[Closed] The "sugary drinks tax" - right or wrong?

In my mind, would it not be better to spend money on educating people about nutrition from early on at school and later, as opposed to just taxing them?

I agree that there are ridiculous levels of sugar in some of these drinks, but should we not tackle the advertisers who have kids thinking them need Lucozade Sport to finish a 30 minute footy match or the Red Bull/Monster et al who have their athletes chugging gallons of the stuff?

Isn't this like the Alchohol tax in that, the price of a cheap bottle of Vodka goes up 10p yet is still £5 less than a bottle of Smirnoff*?

*Unrealistic example to make a point.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
been seeing versions of this since I was young, education has been there

I'm all for it.

But even with some revervations... it's worth trying, no?

Obesity is a difficult issue to tackle, and there's lots of opinions about what should be done - but we certainly should be doing something (more than just education)

Will it stop people drinking them or just make them poorer? Tax on the poor?

If you want to cut it by taxation then the tax has to be seriously high.

With the news about aspartane (sp) and diet drinks being as bad and if not worse then should these be taxed too?

Pointless from a health point of view, however, it will raise a few extra bob for the government from poor people which can then be given back to the rich in the way of tax breaks on electric cars.

As a recent convert to minimising my carb intake, I'm all for enabling people to avoid refined sugars in drinks.

However, I am very, very against taxation being used as a blunt tool to incentivise behaviour as it invariably penalises the very people it's meant to help. If we were serious about this, we'd legislate to fix the problem.

Tax the shit out of all processed food and drink and use some of the proceeds to subsidise fruit and vegetables and whole foods.

Unless fast food becomes more expensive than a homemade meal with basic ingredients, the world is going to become fatter and more unhealthy.

we've tried *not* taxing sugary drinks, and that hasn't worked.

so let's try it, if that doesn't work, or there are unforseen consequences, we can always scrap it.

we've tried *not* taxing sugary drinks, and that hasn't worked.

It's my personal opinion, I do have an issue with taxation being used to influence social behaviour but it's undeniable that it works in the same way that using a sledgehammer will crack a walnut.

But I do agree that [i]something[/i] needs to be done. My own suggestion would be to tax the screaming bejesus out of the corporations marketing the stuff. I suppose, I want to see the proverbial peddlers taxed heavily as well as the end consumer.

Pointless from a health point of view, however, it will raise a few extra bob for the government from poor people which can then be given back to the rich in the way of tax breaks on electric cars.

This kinds of sums up my feelings on this.

However, as before we do need to do something.

As with a lot of government interventions the tax would simply mean that ,rather than eradicating sugary drinks they will simply profit from its purchase as they did with taxing units of alchohol.Yes we need education, but we also need to bring the food industry to heel,to make them accountable for information about sugar,and sugar substitutes and other issues in the same way that the tobacco industry was curtailed .

I'm also the father of a 7 year Type 1 diabetic daughter, so i keep her alive with sugary products sometimes.

Over the course of a year how much extra do you expect it to cost you to keep her alive ?

My other issue is that sugary drinks in themselves don't make people fat and taxing on single point issues usually result in behaviour change that is turns out to be negative as well. Two obvious examples are:

1) The incentivisation of deisel cars over petrol and the air quality problems that have now resulted.

2) The obsession with fat in food, that resulted in fat levels falling at the expense of increased amounts of sugar.

The world is far more complicated and better solutions need to be found, and we should not apply bad ones just because of some PR savvy focus group.

The NHS foots the bill at the end of the day so I see no problem in raising money from the things that cost the NHS money (like they do with cigarettes and alcohol)

Even if you don't eliminate the problem, it does at least mean people who choose to live healthily aren't funding those who don't.

been seeing versions of this since I was young, education has been there

The obsession with fat in food, that resulted in fat levels falling at the expense of increased amounts of sugar.

Is that the governments fault?

The world is far more complicated and better solutions need to be found,

When we find them we can stop the sugar tax and use the "better solutions".

