The fight against 'Big Sugar' is on

Sugar tax needed, say US experts
How can anyone who proposes something as demonstrably bollocks as a sugar tax refer to themselves as 'experts?

Sugar is as damaging and addictive as alcohol or tobacco and should be regulated, claim US health experts.


It gets worse. These people are total morons yet they get themselves in international newspapers as experts.


According to a University of California team, new policies such as taxes are needed to control soaring consumption of sugar and sweeteners.
Prof Robert Lustig argues in the journal Nature for major shifts in public policy.
I've never understood the arguement for extra taxes. First a single interest group will define a (non) problem. They will then propose that the solution is to make sure poor people can't do it. The means to this end will be to give a hugely wasteful and inefficient government, even more money. One assumes the reason for this is becuase these single issue groups get the bulk of their money from that very same Government. Therefore they are not altruistic champions of public health, they are simply out to make money.
The Food and Drink Federation said "demonising" food was not helpful as the key to health was a balanced diet.
Demonising food is not helpful, but as smokers will now tell you, this is not about health. It never has been. It's about creating a bloated public health industry that is paid for by the taxpayer. It's also about dividing a nation.
Several countries are imposing taxes on unhealthy food; Denmark and Hungary have a tax on saturated fat, while France has approved a tax on soft drinks.
If Denmark, Hungary and France told you to jump in front of a bus, would you do it?

The consumption of sugar has tripled worldwide over the past 50 years, with links to obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes.
'Links to' is not hard evidence that validates serious action. Even if it were, the correct action would not be to beg the Government to impose further restrictions on an already browbeaten nation.

A bit of education would suffice; people could then make thier own choices. One of the principles of a free society is that people get to choose for themselves. Sometimes they will make the wrong choices, yet that's freedom. The most a government should do is not deny people access to the information they need to make choices. They should certainly not be interfering in personal choice.
In a comment in the journal Nature, Prof Lustig, a leading child obesity expert, says governments need to consider major shifts in policy, such as taxes, limiting sales of sweet food and drinks during school hours, or even stopping children from buying them below a certain age.
Imposing taxes and limiting sales will affect everybody, not just the fat kids that you are complaining about. Most people do not overdo it with the sugar. Most peoples sugar intake will do no harm to their health whatsoever, yet you plan to tax everybody and limit their ability to make purchases based on school hours, just to target a minority.

Banning children from buying sweet food and drink is totally wrong. It's up to childrens parents to educate them on healthy eating and decide what they are allowed to eat. Again, most children will enjoy eating some sweet things as part of a more varied diet. Why penalise all because of a few fat whaps. Ahh, but this isn't about health is it.
The professor of paediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, told the BBC: "It [sugar] meets all the criteria for societal intervention that alcohol and tobacco meet."
What criteria? Are you seriously proposing that people only be allowed to buy sugar on a premesis with the correct licence? I dispair! When smokers complained that their denormalisation was the beginning of a slippery slope, we were told that tobacco was a product unique in it's dangers and commercial availability. We were told that the tobacco control template would go no further than tobacco. Now the lie is exposed.
The researchers acknowledge that they face "an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby".
WTF?

Read that again:

"a powerful sugar lobby"

Take sugar in your tea? Well done, you're the new smokers.

4 Comments:

Martin said...

Bucko said...

Anonymous said...

Bucko said...