One of the things that’s really irritated me in the news recently, is the whole kerfuffle about sugar tax, and how adding a sugar tax is going to wipe the floor with our overweight and unhealthy population.
From the tone of my comments, you’ll probably realise that I think that is pure shredded cabbage, rotted in a pile for a month…..
Who will suffer with a sugar tax? Well you can betcha it isn’t going to be the person who is addicted to sugar and who can afford it. Actually, like smoking and drinking, other members of the family tend to have to miss out on other luxuries so the addictive substance can still be sought. It’s by the by that sugar in itself might not even be addicting, but for people who have a craving for something sweet, and the means to get hold of it, it’s not going to stop.
If there was talk of a sugar tax and compulsory education for family purse wielders, to give them good alternatives, I’d be more happy with it. I don’t like the idea of sugar, but I also don’t think it deserves to be demonised the way that it is. Like everything else, it has a place in a balanced diet, if used sensibly.
If we’re going down the route of a sugar tax, why not a saturated fat tax, or a refined wheat tax, or a crappy butter substitute tax, or a chemical additive tax. Actually, why not just tax everything apart from fruit, veg and whole grains, and the nanny state can decide everything we put in our mouths. Then, they’ll have to find the money to fill in for the space left by the lack of incoming tax from all the people who used to work in those industries.
Sugar tax – it’s ridiculous in my opinion. If they’re going to go the route of diabetics and give everyone education on healthy eating, or report it to their doctor, then fair enough, but for heavens sake, they get enough tax from us all already, without upping an additive to food, that for some people might be the only food they can afford that day.
Look at it this way, if someone has a quid in their pocket and four mouths to feed, and on the reduced shelf, there’s a pack of lettuce leaves and tomatoes, and a whopping great trifle, which one are they going to pick? I’m sure I’d take the processed trifle as it would stop crying bairns, but that’s possibly just me.
The ban and tax should be on the MANUFACTURERS…. AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PASS IT ONTO CUSTOMERS.
In that way, they’d be forced to find alternative methods and more healthy ways of adding sweetness or palatability to food.
Soap box over..
Leave sugar alone…
Sheesh, and I’m a diabetic who almost totally avoids sugar where at all possible. The sugar is not the bad guy.
Eat Like You Love Yourself says
December 30, 2015 at 9:52 amI agree and disagree. “The ban and tax should be on the MANUFACTURERS…. AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PASS IT ONTO CUSTOMERS.” Who do you think decides what goes in a product? Not the manufacturers. Most food products are now own branded. Even then, the retailers make what sells.
Personally I am anti legislation. For one there needs to be some personal responsibility and no-one can now claim to be unaware of what is in a product considering how widespread front of pack, colour coded nutritional information now is. Secondly, legislation leads to unintended consequences. For diabetics, artificial sweeteners are a life saver but putting in a sugar tax will encourage their use in other products. Is this what we want? Making our foods more artificial? I don’t.