Something has to change in the diets of people in this country, However I feel it's too late. There's too much information at everyone's fingertips, folk can justify the shite they eat by reading some dung on the internet.

The time to change has passed, unfortunately.

Over the course of a year how much extra do you expect it to cost you to keep her alive ?

I'm a stepfather to a teenage boy with Type 1. I'm sure that it's common knowledge but good control of Type 1 is down to a fine balancing act between insulin dosage and fast acting carbs, unfortunately due to the very nature of diabetes, you're always having to be reactive and responsive.

To answer the question fully, a single mixer can of cola will generally resolve a hypo, but until you live with someone with Type 1, you'll never fully appreciate how difficult it can be. And you can get through A LOT of mixer cans of cola in treating recurrent hypos.

How about actually just banning drinks with too much sugar in them? Too radical? Government too chummy with Nestle/Coke et al?

I guess they haven't tried it with cigarettes or alcohol so someone must have decided that's a non-starter.

I can't see taxing the companies heavily working, by the laws of shareholders and profits (apparently) they would just pass that extra cost onto the consumer, so same net effect.

Unless fast food becomes more expensive than a homemade meal with basic ingredients, the world is going to become fatter and more unhealthy.

This is the point. It isn't that healthy and organic foods are expensives, but that crap food is cheap. Tax the crap food, supplement the good stuff with the money

would it not be better to spend money on educating people about nutrition from early on at school and later, as opposed to just taxing them?

works with smoking.

It's not an essential item so why is it taxing the poor?

Smoking has dropped dramatically in my lifetime, why is that:
Education (smoking kills adverts)?
Tax increases?
Alternatives (vaping)?
No advertising?
Smoking bad inside public places?
Fashion?
I suspect its a combination of all of them and sugar needs something similar so a sugar tax is part of it. I suspect an advertising bad would be most effective but you have to start somewhere, it took decades to beat the smoking lobbyists, sugar will be the same.

My own suggestion would be to tax the screaming bejesus out of the corporations marketing the stuff. I suppose, I want to see the proverbial peddlers taxed heavily as well as the end consumer.

I'm all for it. A few points here:

1) AIUI the tax limit is quite high - that is to say, many sugary drinks don't contain sufficient sugar to qualify in the first place.

2) It's not "taxing the poor" - I've yet to see anywhere selling sugary drinks at a higher price than sugar-free options.

3) There's absolutely no need for sugar-laden drinks beyond habit. I eschewed sugar-free drinks for years, finally made the decision to switch a couple of years back. Tasted slightly strange at first, after a week it just tasted normal.

4) The problem is at least in part down to stockists. Go to to a smaller petrol station and try to buy a sugar-free drink, often your only option is either Diet Coke or water. And I'm buggered if I'm paying nearly two quid for a 50cl bottle of water. Full-fat versions are still the social default, diet drinks an option. It really should be the other way round.

Tax the crap out it in soft drinks I say, and pass the cost onto the consumer. Offer a VAT cashback for diabetics.

What you are proposing is has the same result but it's much easier to tax an individual than a global corporation. If less people buy their product because of a sugar tax that will hit their profits just the same as some kind of levy on them. Don't forgot that to protect profit they would no doubt put the selling price up if they were to pay a levy.

Oh yes, I am aware that manufacturers would hike prices and pass the cost on, but from a moral standpoint, I want the corporations to suffer the tax on sales and be responsible for collecting and paying the tax. Otherwise, how do we incentive manufacturers to think carefully about the sugar content of drinks?

[edit] Why not simply hike the VAT levied on manufacturers selling sugary drinks - that enabled the tax to be collected at source.

However, I am very, very against taxation being used as a blunt tool to incentivise behaviour as it invariably penalises the very people it's meant to help. If we were serious about this, we'd legislate to fix the problem.

