Heyyyy, it's Pop-TAX-tic

[Jaspa]

Google it yourself and realise that it is perfectly safe except to those suffering fromphenylketonuria the sugar industry has tried to discredit it for years but it has been rigorously tested and is deemed perfectly safe.

Id never even heard of that gdd

Still will avoid, it tastes orrid

[Haydos]

The government needs to fvck of when it comes to health and nutrition.

Why are they taxing soft drinks to give out free fruit which has just as much sugar in as 250ml of coke. Absolute joke yet again. And people will lap it up.

[Haydos]

Why not? As long as the tax money is used to subsidise healthy foods and fruits, one of the problems is that a bag of sweets or a coke is more accessible than an Apple or Orange Juice.

Apple juice and orange juice has more sugar per ml than coke does. It's another con by the government and they're not even being discrete about it.

[davieG]

The government needs to fvck of when it comes to health and nutrition.

Why are they taxing soft drinks to give out free fruit which has just as much sugar in as 250ml of coke. Absolute joke yet again. And people will lap it up.

It's not the government and the sugar in fresh fruit is different to the stuff in soft drinks and reacts with the body in a completely different way.

http://krisspears.com/alternative-medicine/naturopathy/the-difference-between-fruit-sugar-fructose-and-refined-sugar-sucrose/

That's not to say I'm for or against this idea.

[Haydos]

It's not the government and the sugar in fresh fruit is different to the stuff in soft drinks and reacts with the body in a completely different way.

That's not to say I'm for or against this idea.

It's still a joke that they're knocking something sugary, taxing it and then encouraging something even more sugary.

On top of that, taking in too much fructose (Ie. fruit juice sugar) is as much of a problem as the sugars in pop, if not more so.

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/fructosedangers.htm

There's a basic explanation with references at the bottom.

[Finnegan]

Why not? As long as the tax money is used to subsidise healthy foods and fruits, one of the problems is that a bag of sweets or a coke is more accessible than an Apple or Orange Juice.

No it ****ing isn't, grow up and stop perpetuating stupid myths to enable lazy, moronic parenting.

Apples aren't inaccessible, just go in to aldi and buy a bunch for sod all.

People don't prefer chocolate bars to apples because they're easier or cheaper to buy (sixty odd pence for a tiny bleeding creme egg!!) they prefer them because they taste nicer.

I can go in a corner shop and buy a bottle of orange juice for the same price as a bottle of coke, plenty of people don't... because they prefer coke!

People are greedy and lack self control, that's all there is to it.

Less tax on calories for those of responsible enough to enjoy them whilst also burning then off and more kicking your fat **** twelve year old off of FIFA to go and actually kick a ball round the street.

Heart disease has a far higher chance of getting your sprog than the local nonce, that's for sure.

[davieG]

It's still a joke that they're knocking something sugary, taxing it and then encouraging something even more sugary.

On top of that, taking in too much fructose (Ie. fruit juice sugar) is as much of a problem as the sugars in pop, if not more so.

http://lowcarbdiets....tosedangers.htm

There's a basic explanation with references at the bottom.

People are much less likely to over do fruit juice sugars, how much fruit can you eat? But the stuff they have in drinks is in nearly every other 'manufactured' food so you're eating it without being aware and it soon builds up to abnormal levels

[Webbo]

Fruit juice also contains vitamins and minerals, sugar doesn't.

[Haydos]

People are much less likely to over do fruit juice sugars, how much fruit can you eat? But the stuff they have in drinks is in nearly every other 'manufactured' food so you're eating it without being aware and it soon builds up to abnormal levels

It still perpetuates the myth that things like chocolate are bad for you. Your lazy ass and shitty self control is bad for you. Your overeating is bad for you, not a couple of chocolate bars every week. Finners is kinda right imo, it's lazyness, preference and self control.

Chocolate and chips aren't irresistible, people are just fat shits a lot of the time. It's the same with alcohol and booze, people are still going to buy them, it just punishes everyone. Start advertising balanced diets, activity and calorie control. Not taxing every other thing that they decide is 'bad for you'.

[Jon the Hat]

**** off. You don't want your fat little shits drinking coke then stop giving them coke.

Stop using "health" as an excuse for stealth tax on everything, Jesus.

............................................ common sense from a lefty shock!

[Haydos]

No theyre not

Google Aspartane and word up

It's aspartame.

And like too many other things these days it's over-hyped beyond belief. A few glasses of diet soft drink a week aren't going to kill you. But it's the same as anything else. If you're chugging loads of trans fats, sugars or artificially altered stuff it's not going to do you much good.

[Finnegan]

............................................ common sense from a lefty shock!

I have definite Libertarian moments when it comes to issues like this. We all have to pay income tax if we want healthcare and tidy roads and clean streets, etc. I get that, I'm behind that.

But taxing every little pleasure just to make sure we're all milked dry so we can let the super rich or the multi-nationals off from chipping in what they can afford to can go get bollocksed.

