Coca-Cola and sugar

Nothing wrong with ADVICE - that's not a bad thing and IMO does not make for a nanny state but a sugar tax does - it takes away our personal choice. Granted, it's a conundrum because, as I said above, obesity is a huge drain on NHS resources.

Hey folks, you expect this 'nanny state' to look after you and get you well if you're sick. You expect this 'nanny state' to fund your care in old age if you can afford it. You expect this 'nanny state' to top up your income or oat you a pension don't you?

But god forbid this 'nanny state' might offer some advice that you don't like

Doh, Coca-Cola, not Pepsi.

Sorry, I went off topic a bit there. Yes, it is suspicious that Pepsi and others pay for scientific research which, surprise, surprise, comes out in favour of their product but then, as I've said elsewhere, I'm just an old cynic.

Next time I make DH a cup of tea I'll remember to put a rasher of bacon in and give it a good stir. I've been trying to get him off sugar in tea for years. I agree with those above, taxing sugary stuff makes us even more of a nanny state. Let's make our own decisions. The alternative view, of course, is that obesity costs the NHS a fortune.

PS Who thinks the Bakeoff programme is setting a bad example? Every time I turn on the TV there is a prog about cooking, much of it high calorie which we would do better to avoid. Jamie Oliver should turn his attention to that. After the cooking prog there is often another prog extolling us to give up sugar.

Apart from obesity there is the horrendous dental decay caused by these drinks. The biggest single cause for children up to 11 being admitted to hospital is tooth decay, many require multiple extractions. Perhaps a sugar tax could be used to help to cover the cost of this.

Thanks for the clarification Bags.

I agree with you completely about calories, mamie. My remarks about calories were not about real food value, just neutral observations about what counts, numerically, as a high calorie food.

Crun I wasn't talking about the relative cost of food. Just using that example to point out that all calories are not the same.
I am well aware that poverty is closely linked to the consumption of cheap sugary food. That is a different issue.

Sorry to post another link, but this is an excellent blog from Dr Malcolm Kendrick on the issues around Coca Cola. Really worth a read.
drmalcolmkendrick.org
Bags, I don't really get the whole obsession with counting calories. Different foods act in different ways in the body; no matter what their calorific value, some are much more useful than others. I haven't counted calories at all and still managed sustained weight loss.
I think the whole calories in, calories out allows the manufacturers of sugary and other unhealthy foods to persuade people that lack of exercise causes obesity. I think that exercise is essential for fitness but by no means the most important thing when it comes to weight loss.

I think it is a serious issue if Coca-Cola is trying to hold back research into, for example, the effects of carbohydrates in general and sugar in particular, into the increase in obesity-related diabetes. There is evidence which ought to have been published by now, but has been held back.

It affects all of us given the state of the NHS.

But of course big business seems to be able to put profits before ethics, as illustrated in Mexico for example. And too many politicians have their lobbying snouts in the trough.

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.

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.)

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'.

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

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.

It's because jing likes cake

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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