Coca-Cola and sugar

Also worth bearing in mind that the whole "low-fat" started as a result of now discredited research. There is a huge amount of mounting evidence that the body needs 'good' fat in moderate amounts.
Low-fat foods had sugar or salt added to make them palatable, as Wilma says. Artificial fats were no good for anybody and transfats are now banned.
There are years of misinformation out there to overcome.

Whilst I agree with many of your points Mamie I totally disagree with some others.

I agree with points 1,2,4,5,6 and 7

Disagree with 3,8, 9 and 10

My DGC love food. They always seem to be eating. They are (as I have said before) really fit. No fat whatsoever. Muscles like Popeye from riding, gymnastics, football, rugby, ................

Why should they be denied a glass of coca cola (they don't have it I am just saying) or a packet of sweets just because a family of lazy couch potatoes don't feed their kids properly?

I think it's about being more aware of what we're eating, but the big baddie nowadays is hidden sugar. When the food industry comes under pressure to improve the ingredients, it's very clever.

Reduce the fat = increase the salt

Reduce the salt = add sugar

Reduce the fat and the salt = increase the sugar

Reduce the sugar = increase the salt

That kind of thing. It's smoke and mirror marketing. That's why I support the current traffic light labelling system - it's quick and easy for customers to understand.

I think this has got to be much more widespread than a vague notion about "education".
1. There needs to be a clear message about what constitutes a good diet, without the influence of the food industry and experts of dubious provenance..
2. All information and initiatives in schools and elsewhere should be free from the sponsorship and influence of the above.
3. Supermarkets need to act responsibly.
4. There is no point in educating children if they have to go home and eat unhealthy food for years before they can put anything into practice. That is too late. There is a massive and complex issue related to poverty, lack of skills and illiteracy associated with this.
5. Eat real food should be a strong and consistent message. No need to read the labels on fresh food.
6. School meals should be cheap, well-cooked, nutritious and available to all.
7. Cookery skills should continue to be taught (my Year 7 GD is making spag bol today).
8. A sugar tax should be considered as part of a consistent strategy.
9. Governments should take responsibility for these strategies and their implementation.
10. People should stop banging on about their unassailable right to eat cake. That is not what this is about.

OOps crossed again Wilma we have to stop meeting like this.

Its not all about sugar though Wilma is it? What about the amount of fat?

I think children should be taught from an early age that a little bit of everything is good for you but a huge amount of anything is not.

My DGC enjoy a few sweeties now and again, (actually they prefer a bag of crisps or a piece of cheese) and they are all super healthy, super fit and very active. I have seen more fat on a butchers pencil !

gillybob we cross posted (I'm a slow typist).

Yes, we were just saying educating the next generation is the way forward (I feel like it's Groundhog Day ).

My post yesterday morning was about the hidden sugar in processed food. It's easy to count the sugar in your tea or coffee, but as thatbags and I had said, unless you read the food information you will not realise how much sugar you are eating.

Perhaps some posters didn't have time to read yesterday's posts, but the discussion had moved on from the hidden sugar to how to get people to take more notice of what they're eating - at least that's what I thought we were talking about

I totally agree with you jings There should not be a sugar tax. More education about food and calories in schools should be the way forward.

What about a potato tax, a biscuit tax, a curry tax a fish and chip tax, a pizza tax, pie tax ....... all of those things lead to obesity if eaten in excess.

Incidentally those last example were made up amounts, I've no idea unless I read the labels.

But THIS is a really interesting little pictorial link which does show natural and hidden sugars.

Very true JessM

As a follow up to Eloethan's post re the quantity of hidden sugars, two more points. Some labels say how much carbohydrates, of which sugars, per 100g. The better ones also state per serving.

And how many people know what 100g of pizza or 100ml of fuzzy drink actually looks like.

I know people who glance at the former without realising they may be consuming more like 250ml of a drink so ought to be multiplying by 2.5.

Also, what is described as a 'serving' may well be considered a very small portion by some, and their serving may be double the size. Many pizzas, for example, consider a 1/4 pizza a serving, my BiL (of tax dodging fame and considerable girth) will eat a whole pizza at one go.,

Perhaps using a 'teaspoon' as a measure would help e.g. This can of Coke contains 10 teaspoons of sugar or this whole pizza contains 20 teaspoons of sugar.

Good post Eleothan - Sugar is hidden in so many places, like this product as an example:
groceries.asda.com/product/burgers-meatballs-bbq/asda-butchers-selection-sweet-bbq-pulled-pork/910001024327
(A meat dish containing 4 heaped teaspoonfuls of sugar per serving.) The similar one I looked at in ASDA the other day was even higher.

I think we now understand that our ancestors evolved in an environment in which consumption of very sweet food was a very rare treat. Honey is not easily come by. Many of the fruits we eat today have been bred to be far, far sweeter than their wild equivalent.
When they did find something sweet it was a chance to get some valuable extra calories, and get them fast. Their lifestyles were also incredibly active compared to ours - hunting or gathering for hours a day along with a lot of other physical activity to keep body and soul together.
So our brains have evolved with a built-in programme to stuff sugar down whenever when we get the chance.

