cultural thing, I think. In France, I think most people still regard soda as more of a treat, and drink water with most of their meals.
When I have anglo-saxons round to dinner, I feel obliged to offer juice (not soda, because I don't drink it and I don't want it hanging around the house afterwards). When it's French people, I just stick the water-jug on the table (I use a filter jug because our tap water is full of chlorine and I think it tastes nasty) and no one thinks that's odd.
We also only have water at meals. I can also taste the chemicals in tap water, so our 'fridge has a filter. But a filter jug works just as well.
Am I right in thinking that France doesn't have such an obesity problem? If so, we could do to emulate them in more ways than this one!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I usually still drink milk with my dinner when I'm at home. Like I have since childhood.
I don't do it when I go out. But on the rare occasions I have people over for a casual meal they're often tremendously surprised... and then I end up being surprised at their surprise because I forget that it isn't 'normal'.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Gradually it seems more and more restaurants and cafes are offering jugs of water with meals, which is great. And I've noticed, when going to someone's house for dinner, water is usually on offer without having to ask for it.
As for milk for children. I haven't checked, but doesn't full fat milk only have about 4% fat, anyway? And isn't the full fat kind the best for growing children? I understood semi and non-fat milk was not recommended for kids.
When I were a lad fizzy drinks were a treat; hence the popularity of soda stream when it first came out (oh, the joy of pressing the button)! For years now my teeth and my stomach can't easily take fizzy drinks. I imagine if kids get through their early years of high-input of the stuff, it's only because their bodies are young and resilient and their visits to the dentist regular and thorough.
Milk, water, some fruit juices or cordials. Even sugar-free squash is probably better as a regular drink for children (and adults).
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do they want children to drink?
Water? Milk?
I thought milk was supposed to be fattening these days. We're always exhorted to use the green top sort. Besides, drinking milk neat, rather than in tea, coffee or on cornflakes is a bit of an esoteric taste.
Yes, it's very worthy to drink only water, but as a sole refreshment, that is a bit puritanical, a bit like expecting other people to make sacrifices. Most of us like sometimes to drink something with a flavour. In my experience, children don't usually like tea much until about 10 or coffee until their late teens. And national views vary on these things. English people used to disapprove of French children being given wine. Yet I remember an exchange student back in the 1960s being quite shocked at English children drinking tea by the mug full, and being told it was provided as a matter of course in schools.
Official advice is for young children to drink full-fat milk. 'Green-top' milk is only semi-skimmed though, I know lots of people who drink skimmed milk.
And re water, surely that's what squash is for? It's almost entirely water. Juice, however, is full of sugar.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As for milk for children. I haven't checked, but doesn't full fat milk only have about 4% fat, anyway? And isn't the full fat kind the best for growing children? I understood semi and non-fat milk was not recommended for kids.
Yes, school milk is still 100% whole milk.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I want to know if this tax applies to diet drinks - a number of people I know are in a well-known slimming club and diet drinks are syn-free and often used in cooking and baking to cut syns.
I also want to point out that I am classed as obese but mostly drink water, squash or tea without sugar! Even at the pub I drink gin and bitter lemon, nothing very calorific.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Just to go back to the "oh, doctors should just up and fix us after we've ruined things" line of thinking...
You'd be wrong to assume that they can fix you. If you become diabetic due to a high sugar diet, they probably can't fix you. They can probably only help you manage and survive the condition you've landed yourself with.
Ever since I studied biochemistry at university, I've found the prospect of diabetes horrific. It means one of THE most fundamental metabolic processes in your body isn't working. Seriously, I go queasy just thinking about it.
And while some people suffer diabetes for other reasons, huge numbers of diabetics result from 'lifestyle'. From people sitting around and consuming large quantities of crappy food.
The idea that doctors are supposed to just sit back, shut up and watch this happening on an ever-increasing scale, but then come running after a person's body rebels against the abuse and stops making insulin... No. Just no.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I haven't checked, but doesn't full fat milk only have about 4% fat, anyway?
