OK that's fair

The latest research? sat fats are butter and cheese most are educated enough to know these are perfectly healthy in moderation.
Processed foods containing hydrogenated fats are I think what create the greatest health risks and personally I would like to see the labelling for these products clearer too.

Right, as I said sugar is a proven risk to health as is smoking and drinking therefor a sliding scale for tax could be implemented to offset the treatment costs?

But is damage caused by foods with sugary content as easily identifiable as the damage caused by smoking and alcohol?

Sugary soft drinks kill 184,000 adults every year, scientists claim.
And there could be a ticking time bomb because those under 45 consume more artificially sweetened drinks and are more at risk of diabetes and obesity.
The worldwide study is the first to estimate deaths and disability from diabetes, heart disease, and cancers caused by the drinks.
It said 133,000 deaths from diabetes, 45,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease and 6,450 deaths from cancer were caused by fizzy drinks, fruit drinks, energy drinks and sweetened ice teas in 2010.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...nd-cancer.html


Non-Alcohol Related Fatty Liver Disease

What is fatty liver?
This is the name given to a condition in which you have too much fat in your liver. There should be little or no fat in a healthy liver and for most people, carrying a small amount of fat in the liver causes no major problems.

Too much fat in your liver is caused by the build-up of fats called triglycerides. These are the most common fats in our bodies, they belong to a group of fatty, waxy substances called lipids, which your body needs for energy and growth. We get triglycerides from our diet. Foods high in fat and sugar contain high amounts of triglycerides. They can also be made in the liver from sugars and proteins.

http://www.britishlivertrust.org.uk/...liver-disease/

Key word for me is "estimate".

Unlike a person whose health deteriorates from excessive smoking or alcohol consumption, there is no way of narrowing down someone's heart problems, weight problems or anything else to.... a soft drink. Unless they literally live on coca cola.

Not to mention, I don't think we've reached the point where anyone diagnosed with cancer can have a "cause" identified outside of hypotheticals.

Even if they could, I don't think taxing will make one iota of difference. No more than tax on alcohol has eradicated alcoholism.

It doesn't estimate the cause...just the numbers :/

Taxing these substances isn't about eradicating anything, it's about attempting to proportion the cost of the cause to the cure.

Yes, why do they need to estimate the numbers? Because those deaths can't be conclusively attributed to.... soft drinks. That would be ridiculous.

And trying to get people to eat/drink less of them or come away from them entirely. Much like the rule of no advertising for cigs or having them out of sight behind the counter.

No not to soft drinks specifically, to sugar... soft drinks contain an inordinate amount of sugar and due to the amounts consumed in the UK it's having an impact on health.
Hence the calls for action from the medical profession...And Jamie Oliver.

Right, but again, many people can have health problems related to the fats and sugars they eat and never touch fizzy pop.

Unlike tobacco or alcohol, "sugar" is not itself a health risk.

How would you tackle that, remove sponsorships of sporting events maybe?

sugar is a health risk in the quantities contained in these drinks.
Of course there will be other causes but this has been found to be a major contributory factor.

Probably.
And hit those adverts, especially the ones that make food appear something that it is not. (I can't remember, weren't they banning certain junk food TV ads?). They've come down hard on the touched up make up adverts, so time to regulate the fast food ones too.

I just feel like clear information and honest advertising is a more direct way of helping people make healthy eating choices and lifestyles. Trying to force it on them is just unsavoury (no pun intended) to me.

Then I can't help feel there are dozens of alternate methods of curbing that risk.

From the advertising and promotion of them as I said above, to doing more research and coming up with some kind of limit on the amount that is legally allowed to be added to these foods and drinks by manufacturers.

Other than that, I think a tax is about as useful as making junk food illegal.

I'd say the manufacturers would probably prefer a tax to removing sponsorship or changing the recipe.

But it's not about what the manufacturers prefer, surely? :laugh:

These doctors and Jamie Oliver are concerned about our health and its strain on our health service. :smug:

The only way i would support this tax is if all the proceeds go to subsidising healthy foods.I.E making them 20% or however much cheaper.

I know, what I'm saying is they won't care about any increase in tax as long as they still have their multi million pound deals.

Why are you posting a laughing and smug faces?

Hopefully the money raised will go to the NHS to help cure all the ailments the excess sugar in some products creates.

Because they are in the box next to the reply box for us to use. :unsure:

Oh right... Bit hard to take you serious when you keep giggling though.
I would never use them myself.....

Good for you. How superior you are on this reality television based forum with Anjelica Huston as a Roald Dahl character in your sig.

How small you make me feel. :unsure:

It was a joke, but without the smiley... It can be done.
Anyhoo back on topic,

'David Cameron is under pressure to reverse his opposition to a sugar tax after ministers published a secret official report that argues a levy of 10-20% is needed to deal with obesity.

The prime minister faced calls to at least consider a tax on high-sugar products after it emerged he had not yet read research by Public Health England – the government’s advisory group – that was controversially delayed by his health secretary, Jeremy Hunt.
Downing Street confirmed the government is looking at other measures recommended in the report, including a crackdown on advertising of sugary products and cut-price promotions of sweet food and drink.

However, Cameron’s spokesman said the prime minister had not changed his view that there are “better ways” than a sugar tax to deal with childhood obesity.

Cameron’s refusal to consider a sugar tax puts him at odds with medical groups, health charities, the Labour party, the campaigning celebrity chef Jamie Oliver and even some Conservative MPs.'

God I really can't stand that Hunt.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...back-sugar-tax

Congratulations?

Thanks Marsh that means a lot.

'There is some who can't see it working.... Cadbury.
Britain’s largest confectionery company has claimed that a levy on sweet food and drinks will not make people overhaul their diets.

Mary Barnard, who heads the UK division of the parent company of Dairy Milk maker Cadbury, said Denmark had abandoned proposals for a sugar tax after consumers circumvented a similar tax on fatty foods by buying butter and ice cream abroad.'

That wouldn't be an issue here as we already have one of the lowest rates of VAT, Denmark is 2nd highest.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...health-england

http://www.retailresearch.org/eurovat.php