Surely this is different as a glass of tap water costs almost nothing (even if you are metered) but the problem is a glass of corn syrup with some carbon dioxide and lemon flavour also costs almost nothing..... less that a bottle of water

OH used some Morrisons lemonade bottles in the garden as they were the cheapest (9p) plastic bottles she could find, even cheaper than Morrisons water. (They also work as tubeless inflators)

My kid was at a party (specifically a SPORTS party...) where they provided everyone with fizzy drinks... not surprising as it's even cheaper than cordial

Along with sweets at the checkout and other stuff this should IMHO be legislated as it's really trying to exploit kids who want "what the other kids get"

The point in this is I don't really mind him having a sugary drink on occasion but that is completely different to it being a defacto answer to "I'm thirsty"

Devils advocate:

Why, as a healthy, active, fit person, should I have to pay for unhealthy/fat people's life choices? Why should I be punished also the once and a while I enjoy a fizzy drink?

Why not just introduce an overweight tax that comes out of wages/benefits until their doctor signs off that they are in a healthy weight range? The money from the tax goes into the NHS to help support the extra illness overweight people have

Ah, because a fat tax wouldn't get voted in, but a fizzy drinks tax protecting "the children" everyone is for

(Not my views, playing devils advocate!)

Over the course of a year how much extra do you expect it to cost you to keep her alive ?

That's not really the issue (for me, as a type 1 diabetic of 25 years service) it's that all the manufactures are now trying to beat the tax by reducing the amount of sugar in their drinks, lucozade for example now has half the sugar it once did, so if I'm hypoglycaemic, I'm now not as sure how much I need to have (reading the label helps, but I might not be of full mental faculty at the time) in order to sort myself out without going too far the other way

Oh yes, I am aware that manufacturers would hike prices and pass the cost on, but from a moral standpoint, I want the corporations to suffer the tax on sales and be responsible for collecting and paying the tax. Otherwise, how do we incentive manufacturers to think carefully about the sugar content of drinks?

don't have drinks with added sugar so I don't care if they tax it. anything that reduces the populations intake of excess added sugar is a good thing.

as for those that need a quick fix due to diabetes, its not going to break the bank is it. If its going to be that big a deal make your own sugary drink for emergency's

As if on topic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08n2ltq

I believe this fella knows about this sort of thing!

Why, as a healthy, active, fit person, should I have to pay for unhealthy/fat people's life choices? Why should I be punished also the once and a while I enjoy a fizzy drink?

I'm also the father of a 7 year Type 1 diabetic daughter, so i keep her alive with sugary products sometimes.

As Weeksy said, how much extra will it actually cost over a year? If it's a quantifiable figure write to your MP and ask for a rebate to be considered in the next budget? However I bet the figure will end up being less than the cost of the stamps and your time. And it's only on drinks, so there's still cake, sweets, fruit etc for a quick sugar boost.

I suspect the effect will vary between drinks though.
-Budget drinks (Panda pop, Rola Cola, own brands) will go sugar free or add the tax on entirely.
-Big brands (Coke, Pepsi) might not pass the tax on fully or at all as they're afraid of losing market share to any company that doesn't, and instead simply market their diet alternatives heavily to encourage people to switch of their own accord.

I couldn't give a rats ass if the tax applies to sports drinks or not. The number of highly tuned athletes you see at trail centers tells me this is going to be a very small minority problem for people that actually don't have the fuel reserves to make it to the mid-ride cake stop without a camelback full of sugary drink! Infact I'd put money on there being an inverse correlation between fitness and sugar content of their drink!

I'm now not as sure how much I need to have (reading the label helps, but I might not be of full mental faculty at the time)

I don't mean to sound like an arse, but why don't you work it out right now then you know ahead of an emergency? Or mix up your own and carry it with you?

I don't mean to sound like an arse, but why don't you work it out right now then you know ahead of an emergency? Or mix up your own and carry it with you?

Because the goalposts of Type 1 are constantly moving and factors like exercise, illness, stress, etc can be contributing factors. There's no magic quantifiable amount of carb guaranteed to fix a hypo.

