4 ms·

Note that sugar consumption has been falling since the 1970s in the UK. Strangely this "evidence" is not mentioned.

awjr 11y ago
Note that our environment has changed significantly since the 1970s, with a propensity for many people to go from A to B by car and generally exercise less. I see a sugar tax as a way of creating a fund to enable councils to implement healthy travel options (protected cycle to school networks, discounted public transport, public transport networks) and mitigate the cost of obesity-related diseases to the NHS.
- elthran 11y ago
  Except it won't - it will end up in the general taxation pool, and spent on anything, including foreign aid, unemployment, defense
  - SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
    God forbid we get healthier as a nation and help those less fortunate than us at the same time!
- puttyaccount 11y ago
  why introduce a financial penalty on sugar consumption itself if it is not a major factor in rising obesity and other health problems?
- 7952 11y ago
  I agree that this would be a good use of new funds. But perhaps a deeper problem is that these areas are so underfunded as it is. We treat road transport as "essential infrastructure" whilst provision for healthy options are treated as an expensive luxury.
- mseebach 11y ago
  Public transport isn't a "healthy travel option". This just goes to support the worry of another commenter that this will just go into the general taxation pool to support various programs that may or may not have anything to do with sugar and/or health.
  - lmm 11y ago
    Public transport usually involves a short walk to a stop, making it a healthier option than private cars.
  - arvidj 11y ago
    While what you say is true, taking public transport makes people move around more: going to/from the bus-stop, changing at connections, standing up in the metro instead of sitting etc. Here is a study on this subject: http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4887 http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4887 Its conclusion: "Men and women who commuted to work by active and public modes of transport had significantly lower BMI and percentage body fat than their counterparts who used private transport."
  - awjr 11y ago
    Public transport is recognised as a "healthy" travel option as it contains a walking/cycling element. If it replaces your car use, then it also impacts pollution/congestion.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jvdh 11y ago
Do you have link to evidence to backup that claim? In my view sugar has been used more and more as an extra ingredient in other foods. Additionally, there are different kinds of sugar, which may influence your statistic: http://thatsugarfilm.com/blog/2015/03/16/added-sugar-vs-natural-sugar/ http://thatsugarfilm.com/blog/2015/03/16/added-sugar-vs-natu... I thoroughly recommend watching That Sugar Film.
sdoering 11y ago
Could you provide sources? I am interested in this topic and would love to read more then just a stated "fact" as an answer to missing "evidence".
- puttyaccount 11y ago
  See "Household food expenditure and consumption and nutrient intake – 1974-2000" on the following page: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130103014432/http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/food/familyfood/nationalfoodsurvey/ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130103014432/htt...
  - jvdh 11y ago
    The statistic points at an average of 100grams of sugar per person per week in 2000. Considering that a single can of coke already contains 30 grams of sugar, the statistic seems to indicate raw sugar intake, and not added sugar or other sugars.

awjr 11y ago

Note that our environment has changed significantly since the 1970s, with a propensity for many people to go from A to B by car and generally exercise less. I see a sugar tax as a way of creating a fund to enable councils to implement healthy travel options (protected cycle to school networks, discounted public transport, public transport networks) and mitigate the cost of obesity-related diseases to the NHS.

elthran 11y ago
Except it won't - it will end up in the general taxation pool, and spent on anything, including foreign aid, unemployment, defense
- SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
  God forbid we get healthier as a nation and help those less fortunate than us at the same time!
puttyaccount 11y ago
why introduce a financial penalty on sugar consumption itself if it is not a major factor in rising obesity and other health problems?
7952 11y ago
I agree that this would be a good use of new funds. But perhaps a deeper problem is that these areas are so underfunded as it is. We treat road transport as "essential infrastructure" whilst provision for healthy options are treated as an expensive luxury.
mseebach 11y ago
Public transport isn't a "healthy travel option". This just goes to support the worry of another commenter that this will just go into the general taxation pool to support various programs that may or may not have anything to do with sugar and/or health.
- lmm 11y ago
  Public transport usually involves a short walk to a stop, making it a healthier option than private cars.
- arvidj 11y ago
  While what you say is true, taking public transport makes people move around more: going to/from the bus-stop, changing at connections, standing up in the metro instead of sitting etc. Here is a study on this subject: http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4887 http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4887 Its conclusion: "Men and women who commuted to work by active and public modes of transport had significantly lower BMI and percentage body fat than their counterparts who used private transport."
- awjr 11y ago
  Public transport is recognised as a "healthy" travel option as it contains a walking/cycling element. If it replaces your car use, then it also impacts pollution/congestion.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jvdh 11y ago

Do you have link to evidence to backup that claim? In my view sugar has been used more and more as an extra ingredient in other foods. Additionally, there are different kinds of sugar, which may influence your statistic: http://thatsugarfilm.com/blog/2015/03/16/added-sugar-vs-natural-sugar/ http://thatsugarfilm.com/blog/2015/03/16/added-sugar-vs-natu... I thoroughly recommend watching That Sugar Film.

sdoering 11y ago

Could you provide sources? I am interested in this topic and would love to read more then just a stated "fact" as an answer to missing "evidence".

puttyaccount 11y ago
See "Household food expenditure and consumption and nutrient intake – 1974-2000" on the following page: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130103014432/http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/food/familyfood/nationalfoodsurvey/ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130103014432/htt...
- jvdh 11y ago
  The statistic points at an average of 100grams of sugar per person per week in 2000. Considering that a single can of coke already contains 30 grams of sugar, the statistic seems to indicate raw sugar intake, and not added sugar or other sugars.