Yes. I roll my eyes at the people at work who get in a tizzy if there isn't skim milk in the fridge for their tea or coffee. The idea that milk is a high fat foodstuff - especially in the quantities they are consuming - is absurd. And the type of fat involved isn't one that it's necessary to avoid, either.
[ 19. February 2013, 11:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Lucky you, living in an area where there are fly-by-night street vendors you can get cheap stuff from. Not everyone can live in an area where there are market gardens with excess stock.
Its called London. Not a lot of market gardens. And they aren't "fly-by-night" they are ordinary shops and market stalls.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dv:
[QB] Politicians are just looking for new forms of taxation all the time. It justifies their existence and pays for their perks (including subsidised bars in the House of Commons).
Actually they aren't. They hate raising taxes. It loses them votes.
But of course this isn't really a serious suggestion for a tax. Its a publicity campaign meant to get people talking about the problems. Which we are doing, so it has worked.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I want to know if this tax applies to diet drinks ...
An honest health Nazi would want to tax artificial sweeteners as well. They are plausibly potentially even more dangerous because it is possible that they fool your body into thinking you are taking in sugar when you aren't, which could mess up exactly the same hormone systems which when messed up we call type 2 diabetes. At least for a few minutes. Digestive hormones (or insulin) can be released in anticipation of sugar. (Its not just Pavlov's dogs that salivate before a meal). People eat or drink for all sorts of reasons - out of habit, or for pleasure in the taste, or because they are genuinely hungry or thirsty. If one of the reasons you facy a fizzy drink is because your blood sugar level is falling then if the drink doesn't actually have sugar in it you might go a little more hypo. Possibly. No-one's quite sure. It makes more sense than most of the bollocks diet-peddlers try to tell us though.
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I want to know if this tax applies to diet drinks - a number of people I know are in a well-known slimming club and diet drinks are syn-free and often used in cooking and baking to cut syns.
I also want to point out that I am classed as obese but mostly drink water, squash or tea without sugar! Even at the pub I drink gin and bitter lemon, nothing very calorific.
Jade- what's a syn? is it an up-market sin?
and if it's a synthetic something, are not "diet" drinks full of synthetic stuff (sugar substitutes, flavourings, colourings etc)?
and alcohol has a fair number of calories, which is why it's sometimes used as a fuel (in camping stoves, added to car petrol, etc).
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just to go back to the "oh, doctors should just up and fix us after we've ruined things" line of thinking...
You'd be wrong to assume that they can fix you. If you become diabetic due to a high sugar diet, they probably can't fix you. They can probably only help you manage and survive the condition you've landed yourself with.
Ever since I studied biochemistry at university, I've found the prospect of diabetes horrific. It means one of THE most fundamental metabolic processes in your body isn't working. Seriously, I go queasy just thinking about it.
And while some people suffer diabetes for other reasons, huge numbers of diabetics result from 'lifestyle'. From people sitting around and consuming large quantities of crappy food.
The idea that doctors are supposed to just sit back, shut up and watch this happening on an ever-increasing scale, but then come running after a person's body rebels against the abuse and stops making insulin... No. Just no.
Orfeo, I do take your point, but ...
... like my esteemed namesake, I am of a spare build and with a fairly active lifestyle. Also I tend to avoid junk food.
Blackbeard, type 2 diabetic
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I want to know if this tax applies to diet drinks - a number of people I know are in a well-known slimming club and diet drinks are syn-free and often used in cooking and baking to cut syns.
I also want to point out that I am classed as obese but mostly drink water, squash or tea without sugar! Even at the pub I drink gin and bitter lemon, nothing very calorific.
Jade- what's a syn? is it an up-market sin?
and if it's a synthetic something, are not "diet" drinks full of synthetic stuff (sugar substitutes, flavourings, colourings etc)?
and alcohol has a fair number of calories, which is why it's sometimes used as a fuel (in camping stoves, added to car petrol, etc).
Oh, a syn is a the Slimming World version of a Weight Watchers point. Nothing to do with synthetic things or sinning!