Secondly, I challenge anyone to try getting a fizzy drink (or a glucotab for that matter) into a hypoglycaemic child who is beyond the point of coherent reasoning.

[url= https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Complications/Hypos-Hypers/ ]NHS[/url]

[url= https://jdrf.org.uk/living-with-type-1/ ]From the JDRF[/url]

As you will see, there's no guaranteed, one-size-fits-all approach.

@Cougar

To add to the above, there's a veritable army of Type 1 sufferers who post regularly on here, some of whom have managed to balance their condition with endurance cycling events. This is down to some very fine blood sugar management and experience from decades of living with the condition. It's well worth reading through the threads, some of these guys are absolutely superhuman IMHO.

Make the healthy choice the easy choice - that's my idea of health promotion.

Right now the healthy option is definitely not the easiest choice.

This tax would be making a positive step towards that - but it should never been seen in isolation. It should be along with other fast food taxes, education, reducing price of healthier food, promoting exercise, reducing stress in society etc etc.

I sat in the airport in Lanzarote and marvelled at how many overweight people there were in there. Many nationalities but the highest quota of fatties were unfortunately brits.
I then went and had a burger king with a coke. I'd also had quite a lot of beer on holiday and a few breakfast omelettes. I also ate a lot of fruit and moaned that it wasn't this cheap in Morrison's back at home.
Do you know what else I did while I was there? Played tennis twice and ran up a ****ing ex volcano 3 times.
Boils my piss that once again nanny ****ing state shit is gonna cost me and my family more because fat useless ****ers can't stick by the simple mantra of
EAT LESS MOVE MORE!!!!!

In my mind, would it not be better to spend money on educating people about nutrition from early on at school and later, as opposed to just taxing them?

If you look at the data on alcohol consumption amongst the youth, the role of education is pretty much negligible

If you look at the data on alcohol consumption amongst the youth, the role of education is pretty much negligible

I'm not sure it's negligible, rather it just didn't turn out as planned/expected...
The "units per week" type advertising seems to have been understood as a save it all up and get bladdered on a binge message...

I'm against, not because I don't think some people give their children to many sugary drinks ( adults can drink whatever they want, their choice) but because it won't make a blind bit if difference. Figures I've hears are 6-8p on a normal can. Shops around me sell branded drinks for between 55-95p a can, cheap stuff as low as 25p. Prices go up all the time, so drinks go up a bit, they won't be unaffordable.

There's no magic quantifiable amount of carb guaranteed to fix a hypo.

Ah, right. But that doesn't affect your knowing or not knowing what you're carrying, surely?

I can't imagine what it must be like to live with, I was just thinking forewarned, forearmed and all that.

Why not just introduce an overweight tax that comes out of wages/benefits until their doctor signs off that they are in a healthy weight range? The money from the tax goes into the NHS to help support the extra illness overweight people have

How to you go about applying a test here? My work mate sat next to me is 9 stone, his basic food groups are Stella and kebabs, i am 16 stone, ex paratrooper, played rugby for Saracens and can cycle 300 miles in 19 hours? Which one of us is to be defined as unhealthy in a "fat tax"?

Ah, right. But that doesn't affect your knowing or not knowing what you're carrying, surely?

I can't imagine what it must be like to live with, I was just thinking forewarned, forearmed and all that.

The issue is that when you have to count and know every single gram of carbohydrate that you are taking in as a Type 1 and the insulin to offset that, so drinks such as Lucozade were "staples" many T1 sufferers would be able to tell you the exact carb content without having to review to the many books/apps/ packaging that they have to use, with all of these changing now, then this is difficult.

Also when my daughter is suffering a hypo, as abovem it is very difficult to actually get her to drink, eat or swallow a gel, she can become obstructive, her thought cloudy, argumentative, shaky etc.. it is about getting simple carbs into her as quickly as possible to bring her blood glucose up, no- or low-glucose drinks are no good to me.

