330ml cans and 500ml bottles of sugary drinks have clearly had a big price hike and has had the desired effect on me as I don't buy them any more, instead I go for 1.25 - 2 litre bottles that can be bought for in every supermarket, Tesco express, Spar etc etc for nearly 40% Cheaper than a 500ml bottle, who actually thinks these ideas up?

Tories?

Politicians. Say the first thing an advisor whispers into their ear which they think will make them appear to care. What they should say is parents, if your kids are fat, that's your responsibility. Not the government's.

john'sroseyspecs wrote:Politicians. Say the first thing an advisor whispers into their ear which they think will make them appear to care. What they should say is parents, if your kids are fat, that's your responsibility. Not the government's.

The problem is the media will always pin the blame on Governments and they portray it in a way as the public are blaming them. But I agree. I'm over weight because I like beer & cakes not because they didn't tax them more

I just buy juice and put loads of spoons of sugar in saves me a fortune,so much so that I can now afford to pay for my fillings without a Quick Quid loan.

I think it's the fact that juices for instance and cereals are sold as healthy when they have more than the recommended daily amount of sugar in them, a recipe for obesity, diabetes and other life limiting health conditions.

Not the government's fault but time these giant companies are not allowed to profit at their customer's expense.

And certainly advertising targeted at children is clearly wrong.

Children don't do the weekly shop. The word is no! I also like beer and cake

Diabetics cost the NHS more than smokers used to.

It really puzzles me when I see adults guzzling multiple 500ml cans of what I can only describe (from the smell) as liquid Germolene.

It's like when they banned cigarettes in packets of 10.
Now the 10 a day smokers are 20 a day smokers.

john'sroseyspecs wrote:Politicians. Say the first thing an advisor whispers into their ear which they think will make them appear to care. What they should say is parents, if your kids are fat, that's your responsibility. Not the government's.

Until they get diabetes etc and then it is the taxpayers responsibility
Just to cheer you up 20-25% of hospital beds are occupied by people with diabetes.
About 5% of the population have diabetes
Biggest risk for getting diabetes-obesity-duration and amount.

.

Rightfoot wrote:330ml cans and 500ml bottles of sugary drinks have clearly had a big price hike and has had the desired effect on me as I don't buy them any more, instead I go for 1.25 - 2 litre bottles that can be bought for in every supermarket, Tesco express, Spar etc etc for nearly 40% Cheaper than a 500ml bottle, who actually thinks these ideas up?

So you carry a 2 litre bottle of coke around or do you decant it into a smaller bottle? Doesn't it go flat or do you drink so much of it? Do people laugh at you when you tell them you have just upped your consumption of fizzy drink, thinking you're being "clever"?

Coca-Cola don't do their pop in anything bigger than 1.75l anymore do they?

Surgeon is going to ban 2 for 1 pizzas now after a meeting with Jamie Oliver

I think it is important to clarify the term DIABETES here because I sense a little blame on this thread for Diabetics & the cost of it for the taxpayer there are 2 types:
Diabetes Type 1 where sugar,diet,carbohydtrates, etc. is in no way related to the cause of the condition. It is auto-immune condition where the body attacks itself falsely, which causes the pancreas to stop producing insulin therefore manual injections are needed for life.
Diabetes Type 2 is a term for different types of problems related to the pancreas & producing insulin, sometimes the body becomes insulin resistant; sometimes, the insulin producing cells in the pancreas need stimulus to produce insulin; The main cause though is related to food intake and lifestyle and it can be controlled and reversed through diet and lifestyle changes.

The sugar tax is a nonsense, there is sugar in almost all products, or different forms of it, that we eat every day. Processed food has probably got a lot to account for regards obesity and the increase in Type 2 Diabetes. I would imagine that people who eat freshly cooked meals every day, and not prepared,processed,quick,warmed up stuff, or takeaways and fast food, and beer and fizzy pop, won't develop Type 2 Diabetes.

Again, I imagine that the hospitalisations quoted before are about problems associated with Diabetes, which is incredibly vague because basically every function in the body can be harmed by Diabetes and though there should be more responsibility in preventing Type 2 Diabetes by individuals themselves, it is ill-informed to put blame once they have the condition and fill up hospital beds, the condition is a nasty one to live with, and habits are difficult to change.

The difference is what else is in the food we eat beside the sugar, foods that have high fibre along with sugar are ok.

I think of all the drinks containing sugar, milk is the healthiest, as long as you can tolerate the sugar (lactose). This is to do with the fact that lactose is a more complex sugar.

I do wish they renamed Type 2 Diabetes to something else, because it is a completely different condition to Type 1.

