WWW.RLFANS.COM https://rlfans.com/forums/ |
|
Sugar Tax https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=543270 |
Page 1 of 12 |
Author: | El Barbudo [ Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:39 pm ] | ||||
Post subject: | Sugar Tax | ||||
|
Author: | bren2k [ Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:58 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sugar Tax |
On the one hand, I'm not enamoured of the state attempting to micro-manage every aspect of daily life. On the other, the rise of the fatty can't be denied and I'm inclined to believe the apocalyptic predictions of the strain it will put on the NHS if it continues unchecked. Given that, perhaps it's time for those people who seem unable to help themselves to be taken in hand? I was struck by the hatchet job that Jane Moore did on Weight Watchers on TV last night - the basis of her objection to the company appeared to be that people lose weight whilst on the diet, then put it back on when they stop; I'm not comfortable with the abrogation of personal responsibility that view represents and we do seem to be drifting towards a situation where being fat is attributable to pretty much anything other than laziness, lack of self-respect or greed, which I'm sure is the case in many instances. It's a quandary. |
Author: | sally cinnamon [ Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sugar Tax |
Why is placing a tax on sugar any more 'micro management' than taxing income. Discouraging people from eating sugar and rotting their teeth is probably better than discouraging them from work. |
Author: | Mintball [ Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:44 am ] | ||||
Post subject: | Re: Sugar Tax | ||||
|
Author: | El Barbudo [ Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:48 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sugar Tax |
Mintball wrote:...Loathe though I am to invoke any idea of 'morality', there is not a single, solitary shred of moral justification for that. ... Ooh no, it's immoral not to provide "choice" and it's the consumer's fault if they choose to buy those products. |
Author: | Mintball [ Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:09 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sugar Tax |
El Barbudo wrote:Ooh no, it's immoral not to provide "choice" and it's the consumer's fault if they choose to buy those products. As I discovered last night, analysing the ingredients and marketing of a new product, you can dedicatedly read the list of ingredients – and still not immediately realise the complete picture. In that case, it was a 'breakfast biscuit' that is very much marketed as healthy – everything shrieks that, from the packaging to the ingredients. Oh yes, one type of wheat, followed by five more grains – all listed individually – so that by the time you get to 'sugar', you think it's far lower down the ingredients list than actually third spot. And then, in sixth, there's dextrose as well. And that's without mentioning three different raising agents. I'm sure it's all quite deliberate. |
Author: | El Barbudo [ Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:18 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sugar Tax |
It's like breaking a code. "No artificial sweeteners" usually means it's full of sugar. "No added sugar" usually means it's artificially sweetened. Talk about "accentuate the positive" ... it's all smoke and mirrors. |
Author: | Mintball [ Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:22 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sugar Tax |
El Barbudo wrote:It's like breaking a code. "No artificial sweeteners" usually means it's full of sugar. "No added sugar" usually means it's artificially sweetened. Talk about "accentuate the positive" ... it's all smoke and mirrors. Absolutely. As I mentioned, 'low fat' often also means, 'full of sugar to compensate for the loss of flavour caused by the loss of fat, but we all know that natural fats are the worst thing on planet Earth'. |
Author: | El Barbudo [ Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:29 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sugar Tax |
Mintball wrote:Absolutely. As I mentioned, 'low fat' often also means, 'full of sugar to compensate for the loss of flavour caused by the loss of fat, but we all know that natural fats are the worst thing on planet Earth'. Yesterday, I saw a Warburton's Wholemeal loaf (I am deliberately avoiding calling it bread) labelled "Low Fat". What wholemeal bread would be other than Low Fat? |
Author: | Mintball [ Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:20 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sugar Tax |
El Barbudo wrote:Yesterday, I saw a Warburton's Wholemeal loaf (I am deliberately avoiding calling it bread) labelled "Low Fat". What wholemeal bread would be other than Low Fat? It's that deskilling, isn't it? People look at 'low fat' and have been trained to think that that's the apotheosis of healthy eating. That they don't realise that most proper, traditional UK breads would hardly ever have much (if any) fat in them It's indicative of what Raymond Blanc says about how we (and the US) have become divorced from our culinary heritage. |
Page 1 of 12 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |