Sugar its like a poison

[ko]

If you want $1,000 mud cakes, may I ask you why are you penalizing me because of some people, perhaps, eat too many of them? In fact, I don't touch them, find them disgusting, but my kids like them and I buy them from time to time for one reason or another. Why should I, lean and in good form, pay $1,000 for a cake? Can you please explain?

Mate nobody is forcing you to buy a mud cake, just like nobody is forcing anybody to smoke.

That's not what I asked (like 57 years ago?).

Let me rephrase then: Why do you think I have to pay for someone else's stupidity?

To turn the tables around, why are you forcing me to avoid eating mud cakes because at $1000 a pop I can't afford them?

However like smoking, high sugar and processed foods have a detrimental impact on society and should be taxed.

Taxes have solved drinking and drug problems. Therefore, taxes will solve the obesity problem. Is this your argument?

Taxes haven't solved drinking and drug problems. At no point did I say taxes would be the only and best solution but if you honestly think taxes aren't going to help the obesity problem there isn't any point in us discussing this further.

[mikesbytes]

It seems the taxation concept I've put up here has been misunderstood. Its not about making the product unaffordable, which is kinda where ciggie tax is, its about changing the behaviour of the food retailers with a small cost increase. By making lower Kj offerings a little cheaper it would encourage them to make some small changes and for example the fast food 'meal' could see;
- The bun and sauce having less Kj's
- The default drink being a water rather than coke, the purchaser could still opt the change
- The chips being cut in a way that means less oil is soaked into them

The fast food chains have everything carefully costed. Currently food is a small percentage of the cost, labour being the higher cost and this is where the 'meal' came from, so to encourage the consumer to spend more while reducing the amount of time taken to serve them. The upsizing adds a lot more Kj's to the offering but costs very little and therefor increases the profitability.

[duncanm]

The idea that taxes somehow affect the behaviour of producers directly, rather than via consumer behaviour, is daft as far as I'm concerned.

I'm done with this argument.

[ko]

The idea that taxes somehow affect the behaviour of producers directly, rather than via consumer behaviour, is daft as far as I'm concerned.

I'm done with this argument.

While I believe you are correct that taxes will firstly affect consumers rather than producers, if enough consumers change their habits producers will follow suit.

[mikesbytes]

The idea that taxes somehow affect the behaviour of producers directly, rather than via consumer behaviour, is daft as far as I'm concerned.

I'm done with this argument.

Its a valid argument duncanm, I've made the assumption that it would change producer behaviour and you disagree. Who is correct could only be shown in hindsight. Perhaps we could infer from the experience of other countries, I'd heard that one of the european countries put a fat tax in. If this is correct then perhaps we could see what happened in that country? Does someone know about this?

[Alien27]

If I'm not harming anyone else (/ society) -- stop trying to tell me, or 'encourage me' via taxes, how to live my life. That way leads to serfdom.

1. The various government levels have to provide a multitude of services in any civilisation

2. Taxes must be collected to pay for these services

3. The best designed taxes are the ones which encourage good behaviour and discourage bad behaviours (good and bad not the best choice of words but you get the idea)

4. Your going to have to get used tho the fact that the government will try to encourage good and discourage bad behaviours through taxes. Its something that is at the base of all our tax law and economic theory. The alternative is a very inefficient economy and a lower standard of living.

[mikesbytes]

I was chatting with a fitness instructor who is of Cook Island descent and was discussing cultural food consumption and she mentioned that they had imposed a soft drink tax. A quick search didn't find that tax but it did bring up an interesting wiki page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax

Edit: found it, a tax of $9.80 a kilo on sugar https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/pubhealthexpert/2015/08/18/what-the-pacific-mexico-can-tell-us-about-soft-drink-taxes-and-public-health/

[Patt0]

Wow, this stuff is addictive.

[Baalzamon]

Wow, this stuff is addictive.

Yep it's a drug.

[Patt0]

I have cut back refined sugar significantly. The cravings were insane for the first four days. I now see, what I interpreted as lack of satiety was more likely sugar cravings. No physical amount of low sugar food satisfied and now after a week the crav9ings or hunger have all but vanished. Even when having only eaten a smaller portion of food than I am accustomed to.

[duncanm]

yeh - well I'll have to disagree with most of this, too.

If I'm not harming anyone else (/ society) -- stop trying to tell me, or 'encourage me' via taxes, how to live my life. That way leads to serfdom.

1. The various government levels have to provide a multitude of services in any civilisation

some services, yes. Government should be concerned with the rule of law, protecting its citizens from foreign incursions, trade and common public resources like utilities. That's it.

2. Taxes must be collected to pay for these services

the more services they provide (inefficiently, see below), the more we pay.

3. The best designed taxes are the ones which encourage good behaviour and discourage bad behaviours (good and bad not the best choice of words but you get the idea)

this is the nub of the problem. The more government 'provides' - the more they need to influence our behaviour in order to pay for it; Universal healthcare is the classic example. If you expect the government to provide it, they will (understandably) try to limit behaviours that cost that system money. This is the essential argument against universal government healthcare.

4. Your going to have to get used tho the fact that the government will try to encourage good and discourage bad behaviours through taxes. Its something that is at the base of all our tax law and economic theory. The alternative is a very inefficient economy and a lower standard of living.

Disagree -- government is notoriously inefficient at just about everything they have a go at. How efficient was the USSR? How efficient is North Korea at providing services for its people compared to the South?
Cost of public services balloons, analysis finds

Inflation in the cost of public-sector services is rising at more than five times the pace of the private sector, and is equivalent to a tax of more than $800 a year on the average household...

There's no reason people (don't forget, the government is supposed to serve the people) can't vote for fewer services and subsequently lower taxes. The ballooning of government as a % of GDP continues to strangle the economies of the west and will lead to their downfall (aka. Spain etc.).

[mikesbytes]

Yet another call to curtail poor choices in consumption, this one being a 20% soft drink tax. I'm not holding my breath on seeing it implemented.

It brings up the question as to what is a healthy level of sugar in a product? It could be more complex than a simple % as I'd suggest that its also related to what's it comes with.

Example in question is Muesli. I was away on the weekend and for breakfast I usually eat a cooked breakfast however I wasn't keen to buy breakfast so I decided to switch to cereal. My lady wanted muesli and upon checking the first one, it contained 17% sugar, so I picked up the one advertising 50% less sugar and that one was 10% sugar. A check of a number of other products gave the range of 16 - 18%, admittedly I didn't check all of them. I walked away with the 10% sugar item, it's a once off so can be considered an occasional food.

So a product that is marketed as healthy has between 10 and 18% sugar

[Nobody]

It brings up the question as to what is a healthy level of sugar in a product?

0% for added sugars.

So a product that is marketed as healthy has between 10 and 18% sugar

The problem with listing sugars in processed food is takes into account all sugars, regardless of their source. If a banana or a mango had a label, they would have sugar too. 12% and 15% respecitvely.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fru ... ces/1846/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fru ... ces/1952/2

The "elephant in the room" problem is that one is buying processed food in the first place.
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=83496&start=2525#p1420120

[mikesbytes]

Why is it that they recommend 2 servings of fruit a day rather than a minimum of 2 servings of fruit a day? Is that due to the sugar?

[Nobody]

Why do they recommend 6 serves of veg a day and not a minimum of 6 serves? Won't be the sugar.
https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/how-much-do-we-need-each-day/recommended-number-serves-adults

As for fruit:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-fructose-is-bad-what-about-fruit/

I ate about 20 serves of veg and 11 serves of fruit today and can assure you that I'm healthier than most men of my age (49 yo). I could wind it all back to 6 veg and 2 fruit and add bacon to fill the difference. But somehow I don't think it would work too well.

[mikesbytes]

Doesn't answer my question

[Nobody]

OK, the more blunt answer is they might be a government authority, but they also recommend to eat "Lean meat and poultry, fish, eggs...". So they don't have the answer when it comes to the ideal diet for good long term health. As such they shouldn't be considered the ultimate authority if maximising health is one's priority.

The WHO are the most likely to get closer to the correct answer than individual country authorities, since they are under less political and funding pressures.

Practical advice on maintaining a healthy diet

Fruits and vegetables

Eating at least 400 g, or 5 portions, of fruits and vegetables per day reduces the risk of NCDs (2), and helps ensure an adequate daily intake of dietary fibre.

In order to improve fruit and vegetable consumption you can:

- always include vegetables in your meals
- eat fresh fruits and raw vegetables as snacks
- eat fresh fruits and vegetables in season
- eat a variety of choices of fruits and vegetables.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/

However a better answer is to get as much fruit and veg intake as possible (with an emphasis on veg) that doesn't cause deficiencies in essential fat or protein intake. That's why I still make sure I get some grains, legumes (yes, veg) and ground seeds daily.


https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-fruit-is-too-much/

[mikesbytes]

I'm not asking whether the Australian dietary recommendations are correct or not, I'm asking what their logic was behind those recommendations. Perhaps CK knows the answer to this question

[mikesbytes]

We brought a Christmas pudding and served it tonight. It was sickly sweet - yuck. So we read the nutritional info and its 50.7% sugar. Ended up binning it.

Lesson learnt - always read the nutritional info

[feral grasshopper]

We brought a Christmas pudding and served it tonight. It was sickly sweet - yuck. So we read the nutritional info and its 50.7% sugar. Ended up binning it.

Lesson learnt - always read the nutritional info

I just had the most amazing mango, I suspect I’d rather not know how much sugar it contained! I’m sure it’s not that good for me, but at least it didn’t have that nasty sucrose aftertaste...

[Patt0]

We brought a Christmas pudding and served it tonight. It was sickly sweet - yuck. So we read the nutritional info and its 50.7% sugar. Ended up binning it.

Lesson learnt - always read the nutritional info

I just had the most amazing mango, I suspect I’d rather not know how much sugar it contained! I’m sure it’s not that good for me, but at least it didn’t have that nasty sucrose aftertaste...

The beauty of fruit is it has acid to cloak the sugar. Maybe trees are smarter than they get credit for.

[mikesbytes]

We brought a Christmas pudding and served it tonight. It was sickly sweet - yuck. So we read the nutritional info and its 50.7% sugar. Ended up binning it.

Lesson learnt - always read the nutritional info

I just had the most amazing mango, I suspect I’d rather not know how much sugar it contained! I’m sure it’s not that good for me, but at least it didn’t have that nasty sucrose aftertaste...

The beauty of fruit is it has acid to cloak the sugar. Maybe trees are smarter than they get credit for.

Ironically we shared a Mango as replacement for the pudding. While the sugar is there, it comes with a lot of good stuff. Also the portion size is much smaller

[Nobody]

I just had the most amazing mango, I suspect I’d rather not know how much sugar it contained! I’m sure it’s not that good for me, but at least it didn’t have that nasty sucrose aftertaste...

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-fructose-is-bad-what-about-fruit/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-fruit-is-too-much/

[Baalzamon]

We brought a Christmas pudding and served it tonight. It was sickly sweet - yuck. So we read the nutritional info and its 50.7% sugar. Ended up binning it.

Lesson learnt - always read the nutritional info

Just like my mum purchased a "Dare" Iced coffee thinking she'd be able to drink it. Took one sip and UGH. Next day I made her an iced coffee that was sugar free and filled her right up.

[feral grasshopper]

I just had the most amazing mango, I suspect I’d rather not know how much sugar it contained! I’m sure it’s not that good for me, but at least it didn’t have that nasty sucrose aftertaste...

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-fructose-is-bad-what-about-fruit/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-fruit-is-too-much/

I'm much obliged to you Nobody for this information. and i shall now enjoy the fruit with a little less guilt! win-win