Type 2 can be prevented, Type 1 can't.
Type 2 can be treated through diet and lifestyle, Type 1 can't.

Just to cheer you up 20-25% of hospital beds are occupied by people with diabetes.
About 5% of the population have diabetes

For instance, to break those figures down further:

About 5% of the population have diabetes - Type 2 equates for 90% of this figure.
20-25% of hospital beds are occupied by people with diabetes - Type 2 equates for 90% of this figure too.

mdd2 wrote:Until they get diabetes etc and then it is the taxpayers responsibility
Just to cheer you up 20-25% of hospital beds are occupied by people with diabetes.
About 5% of the population have diabetes
Biggest risk for getting diabetes-obesity-duration and amount.

Everybody dies of something, and it's usually expensive when it happens. There may be reasons for the government to try and cut obesity, but cost isn't one of them. Dementia is a condition which disproportionately affects thin people who don't have diabetes - are dementia costs factored into the equations of the cost of obesity?

Damo wrote:It's like when they banned cigarettes in packets of 10.
Now the 10 a day smokers are 20 a day smokers.

Aye.

I was a casual smoker when out at the pub. I'd buy 10 and prolly have 5 or 6 and usually chuck or give the rest away.

Then they got banned and I started buying 20 packs... resulting in, yes, me smoking more of them and what was left at home the next night.

Clever idea eh!

I think we need to get one thing clear here, the sugar tax has nothing whatsoever to do with cutting obesity and making people healthier, it is simply a tax. All governments but particularly the Tories do this kind of thing to raise revenue. The Tories especially always make much of the fact that they are the 'party of low taxation' because all they are concerned with is income tax and, yes, income tax tends to be lower under them than Labour, but the funding for tax cuts has to be got from somewhere, they can't just wave bye bye to hundreds of millions of pounds in revenue so they have to replace it somehow. So along comes the sugar tax, or the increase in cigarette taxation, or alcohol or petrol and then they say it's for health reasons or the environment and people think 'oh well it's for good reasons' and it all goes through smoothly. The biggest tax con ever was in the 80's when Thatcher gave massive tax cuts (mainly to the already wealthy but we all got a cut somehow), then along came the increase in VAT from 8% to 15% with a broadening of the items subject to it. Thatcher said it was giving people more money to spend then they could choose what to spend it on, giving the impression that you could somehow avoid paying the VAT increase by not buying things, but after the changes it was difficult to find anything that wasn't subject to it.

Curbing the use of something by imposing extra costs is wrong on every level and always and in every case punishes the responsible majority to account for the irresponsible. If people have fat kids then they should take care of that problem themselves without imposing 'fines' on the innocent. If kids have rotting teeth it's the parents responsibility not the governments. If people want to kill themselves or make themselves ill due to lifestyle choices it's their responsibility. It just gives the government, any government, the opportunity to use it as a way of raising tax by stealth, and believe me they will grab that opportunity with both hands.

dsr wrote: Dementia is a condition which disproportionately affects thin people who don't have diabetes - are dementia costs factored into the equations of the cost of obesity?

It is true that the results of one survey did indeed suggest that people who were thin in middle age were more likely to develop dementia in later life, although it is contradicted by other studies.
However the most likely reason for thin people being more prone to dementia than those who are overweight, is because statistically they tend to live a lot longer!

Damo wrote:It's like when they banned cigarettes in packets of 10.
Now the 10 a day smokers are 20 a day smokers.

I was a casual smoker, used to smoke at the Turf until they banned (that’s a different argument!) and a few if I was at the pub. When I had to start paying £10 for 20 I gave up.

"Again, I imagine that the hospitalisations quoted before are about problems associated with Diabetes, which is incredibly vague because basically every function in the body can be harmed by Diabetes and though there should be more responsibility in preventing Type 2 Diabetes by individuals themselves, it is ill-informed to put blame once they have the condition and fill up hospital beds, the condition is a nasty one to live with, and habits are difficult to change."

Probably quite a good set of genes to have for insulin resistance and obesity before we were able to guarantee to feed most of the world and certainly to overfeed the developed world. When starvation hits the obese lose weight and survive. Problem is we are seeing an epidemic of obesity as there is no starvation now and with it Type 2 diabetes ad the majority of type 2 diabetics do not lose weight sufficient to lose their diabetes and of course not all would even if they got to a normal healthy weight but many would.
So it is not a blame but just like tobacco we must try and address the whole sale gluttony that gives us the increased weight most of us carry-including me.
It is somewhat ironic that compared with previous centuries the late 20th and 21st has seen one of the diseases of poverty move from undernutrition to overnutrition