And I know alcohol has calories, but out of most alcoholic drinks gin has a relatively low calorie count. A single measure with a diet mixer is only 2.5 syns (you get 15 a day) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And I know alcohol has calories, but out of most alcoholic drinks gin has a relatively low calorie count. A single measure with a diet mixer is only 2.5 syns (you get 15 a day)
15 gins a day - wayhay!
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Jade- what's a syn? is it an up-market sin?
and if it's a synthetic something, are not "diet" drinks full of synthetic stuff (sugar substitutes, flavourings, colourings etc)?
It's a proprietary point value system used by a major corporation in the body insecurity industry. Apparently it's meant to be equivalent to sin, a point value given so you can still eat evil foods but only a small amount. The name of their point system appears to come from the word synergy, for me this raises a red flag as I don't trust for-profit corporations whenever they use 'synergy' but you can make up your own mind on that.
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
... and alcohol has a fair number of calories, which is why it's sometimes used as a fuel (in camping stoves, added to car petrol, etc).
The energy content of alcoholic drinks is actually quite low. Here's some numbers...
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code states that the energy factor (the amount of energy which the body can metabolise) of alcohol is 29 kJ per gram, which is about 6.9 calories per gram.
However, the amount of alcohol contained in most drinks is quite low. Gin is a minimum of 40% alcohol content by volume, but you don't drink as much gin as you would drinking a 4-5% many other alcoholic drinks.
For example, if I drank a bottle of Corona Extra from the carton in my cupboard, I would be consuming 355 mL x 4.5% alcohol content = 16 g of alcohol. Multiplied by the energy factor of 29 kJ/g, it means the alcohol alone gives me 464 kJ (111 cal) of energy. The total amount of metabolisable energy in a 355 mL bottle is 628 kJ (149 cal) though, since there are sources of energy other than the alcohol in that beer. This is 7.2% of the standardised 8700 kJ recommended daily energy intake, in one bottle alone.
What is important to remember is that just because a substance 'contains' chemical potential energy which may be converted into thermal energy (i.e. it will burn) doesn't mean it can be used as a source of energy by the human body. Fibre, for example, will burn but it will mostly pass straight through the gastrointestinal system and out the other end without any of that energy being absorbed. There are other food components where only some of the energy contained can be used, so the energy factor will be lower than the total amount of energy released if you burned it with complete efficiency.
This is where the concept of metabolisable energy comes in handy - this is the amount of energy in a given food/drink (or a food component) which the body may use, and it is always less than the total amount of energy you may measure by burning that substance in a laboratory to measure the energy content.
The metabolisable energy content in a given food which appears on the side of a packet is always an estimate of the average. This is calculated by breaking it down into its food components by weight, using known energy factors which (like the 29 kJ/g for alcohol found in the link further up) are then added together to create a highly accurate estimate of the maximum metabolisable energy available in that food/drink. Of course, if your GI tract is not working as it should and stuff is going straight through, not all of the energy will be absorbed - this is why you feel shaky and faint when you have diarrhoea because you are eating/drinking but you don't get to absorb the energy.
Linking it back to proprietary point systems, the complexity of these systems comes from the way they deal with the fact that there's a lot more to nutrition than the energy content. Taking a 375 mL can of Coke as an example, this contains 675 kJ (258 cal) of energy which is 8% of the recommended daily intake, but the sugar content is 40 g (44% of RDI) and the sodium content is only 37g (2% of RDI). The "magic" of the point systems is in the way they take in a whole lot of numbers from the manufacturer's supplied nutrition information and spit out a point value that balances all those factors and dumbs it down to a point value. Different companies will use different algorithms, which is why all those with point systems (whether they call them points, syns or whatever) will work differently. Other companies might choose to go for a green/yellow/red 'traffic light' system instead, which works in a fundamentally different manner.
This is why there's a lot more to eating healthily than counting kilojoules.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And I know alcohol has calories, but out of most alcoholic drinks gin has a relatively low calorie count. A single measure with a diet mixer is only 2.5 syns (you get 15 a day)
15 gins a day - wayhay!