[Webbo]

............................................ common sense from a lefty shock!

Shhh. He's slowly coming over to the dark side. Don't spoil it.

[Finnegan]

Shhh. He's slowly coming over to the dark side. Don't spoil it.

Don't worry, there's socialist logic behind it!

[MooseBreath]

Let's just ban all food and drink related problems by allowing a world body to come up with a set menu for the entire world. Would solve all sorts of problems and the only victim will be personal choice.

[Captain...]

No it ****ing isn't, grow up and stop perpetuating stupid myths to enable lazy, moronic parenting.

Apples aren't inaccessible, just go in to aldi and buy a bunch for sod all.

People don't prefer chocolate bars to apples because they're easier or cheaper to buy (sixty odd pence for a tiny bleeding creme egg!!) they prefer them because they taste nicer.

I can go in a corner shop and buy a bottle of orange juice for the same price as a bottle of coke, plenty of people don't... because they prefer coke!

People are greedy and lack self control, that's all there is to it.

Less tax on calories for those of responsible enough to enjoy them whilst also burning then off and more kicking your fat **** twelve year old off of FIFA to go and actually kick a ball round the street.

Heart disease has a far higher chance of getting your sprog than the local nonce, that's for sure.

Is going to Aldi accessible to a kid with pocket money? That is what I mean by accessible, it is not jut about cost, but about having fresh fruit readily available, or fruit juice, Coke pay a lot of money to ensure their products are in as many places and prominently positioned. It is not just about what the kid likes. If you want a cold refreshing drink you have a huge choice of fizzy drinks or a little plastic bottle of Orange Juice or a 1 litre carton, which are not practical, so maybe that should be a priority rather than taxing it, but money talks, and without banning advertising on fizzy drinks or influencing the market in other ways, then, if fizzy drinking/unhealthy eating is costing the NHS lots of money then I don't see any problem in them being used to raise money to compensate for it, otherwise taxes will need to be raised across the board, or cuts made in the nhs or other vital services.

[Captain...]

Let's just ban all food and drink related problems by allowing a world body to come up with a set menu for the entire world. Would solve all sorts of problems and the only victim will be personal choice.

Completely agree with you there Moosey.

[bigbadbaldy]

This is the problem with having an NHS, yes its free to use (directly) but if you create a 'paid for' system and it would make people think twice. The cost of health care is a lot more expensive that the cost of a few bottles of fizzy drink.

[Webbo]

For as long as I can remember there have been health warnings on packets of cigarettes, there were govt campaigns and television programmes telling you that smoking was bad for you but the only thing that made my parents give up smoking was the exorbitant price of fags. Rising prices reduces demand, that's a fact.

[bigbadbaldy]

For as long as I can remember there have been health warnings on packets of cigarettes, there were govt campaigns and television programmes telling you that smoking was bad for you but the only thing that made my parents give up smoking was the exorbitant price of fags. Rising prices reduces demand, that's a fact.

It may be for your parents, but on average this isnt the case.

[Captain...]

It may be for your parents, but on average this isnt the case.

I think the smoking ban has had a greater impact along with banning adverts and not having cigarrettes on display, and that goes back to what I was saying about accessibility, you want someone to stop certain behaviour just raising the price isn't enough, you need to break the habits that we have formed with having a coke as an alternative to a beer, or as a refreshing drink.

[davieG]

It still perpetuates the myth that things like chocolate are bad for you. Your lazy ass and shitty self control is bad for you. Your overeating is bad for you, not a couple of chocolate bars every week. Finners is kinda right imo, it's lazyness, preference and self control.

Chocolate and chips aren't irresistible, people are just fat shits a lot of the time. It's the same with alcohol and booze, people are still going to buy them, it just punishes everyone. Start advertising balanced diets, activity and calorie control. Not taxing every other thing that they decide is 'bad for you'.

Yes but you were saying fruit sugars were as bad as soft drink sugars, they're clearly not. I'm not particularly for this idea like I wasn't for the alcohol one but let's not cloud the issue with irrelevant and misleading justifications.

[AdamN]

This is the problem with having an NHS, yes its free to use (directly) but if you create a 'paid for' system and it would make people think twice. The cost of health care is a lot more expensive that the cost of a few bottles of fizzy drink.

Counter-point: America.

[Haydos]

Yes but you were saying fruit sugars were as bad as soft drink sugars, they're clearly not. I'm not particularly for this idea like I wasn't for the alcohol one but let's not cloud the issue with irrelevant and misleading justifications.

I stand by that. As someone pointed out fruits contain more vitamins and minerals than 'pop' drinks but drinking high amounts of fructose is bad as well.

If someone said they had a glass of coke everyday too many people would say that's unhealthy. If someone said they had two glasses of orange juice every day too many people would say that was healthy. I know it's conjecture but that is the viewpoint of a lot of the public: Fruit = healthy, pop = unhealthy.

[bigbadbaldy]

Counter-point: America.

True.