Coca-Cola and sugar

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for the clarification Bags.

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.

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.

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.

Doh, Coca-Cola, not Pepsi.

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

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.

All taxes are compulsory and take away personal choice! I'd rather not pay VAT for example, or road tax, or TV licence

Type 2 diabetes costs this country £1,000,000 per hour

That's £24,000,000 per day

That's absolutely mind blowing!!!

I'm not sure how you work out that a 'sugar tax' would take away our personal choice, NTO. One could argue that a tax on cigarettes and alcohol takes away our personal choice.

I wonder why people see taxing sugar as turning us into a nanny state. It is certainly one way to raise money - straight into the NHS would suit me - and it will not harm anyone if they have to avoid it and eat things containing less sugar. I can't see a problem as we tax petrol, tobacco, alcohol, etc. It might be nice to think that is done for our health but I would think it is just looked at as a source of revenue by the treasury.

From the health point of view I just remember being told all the good things tobacco could do for us

GG please don't agree with me! The won't do my heart any good

.

In the next 20 years sugar will rightly become regarded as a greater risk to public health than salt and fat. The campaign to highlight the truth about the amount of sugar in our food is only really starting to gain some momentum and it will be the biggest battle yet with the powerful food and drinks industry. One of the most serious barriers will be the backlash from the public from being told the current consumption rate of yet another thing is bad for us.

The whole subject of healthy eating needs revisiting so the next generation grows up able to cook healthy meals and is much less reliant on processed food. During the transition, it needs to be treated like smoking, so children learn about it at school and put pressure on parents to change.

Wilma exactly and

Goodness me! This is probably a coincidence and I am not suggesting there is a any connection, but to have someone called Nestle making adverse comments on the business practices of Coca Cola, sounded a bit like pots calling kettles black. As Thatbags was thinking.

Perhaps a lot of the more "old money" government members have inherited from, or invested their money into the sugar industry. Even back into the days of slavery. That could explain them not wanting to tax sugar. Or that some of those in the industry are current government donors.

I think it's the straight unrefined sugars that have the worst effect on health. I think it's something to do with the different ways the body metabolises the sugars. Corn syrups are particularly bad.

mamie I am a Malcolm Kendrick fan

"Personal choice" is used to oppose the suggestion that foods and drinks with high sugar content should attract higher tax. Do those who feel it is unfair to apply high taxes to unhealthy products extend the same rationale to cigarettes and alcohol? The tax on cigarettes is enormous and yet I believe few non-smokers - or even smokers themselves - think it is unfair to tax this particular "personal choice".

Doctors say that obesity is now posing almost as much risk to health as smoking and that sugary drinks and foods containing high levels of sugar are the main causes of dental decay and obesity. It has been acknowledged that, whilst exercise is important, it can only slightly counteract a diet high in sugar. Given that is the case, in my view, rather than higher taxes being applied, there should be legislation to force manufacturers to cut down on the high levels of sugar, fat and salt in their products. But that is very unlikely to happen so taxes, coupled with an intensive education programme, seem to be the only options.

As to the original point raised by Anya, I think it is appalling that Coca Cola is involved in funding research projects relating to health, obesity, etc. Unfortunately, such conflicts of interest seem to be rife in all areas of research, including, as someone else said, pharmaceuticals. This perhaps explains why we get so many conflicting research reports, which have led to many people distrusting the advice that emanates from them .

I wasn't attempting to agree with you Anna although it is quite possible we share the same view. I bought Sweet Poison some while ago and have been concerned about sugar in our diet for much longer.

crun do you think that people prioritise spending on decent food?

We had limited income when I was growing up and I can still hear my mother's mantra: "rent, food, clothes".

'Pure, white and deadly' by John Yudkin, who was the first to raise the issue of the danger of excess sugar in our diet, was first published in1972.

That's 43 years ago, a long time to go relatively ignored.

I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't know that sugar is not a good food and that sugary drinks contribute to obesity and tooth decay. As someone has pointed out, it has been widely known for decades. My parents knew and fed us accordingly in the fifties and sixties.

As for doctors telling us... doctors have health officials have been telling us for decades that animal fat was bad for us. It isn't.