You're optimistic - it was 15 syns per day and not 15 gins per day. Using up all your syns on gin would allow you only six.
You'd also be very drunk either way ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 19. February 2013, 16:29: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I realize this is a UK thread, but the issues have come up here as well (and we call all of these fizzy sugar drinks "pop", the word "soda" identifies an American).
About two out of three (if not more) of us would slip through the cracks on this test. "Soda" marks you as an East Coaster, or, to a lesser extent, a Californian. There was a kid at my church camp whose flew in from the east coast every year, and we used to make fun of him every time he said "soda." Pop is preferred everywhere else, except for the deep south, where everything is called "coke." ("What'd you like to drink?" "A Coke, please." "What kind of coke? we got regular coke, orange coke, etc...")
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Nothing is banned under SW, no such thing as an 'evil food'. I'm not actually a participant anyway...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I realize this is a UK thread, but the issues have come up here as well (and we call all of these fizzy sugar drinks "pop", the word "soda" identifies an American).
About two out of three (if not more) of us would slip through the cracks on this test. "Soda" marks you as an East Coaster, or, to a lesser extent, a Californian. There was a kid at my church camp whose flew in from the east coast every year, and we used to make fun of him every time he said "soda." Pop is preferred everywhere else, except for the deep south, where everything is called "coke." ("What'd you like to drink?" "A Coke, please." "What kind of coke? we got regular coke, orange coke, etc...")
"Pop" is old-fashioned and/or Northern over here. In my childhood "lemonade" was the nearest we had to a local generic name for the stuff. I'm likely to say "fizzy drink" now. "Soft drink" is more formal perhaps. ("soft" as in no alcohol - but no-one calls tea and coffee "soft drinks")
[ 19. February 2013, 16:54: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Doctors have said all soda should be taxed at 20% to dissuade people from buying them to help us reduce our waistlines.
It isn't up to doctors to tell us to reduce our waistlines.
If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.
Well, so long as they can charge you more for greatly increasing the chances of you being sick, I'm fine with that.
After all, that's the basis on which insurance premiums work. "We'll repair your house/car when it's broken... we think there's a greater risk of you needing repair, so here's your premium".
Why not medicine? No? Don't like that idea? In which case, doctors have every right to tell you how to reduce the chance of ending up in their consultation rooms or on their operating table.
I don't know where you live but here in the UK our average doctor is an NHS doctor and we all pay into their wages pot. So we all have a right to speak up should doctors, or indeed any public sector worker (funded directly by our taxes, either national or local), do or say something we don't agree with. I don't happen to agree with the nannying approach adopted by some 'health care professionals'. I pay my taxes in part to enable the NHS to treat me when I am sick and injured, not to give me or my fellow country people lectures on what we should and shouldn't eat/drink/enjoy in our lives.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I roll my eyes at the people at work who get in a tizzy if there isn't skim milk in the fridge for their tea or coffee. The idea that milk is a high fat foodstuff - especially in the quantities they are consuming - is absurd. And the type of fat involved isn't one that it's necessary to avoid, either.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I'm spoiled rotten for life, having never forgotten the wonderful flavor of milk straight out of Grampa's Guernsey cows. There's nothing like it. It is as far above store-bought Holstein milk as store-bought Holstein milk is above powdered milk.
There seem to be some people who actually prefer skim milk ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
rather than grimly choosing it as a heroic act of self-denial to keep calories down. Wonders never cease. I call it masochist juice.
Adults and even adolescents should be free to drink sody-pop (and I must confest to being almost an addict, but manage to keep to the sugar-free varieties), but there is no excuse for hawking it to pre-teens within school walls. If reputable authorities determine that it is not good for them, vending machines should be banned from elementary schools. Schools used to act in loco parentis, but nowadays they might be just loco.
[ 19. February 2013, 17:45: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In my childhood "lemonade" was the nearest we had to a local generic name for the stuff. I'm likely to say "fizzy drink" now. "Soft drink" is more formal perhaps.