I know that there are still the jelly bean/ jelly baby/ dextrose tabs alternatives to drinks, but how long before they are taxed also.

My point being why single one thing out, obesity and diet needs to be tackled as a whole with education and scare tactics from young.

Edit. 😀

Where diet crosses into social economics I like to quote Mr Blair:

The [unemployed] miner’s family spend only tenpence a week on green vegetables and tenpence half-penny on milk (remember that one of them is a child less than three years old), and nothing on fruit; but they spend one and nine on sugar ([b]about eight pounds of sugar (!!!!!!)[/b], that is) and a shilling on tea. The half-crown spent on meat might represent a small joint and the materials for a stew; probably as often as not it would represent four or five tins of bully beef. The basis of their diet, therefore, is white bread and margarine, corned beef, sugared tea, and potatoes — an appalling diet. Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn’t. Here the tendency of which I spoke at the end of the last chapter comes into play. When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don’t want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit ‘tasty’. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you. Let’s have three pennorth of chips! Run out and buy us a twopenny ice-cream! Put the kettle on and we’ll all have a nice cup of tea! That is how your mind works when you are at the P.A.C. level. White bread-and-marg and sugared tea don’t nourish you to any extent, but they are nicer (at least most people think so) than brown bread-and-dripping and cold water. Unemployment is an endless misery that has got to be constantly palliated, and especially with tea, the English-man’s opium. A cup of tea or even an aspirin is much better as a temporary stimulant than a crust of brown bread.

and of course Gideon 🙂
[img] [/img]

How to you go about applying a test here? My work mate sat next to me is 9 stone, his basic food groups are Stella and kebabs, i am 16 stone, ex paratrooper, played rugby for Saracens and can cycle 300 miles in 19 hours? Which one of us is to be defined as unhealthy in a "fat tax"?

There's quite a bit of difference between 16 stone of muscle and 16 stone of pure bodyfat. That would be evident to anyone, I would of hoped.

But you'd work it out on bodyfat percentage, not simply total weight.

/devilsadvocate

Devil's advocating aside,

My point being why single one thing out, obesity and diet needs to be tackled as a whole with education and scare tactics from young.

This is really what I agree with.

@wrightyson...Interesting you have a shout at people calling them stupid.

But you'd work it out on bodyfat percentage, not simply total weight.

But is it not the case that "belly fat" is the most harmful, it is fat stored around the organs? Are we going to DEXA scan (think that's the correct one), i know a lot of really unhealthy skinny people. Again, i suppose i'm playing Devils Advocate now!

It won't make a difference. Tax on fags is massive, and people still buy 'em.

'm not fat though. Just lucky?
Are you stupid or fat or both?
I'm well aware of how the human body works. Fat people are usually fat because they eat too much, am I right? I appreciate some people may have a "medical condition"
Even stupid people must know that eating mcd's a lot will make you a bit portly.
I could be less fat I suppose if I didn't drink beer and didn't have the odd Greggs, but hey if I can manage it whilst being stupid and not knowing how the body works surely others can?
I edit for clarity.
EAT LESS MOVE MORE READ A NUTRITUON BOOK.

Whilst the Government imposing the "sugar tax" is one that has reduced PE in school and sold off many a playing field?

How much misinformation is still quoted every day though, few examples i still hear all the time:
- Eggs are bad for you.
- You should eat 5 a-day fruit and veg (you should a lot more than this, Government scheme just came up with an easy number of the fools to remember)
- You should drink 2 litres of water a day, i went for a Nuffield Gym assessment where this was quoted to me still just last week, it was lost on her that you could drink tea/squash/juice and be perfectly well hydrated, according to her it had to be water to hydrate you!

wrightyson - being an arsehole to people doesn't help. I suppose you'd also tell junkies to stop injecting drugs or depressed people to cheer up? Or serial killers to stop murdering people?

The issue is that when you have to count and know every single gram of carbohydrate that you are taking in as a Type 1 and the insulin to offset that, so drinks such as Lucozade were "staples" many T1 sufferers would be able to tell you the exact carb content without having to review to the many books/apps/ packaging that they have to use, with all of these changing now, then this is difficult.