All the medical help for smokers , to wean them off tobacco , yet where is the help for people wishing to come off sugar for medical reasons such as pre diabetes . Its addictive and a drug , just like tobacco .

Much of the sugar that is eaten is "hidden" in processed food. Apparently the guidelines say that 12 tsps. per day is the maximum amount of sugar that should be consumed. A can of soft drink could contain up to 10 tsp of sugar but by now more people are perhaps aware of that fact.

However, considerable amounts of sugar can also be found in foods which I guess many people would consider to be fairly OK healthwise: fruit juices, smoothies, tomato sauce, ketchup, yoghurt, breakfast cereals, tinned vegetables, pizza, frozen meals, nutrition bars - and the list goes on.

thatbags An OECD study found that England is 22nd out of 24 countries for literacy. About 1 in 7 of the working population has below-functional levels of literacy. You appear to be very knowledgeable about scientific matters and a lot of other things besides but I'm not sure that the majority of the population is as knowledgeable as you - I wasn't aware until recently that there is, I think, the equivalent of 10 tsps of sugar in a can of Old Jamaica Ginger Beer or that many pizzas contain several teaspoons of sugar. Do we just say, hard luck but if people are not very bright or well educated that's their lookout? Surely governments have a duty to ensure that food manufacturers do not stuff their products with large amounts of unhealthy ingredients? If adults do not have the ability to read or analyse ingredients lists it means that they and their children are more likely to suffer ill health.

I think we all know right from a young age that sugar is bad for us, so why do so many of us eat so much of the stuff?

Good post, wilmak, and I think we are basically in agreement. There are no easy answers and changing attitudes and behaviour takes a long time.

So long as real scientific research is taking place, the truth will out eventually, however much fudging is engaged in along the way by people trying to promote this or that product.

I've just asked Minibags if she would say that everyone in her class (secondary school) knows that an excess of sugar is bad for them. Her completely unhestitant answer: yes.

... Coke are also a resource...

PS Companies have been using research as a PR method for as long as I can remember. I attend a research clinic for chest problems and it is approached on a regular basis about potential research projects, often involving other prestigious research partners.
Companies like Coke also a resource for funding research, so it is all quite insidious.

thatbags I think we're in agreement that the way forward is through education. Unless people are willing to listen, that's easier said than done though. Most parents think they're doing their best to bring up their children and some are doing a better job than others when it comes to feeding their family a healthy diet. I don't think it would be helpful to label some as bad parents though (not saying you are doing this btw).

Children can and do change the behaviour of parents - smoking is the best example of this. The current traffic light system labelling on food for making healthy choices is perfect for involving children, including through 'pester power', putting pressure on parents - and vice versa of course. The use of colour in education is a long established teaching method, so the traffic light system lends itself to working well in schools.

Incidentally some of the big supermarkets had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the current traffic light food labelling system. But even though it gives shoppers easy access to nutritional information without having to turn over the packaging and read the small print nutritional information, I think people are still making choices based on price and convenience. It's this behaviour which is hard to change and I don't believe a sugar tax is the way forward.

Educating the next generation is the key and children must be taught good eat habits at school. Teaching children should be the foundation, so that they are less reliant on processed foods than the previous generation.

I think all children should have school dinners and only healthy choices should be offered. In the same way as old school dinners were basically meat, potatoes and two veg, the choices available to children should instill in them from an early age what comprises healthy choices. The reduction of children having school dinners goes hand in hand with the increase in childhood obesity and children bringing packed lunches the school. And of course, contracting out the school dinner service was always going to be more about money than health or quality. Yes, many will say this panders to the the Nanny State but if we're serious about tackling the problem, drastic action is needed. I don't think a sugar tax is part of the solution.

Sorry for such a long post.

I am interested to know if you read the Malcolm Kendrick link though Bags. I was aware of hidden funding but the extent of it described in the blog shocked me.

thatbags, cigarettes in Switzerland are much much cheaper than in the UK, due to low tax on them- young people in Switzerland smoke much more than currently in the UK- so the link between cost seems clear to me- education is very important too of course.

Plus, I have known about this problem of 'hidden' or disguised funding for years. I'm sure most people who read scientific papers are aware of it too. If they are not, they should be.

It is well known that a great deal of scientific research is funded by groups with an 'agenda' of their own.

I think one can trace funding if one really wants to, mamie. Some organisations that proclaim their 'green' credentials have funds from "Big Oil", for instance. It doesn't seem to compromise their campaigning except that they accuse others of being funded by "Big Oil" when they have no evidence of that, because there isn't any.

Yes, I am very cynical.

Bags if you read the link to the Dr Malcolm Kendrick's blog that I posted on Page 2, you will see that the problem with "experts" declaring their interest is that Company X sets up and funds Institute Y. Institute Y funds expert. Expert then declares that they are funded by Y not X. Lots of interesting examples in the blog.
Gracesgran whilst I accept that healthy eating is much harder on a limited budget, there is no reason to buy sugary drinks. They are more expensive than water. Just cutting those out would make a huge difference.

Quite possibly but I think it more likely that educating young people about the health risks associated with smoking is what has made the difference.