I don't ever remember "lemonade" as generic, although in my childhood, both "lemonade" and "coke" were often used to indicate the availability of a range of carbonated beverages including the one named. "Fizzy drink" was always the standard generic name, "pop" was used occasionally, and "soda" never. I don't think I ever heard "soft drink" outside a restaurant.
(Note for Americans: in the UK, "lemonade" is a carbonated drink not terribly unlike Sprite.)
When I was growing up, fizzy drinks were definitely a treat. We only had them with meals at birthday parties and similar events. The standard "child drink" was probably squash, either orange or lemon. Lemon squash, when properly diluted, is not so terribly different from the drink that Americans call lemonade.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
About two out of three (if not more) of us would slip through the cracks on this test. "Soda" marks you as an East Coaster, or, to a lesser extent, a Californian.
A true Bostonian uses the proper word, "tonic," to identify flavored seltzer. Old New Yorkers still talk about "two-cent plains," but what can you expect of a flat-lander...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
Here in the Other Island, the generic name is "mineral", as in, "here's a euro and one for yourself, get us some cans of minerals"
While no Tizer appetises the youth of the Republic, there is of course the classic Irish soft drink, Red Lemonade, as opposed to White Lemonade. What it has to with lemons beats me, but it is mixer of choice for some with whiskey.
All cola is coke, unless a Pepsi is specifically asked for.
Donegal and Derry has the tremendously lethal sugar kick of McDaid's Football Special. This unique soft drink which probably has more sugar than any other soft drink I know, needs to be tried at least once. Soft red in colour and has a head. Like Beer, but for kids. Actually more like liquid Haribo and to be treated accordingly.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There seem to be some people who actually prefer skim milk rather than grimly choosing it as a heroic act of self-denial to keep calories down. Wonders never cease. I call it masochist juice.
I call it milk-flavored water. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There seem to be some people who actually prefer skim milk rather than grimly choosing it as a heroic act of self-denial to keep calories down.
I have a brother of that ilk. When he came to stay, I had to get in a supply of the nasty stuff specially.
quote:
If reputable authorities determine that it is not good for them, vending machines should be banned from elementary schools. Schools used to act in loco parentis, but nowadays they might be just loco.
I am somewhat bemused by the idea that an elementary school pupil has the time to purchase and consume a drink from a vending machine, or that it is normal for elementary-age pupils to carry money on their person to enable them to do so.
I would far prefer any such "ban" to be a decision on the part of the school rather than an imposition from on high, although I understand that schools find it hard to turn away the income derived from vending machines. I note that our local High School has vending machines that sell diet drinks, but not the sugary (HCFSy?) ones, and also that they have a machine selling bottled water about ten feet from a water fountain.
But if you're not careful, well-meaning ideas quickly turn into odious nonsense like this.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[qb] Doctors have said all soda should be taxed at 20% to dissuade people from buying them to help us reduce our waistlines.
It isn't up to doctors to tell us to reduce our waistlines.
If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.
Well, so long as they can charge you more for greatly increasing the chances of you being sick, I'm fine with that.
After all, that's the basis on which insurance premiums work. "We'll repair your house/car when it's broken... we think there's a greater risk of you needing repair, so here's your premium".
Why not medicine? No? Don't like that idea? In which case, doctors have every right to tell you how to reduce the chance of ending up in their consultation rooms or on their operating table.
I don't know where you live but here in the UK our average doctor is an NHS doctor and we all pay into their wages pot. So we all have a right to speak up should doctors, or indeed any public sector worker (funded directly by our taxes, either national or local), do or say something we don't agree with. I don't happen to agree with the nannying approach adopted by some 'health care professionals'. I pay my taxes in part to enable the NHS to treat me when I am sick and injured, not to give me or my fellow country people lectures on what we should and shouldn't eat/drink/enjoy in our lives.
That's precisely my point. An NHS kind of system is precisely the kind where doctors are entitled to tell you ways in which you can help not blow the NHS budget out of the water.