Right, that makes sense. Moving goalposts.

My point being why single one thing out, obesity and diet needs to be tackled as a whole with education and scare tactics from young.

Oh, absolutely. That doesn't make doing a small thing inherently bad though, just that it's a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things.

Are we going to DEXA scan (think that's the correct one)

DEXA is bone density (might do other things as well I suppose?)

- You should eat 5 a-day fruit and veg (you should a lot more than this, Government scheme just came up with an easy number of the fools to remember)

I've done that today. I've had three peas, a grape and a raspberry.

- You should drink 2 litres of water a day, i went for a Nuffield Gym assessment where this was quoted to me still just last week,

Quite. It also includes water from food, not solely from drinks.

(diabetic of 30 years) This hypo argument is a red herring. Sugary drinks are a convenient way to treat a hypo and easily available, but there's plenty of other ways- dextrose tablets are more portable, add sugar to a drink if you're at home (they use to recomend glucose powder in water over sugary drinks), energy gels are actually pretty ace for it and easier to get into a really hypo diabetic (after all that's all hypostop is). Jelly babies or sugar cubes.

And 24p per litre is a big percentage but a small absolute, well within the price variation you get naturally.

I'm not sure it's going to [i]work[/i] but it's not going to stop people looking after their diabetes. Even in extremes- like an AS diabetic that mgiht refuse anything but the "right" treatment- it's not that big a deal.

Im not being an arsehole, I was responding to a swiftly edited post having a go. I've put half a stone on since October due to eating rubbish at work once my office was taken away so eating in the van, no fridge or microwave etc. But I intend to hammer that back off via the means I stated.

It won't make a difference. Tax on fags is massive, and people still buy 'em.

A lot less people do ... some quit, others died [b]and others didn't start[/b].

The point of this is not to make die-hards (ironic) quit but to stop it becoming normal to drink a sugary drink for kids whenever they are thirsty.

Re the serial killers, I'd send them a link to loddriks thread ftom yesterday.

molgrips - Member

It won't make a difference. Tax on fags is massive, and people still buy 'em.

morons?

mainly morons, but comfortingly there is evidence there are fewer morons than there were cigarette smokers to begin with...

http://www.thejournal.ie/tobacco-excise-cigarette-tax-ireland-2370102-Oct2015/

pretty graphs from Irish study.
[img] http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/2373554/original/?width=630&version=2373554 [/img]
[img] http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/2371997/original/?width=630&version=2371997 [/img]

and now the bad news
[img] http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/2378859/original/?width=630&version=2378859 [/img]

So I guess we will soon see hooky black market full sugar Pepsi and Lucozade being smuggled across the channel before the border closes post brexit.

But that's OK, because the Irish are lining up to lend a hand 😀

http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-means-good-news-for-irish-smugglers/

Instead of taxing sugar drinks they should ban the advertising of them along with sponsership of sporting events etc.

Unless fast food becomes more expensive than a homemade meal with basic ingredients, the world is going to become fatter and more unhealthy.

My Big Mac meal this lunchtime cost more than the spaghetti bol I made from scratch for me and the kids last night though

Why not just introduce an overweight tax that comes out of wages/benefits until their doctor signs off that they are in a healthy weight range? The money from the tax goes into the NHS to help support the extra illness overweight people have

Define a healthy weight range for me? I know a few people of larger stature and some of them are extremely flt. Vice versa for some skinny folk. I'm built like a racing snake, but my fitness is hideous at the moment.

I know you said you were playing devils advocate, but fat tax, really? That's a daft thing to say.

Forcing food companies to tow the line is an equally silly, but better idea.

Edit - just read your follow up post so ignore the above

Why not just introduce an overweight tax that comes out of wages/benefits until their doctor signs off that they are in a healthy weight range?

I'm officially underweight, are you going to tax me til I eat more pies?

