Coca-Cola and sugar

In the 50s and 60s thatbags your parents had it easy by comparison to todays parents where sugar is concerned. It came in lumps, granules or obviously sweeten food - a cake in a tea shop, etc.

I have time to cook my food from scratch and can just about afford to do so but money and time poor parents do not. They rely on our trusty food manufacturers who have, over the years, trained our tastes towards more and more sweetening - without telling us just what is in the products in an easy and consistent way.

Those who sit on the moral high ground will find it costs them dearly in the long run. How about attacking those who disguise the huge amount of sugar they use - or are businesses allowed to anything for profit?

I'm all for making food information clear, gg, and my comment wasn't attacking anyone, just remarking that I don't see how it's possible that people exist, at least in Britain, who aren't aware that an excess of sugar isn't a good thing. You seem to imply thst information isn't available. How come I know what I know from reading food packets then?

How come I know that one needs to be careful (read the packet) about highly processed food?

The answer to both those questions is that the information about sugar content is there on the packets. It's not difficult to understand.

As regards scientists being funded by groups, any science funding should, as someone has said, be declared in the researchers' work.

thatbags it's not that people don't know what sugar can do, it's that they don't know how much they are eating. Sugar is not an obvious ingredient in a lot of processed food so unless you are reading the labels, you can be consuming far too much. I am sure you know this though and as I said, campaigns are now trying to address the issue.

Anya you're so right about John Yudkin's book. It is now recognised as flagging this up years ago and just as processed food was becoming a regular part of the public's diet. Wise man.

As far as I can see, all the effort to reduce sugar in our diets is down to us. The food and drinks industry is still using sugar to keep the cost of food production low. This needs to change.

I am not sure taxing sugar etc will help, I think people will just pay up because they are addicted. I think there needs to be legislation to make food producers reduce sugar in foods.

From what I understand sugary drinks and snacks are a huge part of the problem. Sugary cereals as well.

I can see why some schools object to lunch boxes packed full of chocolate bars and fruit bars. These are often called healthy just because they are full of fruit nuts and wholegrains ignoring the high sugar content. However there are a lot of concerns about this not being "any of the schools business." maybe that idea needs changing.

The odd biscuit and slice of cake is not a problem but so many savoury foods are now sweetened making our taste buds expect and crave sweet treats. How do we wean a nation off sweet foods?

If the sugar producers are concerned about business they can quite easily turn their sugar into ethanol fuel.

It annoys me that many of the producers of foodstuffs with high calorie content try to fob off the public with the old lie. The obesity crises is caused by people "not taking enough exercise" rather than taking in too many calories in their meals. Portion control? Back to rationing?

That's what I'm saying, wilmak: "unless you read the labels"...

If people don't read labels and accuse government or cocacola of not informing them, all they're doing is blaming someone else and not taking responsibility.

Obviously, if someone is illiterate those remarks don't apply to them but illiteracy rates in the UK are low.

The knowledge that a lot of sugar isn't good for you has been around for generations. If my granny saw me tucking into sweets too enthusiastically she would tell me "You'll get sugar diabetes!" (OK, she was wrong about that, but right about keeping down the sugar) and she wasn't highly educated either.

It's not just sugary food producers who go on about people who don't take enough exercise. That message is another that is wide-spread and available everywhere. People seem to be very into the blame game. Anything but take personal responsibility.

I don't know the answers to these problems. I thoroughly believe that education, education, education is the real answer, including education about consequences of one's choices.

DD1 learned age one (nearly two) that if she went in puddles with shoes on rather than wellies, she'd get wet feet and I didn't want her to cry and complain about it. She would look at me when a puddle choice presented itself and decide whether she wanted wet feet or not. Usually she did. She didn't complain.

Choices involve consequences and forcing on people choices that they really should take responsibility for themselves is not good education.

A question then.

Cigarettes and alcohol are taxed already. Over use/consumption of both of these can seriously damage health. That is accepted..

So what is different about introducing a tax on sugar?

Apparently no difference, anya, except that I'm not yet convinced about the sugar is addictive thing. Which doesn't mean I won't be convinced, just that I'm not convinced yet. Plus I'm not sure the taxes on tobacco and alcohol are having the desired effect. Sure they are bringing in money that can be used for treating people who have problems because of their alcohol or tobacco consumption, but they don't seem to be stopping people who want to drink alcoholic drinks or to smoke from indulging their alcohol or tobacco wants/desires/addictions. I guess that's why I'm not attracted by the idea of a sugar tax: I'm not convinced it would work in the way intended because similar taxes on other products haven't.

I think there is evidence that taxing cigarettes at least has reduced their use especially amongst the young.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

... Coke are also a resource...

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.

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?

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.

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 .

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.