If you live in a country where it's thoroughly user pays, then hey, I suppose you can go ahead and live your life in a manner that makes you likely to have chronic health problems and the doctors will happily charge you for it. Assuming you can afford it.
But in a subsidised system, I reckon doctors are perfectly entitled to say that there's quite enough unavoidable illness for them to treat without people heaping up massive amounts of avoidable illness to go with it.
[ 19. February 2013, 20:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just to go back to the "oh, doctors should just up and fix us after we've ruined things" line of thinking...
You'd be wrong to assume that they can fix you. If you become diabetic due to a high sugar diet, they probably can't fix you. They can probably only help you manage and survive the condition you've landed yourself with.
Ever since I studied biochemistry at university, I've found the prospect of diabetes horrific. It means one of THE most fundamental metabolic processes in your body isn't working. Seriously, I go queasy just thinking about it.
And while some people suffer diabetes for other reasons, huge numbers of diabetics result from 'lifestyle'. From people sitting around and consuming large quantities of crappy food.
The idea that doctors are supposed to just sit back, shut up and watch this happening on an ever-increasing scale, but then come running after a person's body rebels against the abuse and stops making insulin... No. Just no.
Orfeo, I do take your point, but ...
... like my esteemed namesake, I am of a spare build and with a fairly active lifestyle. Also I tend to avoid junk food.
Blackbeard, type 2 diabetic
I thought I made it clear that I don't think every single diabetic has caused their illness in this fashion. But doctors are pretty clear on this point: the rate of diabetes is growing. Rapidly. And they're pretty clear as to why.
Posted by Alf Wiedersehen (# 17421) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do they want children to drink?
Water? Milk?
I remember an exchange student back in the 1960s being quite shocked at English children drinking tea by the mug full, and being told it was provided as a matter of course in schools.
Yes, it is the same in Germany. The fact that my 15 year old son enjoys a cup of PG with me in the morning sends people into shock: "He's too young!"
As for what we want our children to drink; herbal infusions like peppermint, cammomile or carraway seed tea. Yum.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
An honest health Nazi would want to tax artificial sweeteners as well. They are plausibly potentially even more dangerous because it is possible that they fool your body into thinking you are taking in sugar when you aren't, which could mess up exactly the same hormone systems which when messed up we call type 2 diabetes. At least for a few minutes. Digestive hormones (or insulin) can be released in anticipation of sugar. (Its not just Pavlov's dogs that salivate before a meal). People eat or drink for all sorts of reasons - out of habit, or for pleasure in the taste, or because they are genuinely hungry or thirsty. If one of the reasons you facy a fizzy drink is because your blood sugar level is falling then if the drink doesn't actually have sugar in it you might go a little more hypo. Possibly. No-one's quite sure. It makes more sense than most of the bollocks diet-peddlers try to tell us though.
There is some evidence that synthetic sweeteners cause the body to release insulin.
There was an experiment done with college students. They were given lemonade, either sweetened with sugar or with a synthetic sweetener. All the subjects had access to a table full of snacks. The subjects could take all they wanted, but they had to let the experimenters see exactly how much they were taking. The ones who got the synthetically sweetened drink took enough more snacks that the number of calories they consumed was approximately equal to the number consumed by those who had drunk the sugared lemonade.
Personal anecdotes do not provide solid proof of anything, but I had an experience that convinced me I should stay away from synthetic sweeteners. I was in an extremely stressful situation; I had eaten only a piece of toast for breakfast and nothing for lunch; it was three in the afternoon. Someone offered me ginger ale, which I drank. It was artificially sweetened, and as soon as my tongue tasted the sweetness, my body released insulin. Within five minutes I felt very light-headed and nauseated. I had to drink three glasses of orange juice before my head cleard.
I believe that people react differently to synthetic sweeteners, but I know that for me they are very bad news.
Moo
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I used to call skimmed milk 'chalky water.' Now I drink nothing else and have it on my cornflakes and in my porridge (with sweeteners)
BUT I have to have full fat milk in my coffee.
Also, I always drink Pepsi Max now. Pepsi always tastes better than Coke and diet Coke is just so watery!
