Coca-Cola and sugar

I have and I think it is really shocking although I am not surprised.
And why does Jeremy Hunt not want to publish the sugar tax report?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11925833/Jeremy-Hunt-should-practise-what-he-preaches.html
So many obfuscations and delays whilst people across the world just get fatter and sicker.

I'm not saying I agree with Coca-Cola being allowed to contribute to scientific research where they may have an interest - I don't. But am I right in thinking when any scientific paper has been funded in this way, it has to be stated on the paper?

If I'm wrong, then it should be.

I suppose you could say that any funding into research by the big companies, is a good thing. But it would have to be completely free from any strings. I guess that would not be very likely.

Oh! I can't read that article. The Telegraph's firewall comes down. Grrr!

I don't agree with a sugar tax.

You have shares in Tate and Lyle (sp?) perhaps jingl?

No I haven't!!! Read my post again!

It should be stated Jings, but sometimes you have to dig deep to follow the money.
Here is the Huffington Post version of the same story.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/12/jeremy-hunt-health-sarah-wollaston-sugar-tax_n_8278600.html

Oh - you mean the not agreeing with the sugar tax post?

I think people should make their own choices. Whatever some people think, sugar is a food Empty calories, yes, but it gives energy. It's not the same as tobacco or alcohol.

And why penalise little kids if they want to spend some of their pocket money on a little bag of Haribro?

I don't know how this is different from the many health and clinical conferences I've been to where a doctor or consultant will put up a 'declaration slide' with all the organisations who have funded their work, including pharma companies of course...

'Shoulds' from a Nestle employee? That would be the company that advertised powdered baby milk in areas of the world where people don't have access to clean water, I suppose?

Gotta laugh.

I think politicians can be against a sugar tax even while agreeing that sugar can have a link with obesity. I'm not in favour of a sugar tax though I'm not totally against it either. I'm just unconvinced of its usefulness. Perhaps that is Jermey Hunt's view too.

It has succeeded in cutting the sales of sugary drinks in Mexico, Bags.

Thatbags, Nestle is her name, not her employer.

A problem with taxing high calorie foodstuffs is that it's a tax on exercise as well as obesity, and taxing essentials like food is also regressive.

Interesting, mamie. My next thought was "but we are not Mexico". And number three thought is that if people are stupid enough not to know (or to behave as if they didn't know) even when they've been told a gazillion times that too much sugar is bad for them, well... shrug... they'll have to suffer the consequences.

I suppose I'm arguing against bossy government.

On the other hand, if such taxes raise much needed funds that are used to pay for the treatment of overdosing on sugar, then perhaps I can be persuaded it's a good idea.

I don't think it would have that effect here. And I don't agree with penalising anyone for buying a bit of chocolate, or even a fizzy drink if that's what they want.

The message about obesity should be put out strongly and clearly, and then it's up to the individual.

Ah, thanks, crun, and apologies to Nestle.

I agree about regressive taxation. I think that's my real discomfort about such a tax on sugar.

We can't let our freedoms be chipped away at. Thin end of the wedge.

Hear, hear, jings.

Sugar isn't all that high calorie compared to, say, bacon. I don't think high calorie foods in themselves are a bad thing. It's how much of them you eat from all foods that matters.

But all calories are not the same. How can you compare 300 calories from a drink composed of water, artificial flavouring and sugar with 300 calories from salmon or avocado? Will the first sustain you for as long as the last? Will the nutrients be just as good for your body?

It's because jing likes cake

Jing the message has been put out strongly and clearly, and the individuals keep choosing to burden the state with the cost of their obesity.

The Change4life campaign was in part sponsored by PepsiCo, grubby grubby companies.

Mamie! It's no one else's business! If an individual wants to buy a bag of Lindt choccies, or a can of fizz, good luck to them.

whitewave cake tastes weird to me at the moment. (silent reflux) (Good for weight loss )

crun doctors will have to deal with it with 'tough love" treatment. And genetics can play a role, so the less overweight, or the thin, needn't be too 'holier than thou'.

Mamie 300 calories of cola costs 23p, 300cal of avocado 95p, 300cal of salmon £2.80. A lot of people don't eat healthy foods because they can't afford them.

Jing after any genetic effects have been taken account of, the solution is still the same, eat less move more. (Although I'm not convinced that those two are as directly equivalent as they're always presumed to be.)

I was only comparing straight calorific value of foods, mamie, because high calorie foods were mentioned. I don't regard sugar as a high calorie food compared to bacon or other much more high calorie foods. Sugar has fewer calories per gram than a lot of foods. Of course bacon (and lots of other things) has more nutrients in it than sugar. Most things do.