I'm officially underweight, are you going to tax me til I eat more pies?

You shall be given Gregg's vouchers

as Mr Orwell and revs allude to, its not necessarily about the price of food.

Fresh veg and fruit is not particularly expensive and we can all put our Guardianista hats on and say we can cook balanced, freshly made food at home for <£1 a head.

I'd suggest at least three reasons that this doesnt happen in all households are
1) time. With so many more households having two full-time workers the time to plan, prepare or even have the energy to contemplate, cooking from scratch is just not there.

2) skill. Many of us Im sure have been fortunate to have been taught how to cook by our parents. Many others havent.

3) The Orwell factor. By the time youve got to the end of a day, simple, cheap, tasty carb'n'fat'n'flavour goo is the little pleasure.

Tax it to the sky. Its a tax on stupidity if nothing and thats fair enough.

Enlighten me as to why it's a tax on stupidity? Badly educated and stupidity are two very different things.

Oh and you missed the else after nothing and the apostrophe on it's and that's . I'd tax you for that on account of it being silly 😉

I'm built like a racing snake, but my fitness is hideous at the moment.

Likewise.

2) skill. Many of us Im sure have been fortunate to have been taught how to cook by our parents. Many others havent.

Do they still teach it at school? When I was in secondary school it was bundled into a thing called "general education" where we spent six weeks doing a subject before moving on to a different one (sex education was one of these). In that time I learned how to make chocolate Rice Krispies and that water boils faster in a kettle than it does in a pan in the oven. Cookery was a GCSE option, but it was mostly taken by people who couldn't take Art in case they ate the crayons.

There really needs to be "grown up" as a core subject. I guess what they used to call Home Economics before my time? How to cook, manage bills, use credit cards, be a good parent and I suppose how to Adult generally.

Enlighten me as to why it's a tax on stupidity?

Because you can buy a) something loaded with sugar or b) something near-identical that's not loaded with sugar. "Stupid" is a bit harsh, maybe "ill-informed" is better? Why would you ever buy full-fat Coke when you can get a zero-calorie version of the same thing (unless you're specifically needing a sugar rush / energy spike)?

BTW, fun fact. The guy who worked out how refine sugar (I think, some sort of "discovered sugar" credit anyway) actually killed his wife with it. He was convinced it was the "purest of foods," fed her so much of it that she got really ill, and as she got sicker he decided to feed her on nothing else but sugar.

Simpler times.

Because the two taste vastly different!

Surely we need to figure in all the cancers and weight gain caused by aspartame?

😉

BTW, fun fact. The guy who worked out how refine sugar (I think, some sort of "discovered sugar" credit anyway) actually killed his wife with it.

Was it Mr Kipling?

*files story away for later use

Because the two taste vastly different!

No, they don't. It's just what you're used to, it's a case of adjusting your palette. I hated sweetener-based drinks for years, decided to force myself to change and it took literally a week before it tasted perfectly normal.

It's like cutting sugar out in tea and coffee. I used to have two sugars in tea, gradually weaned myself off it half a teaspoon at a time. Now, sugar in tea tastes absolutely revolting to me. I did the same with coffee but couldn't quite shake that last half-teaspoon, switched to sweetener and didn't notice a difference. I should probably kick it completely, it's one less thing to buy.

Was it Mr Kipling?

*files story away for later use

I can't remember now. I should probably cite a source for that claim in case I'm wrong.

It was on a TV programme when I was younger, I'm 99% sure it was one of Johnny Ball's "Think" outings. He was doing a reenactment sketch, reading from the guy's diary, "I am now feeding her nothing but sugar, the purest of foods."

Yes tax sugary drinks.
Also stop buying drinks in plastic bottles and don't get me started on walking around with a hot drink in a paper cup from costastarbucksmacdonaldsgreggs. All this is littering our countryside, from low life scum who think its ok to sling it out of their car windows.

Make your own drinks in reusable water bottles (I like ratboy even more now) 🙂