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I used to call skimmed milk 'chalky water.' Now I drink nothing else and have it on my cornflakes and in my porridge (with sweeteners)
BUT I have to have full fat milk in my coffee.
If you're counting carbs, then half-and-half has fewer carbs per ounce than skimmed milk (and tastes infinitely better on cereal). Cream has even fewer carbs, although on some cereals it can be too heavy. I think heavy cream (or double cream, as you Brits call it) is simply divine on Weetabix, though.
Back in the days when I was adding milk to my coffee, I preferred evaporated milk. I've drunk it black for years now, though, and couldn't drink it any other way -- the stronger the better.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
BUT I have to have full fat milk in my coffee.
I insist on light cream. The fat in the cream cuts the bitterness of the coffee.
Moo
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
I imagine, Miss Amanda, that it depends on whether you are counting carbs or counting calories. By and large, it's calories that taste good.
But in any case, cream on cereal is an Indulgence for the Flesh and therefore Sinful (but sounds yummy!).
In my Youth, a long time ago, you could get Channel Islands milk (I used to imagine fast ships (specially built with milk tanks) crossing the Channel, but maybe it just implies Channel Islands breeds of cattle). This was extra creamy, and people said "Just look at the goodness" as the cream formed a yellowish band at the top. If you were careful you could get this on your cereal, and the rest of the family had to make do with the milk underneath. There was a cost premium of roughly 20% but people still bought it (to bring this back on topic).
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I prefer skimmed milk ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Full-fat is undrinkable to me, far too rich and creamy and just unpleasant. I don't like cream in coffee either, although Vietnamese-style with condensed milk in it is nice sometimes. I have my tea strong with not much milk in it, and full-fat milk ruins it. I prefer toast to cereal anyway, too.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alf Wiedersehen:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do they want children to drink?
Water? Milk?
I remember an exchange student back in the 1960s being quite shocked at English children drinking tea by the mug full, and being told it was provided as a matter of course in schools.
Yes, it is the same in Germany. The fact that my 15 year old son enjoys a cup of PG with me in the morning sends people into shock: "He's too young!"
Kids were certainly tea drinkers in my part of the world when I was young. One of my first memories was of the yellow plastic sippi cup I kept at my granny's for my tea drinking. Never used for anything else. And an Ulster fry cannot be eaten with any other beverage!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Thanks for the info about milk! I shall go back to semi-skimmed instead of skimmed now that I know it has fewer carbs in it ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
In my Youth, a long time ago, you could get Channel Islands milk. . . . This was extra creamy, and people said "Just look at the goodness" as the cream formed a yellowish band at the top. If you were careful you could get this on your cereal, and the rest of the family had to make do with the milk underneath.
You've brought back a childhood memory. There was a dairy over here that sold "Golden Guernsey" milk (although I imagine the cows, not the milk, had been brought over from the Channel Islands). We also used to skim the cream off the top of the bottle for our cereal.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Thanks for the info about milk! I shall go back to semi-skimmed instead of skimmed now that I know it has fewer carbs in it
Cream has even fewer carbs.
Moo
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There seem to be some people who actually prefer skim milk
It's the only kind I will buy.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Again, if people think that what they put in their tea or coffee is a major source of their "carbs", they are highly likely to be incorrect.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
A lot of what we drink is down to habit - and habits can be changed.
I had to cut down the acid/tannin content of my tea, so I started drinking Redbush. It's an acquired taste but I have well and truly acquired it. I dislike 'normal' tea now!
The same with milk - I used to love whole milk but since being in semi skimmed, I now find it tastes 'greasy'.
Surely children could also 'unacquire' the taste for fizzy drinks/pop/soda?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
... Surely children could also 'unacquire' the taste for fizzy drinks/pop/soda?
Yebbut, what make's that the government's business?
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
... Surely children could also 'unacquire' the taste for fizzy drinks/pop/soda?
Yebbut, what make's that the government's business?
It's the Government's business, dear Enoch, because the Government will have to pick up massive bills for the care of large numbers of seriously disabled people who are no longer able to care for themselves. You may say they should pay for their own care, but such money as they (and their family and friends) have will run our rather swiftly. I don't want to go into detail on the effects of untreated type 2 diabetes - my learned friend Orfeo will again go into detail should you ask, and you will appreciate this is a topic close to me - save to say that care for such people is VERY expensive, and that when I say the Government will pick up the bill, I really Enoch, taxpayer.
On top of which, the tax burden will fall on fewer people since the effects of type 2 diabetes will mean that some people of working age will be unable to work, so will pay no (or not much) tax, leaving the burden to fall on others. Such as Enoch.
Further, it's not just diabetes, many other unpleasant, possibly disabling, possibly fatal, conditions are associated with obesity, as I'm sure you know, so I won't go into unpleasant details.
And - it's not just a question of supplying drugs to stabilise the condition. Quite a lot can be said on this, I'll just say that people who do not actually feel ill can be very unwilling to take drugs, even when they are supplied free, as has been discussed in some other contexts. Regrettable, but true.
Some of us would say that the Government DOES have a duty of care for the health and welfare of its citizens.
Of course there is a line to be drawn between care and interference, and so far as possible people should look after themselves. Where to draw the line is a difficult exercise, one with which this thread has been much concerned.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Well, I'm not that learned, as my biochemistry textbook has already shown me that I stuffed up by suggesting the body stopped producing insulin. Generally the wrong diabetes type.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There seem to be some people who actually prefer skim milk rather than grimly choosing it as a heroic act of self-denial to keep calories down.
Whole milk is much nicer to drink straight, and better in almost all recipies you use milk to cook with. But skimmed milk can be better in tea. Its the protein part of the milk that interacts with the tannins and makes black tea less harsh to drink, not the fat. The cream just floats to the top and makes a nasty glutinous moputhfeel gets in the way of the taste of the tea. The opposite of coffee, which doesn't have the harsh tannins, but can benefit from creaminess, and its possible that the fat absorbs some fat-soluble stong-tasting stuff in it.. So split your milk in two, put the creamy part in cofee and the other part in tea! ("Cream tea" is not tea with cream in it. Its a snack with scones with jam and cream or cream cakes)
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't ever remember "lemonade" as generic, although in my childhood, both "lemonade" and "coke" were often used to indicate the availability of a range of carbonated beverages including the one named. "Fizzy drink" was always the standard generic name, "pop" was used occasionally, and "soda" never. I don't think I ever heard "soft drink" outside a restaurant.
These things are notoriously local. One town can use different names than the next town. I have a personal and completely unproveable theory that its because the fizzy drinks industry grew up in the early 19th century, just before the railways and the telegraphs and so on. Because the stuff is cheap, and can be made anywhere, and is heavy to transport, most towns would have had there own lemonade factory. And regional or even local names would develop. Same goes for the names for large bread rolls, another notoriously local thing. And to a lesser extend railways themselves - technical names for parts of trains are different on differnet sides of the Atrlantic, or even between different railway systems in the same country. Manufactured goods that were traded over long distances would take their names with them. Things invented after we had railways and telephones and cinema and radio and so on tend to have the same names because we all learn then at once. But there is a sort of window of mass-produced localism between about the 1760s and 1860s. Well, that's my speculation anyway.
quote:
When I was growing up, fizzy drinks were definitely a treat. We only had them with meals at birthday parties and similar events. The standard "child drink" was probably squash, either orange or lemon.
Yes, definitely. Squash, especially for very young kids. And also milk. And as you grew older, more and more tea, which was the usual drink to have with meals by the age of maybe 9 or 10. Though I'm pretty sure I was drinking tea at breakfast from the age of 3 or so. And cocoa before bedtime!
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
We still drink squash with family meals (or water) - is this very old-fashioned or does anyone else still do so? Fizzy drinks are only for when other children are visiting or when the adults are having wine at the weekend.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Fizzy is for special occasions. Rest of the time with meals it's squash if you're a sprog and want it, water otherwise.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0