Coca-Cola and sugar

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ).

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 !

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

I don't think anyone should be denied 'a glass of....' Gilly the way a sugar tax would work in reality is that the increase in cost wouldn't really hit those who just indulged occasionally in the odd can or processed meal.

But it would hit those who 'don't feed their kids properly' far more if by this we mean they put any only cheap junk on the table, for pure convenience.

I don't think people are saying that Gillybob. My grandchildren have treats too. Nobody is talking about banning sugar, but taxing it as we tax alcohol and tobacco. The problem is that for many children these are not rare treats; cheap, fatty, sugary processed food forms a large part of the diet. Yes it is the responsibility of parents to feed their children properly, but the reality for many families is not like that.
The tidal wave of obesity and associated diseases across the globe will overwhelm health services unless something is done quickly. It needs concerted action by governments.
I read today that by (I think) 2025, 80% of Australians will be overweight or obese. This is a global issue. Mexico has had some success with a sugar tax. Why is it so impossible to contemplate?
The cake one was a Gransnet joke!

Interesting article here from The Canberra Times about sugar tax, obesity and nanny-states, "nannies are good for you"....
www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/sugar-tax-inevitable-in-australias-fight-against-obesity-says-public-health-researcher-boyd-swinburn-20151013-gk7ryw.html
France already has a tax on sugary drinks btw.

Look at cigarettes. The people who can least afford to smoke still do so.
Look at alcohol. The people who can least afford to drink still do so.

Why would a sugar tax be any different? Why would taxing it mean that those who should have it in moderation will be quick to change their habits?

I find it incredible that any food (however good or bad it is) should need to be taxed. What is needed is a clear education from the earliest age about the benefits of eating well.

We should also teach children that calories in have a direct link to exercise (calories out).

Exactly gillybob - we need to be educating the next generation now.

There's only a limited gain from campaigns aimed at parents, but every child can be taught about healthy eating. They can see what it looks like during compulsory school dinners which should be provided by the education authorities using current nutritional guidance. Contracting out school dinners to save money sends the wrong message. Local authorities should demonstrate healthy eating on a budget is achievable.

Sort of Gillybob. Diet is actually much more important than exercise in weight loss (80:20 is normally quoted). The food and drink companies encourage the "calories in, calories" out message because people might think that a sugary drink is the same as as a boiled egg "all calories are the same" whereas in fact a sugary drink will increase your appetite instead of filling you up and an egg will keep you going for much longer and put good nutrients into you. All calories are not the same.

Schools are providing education about healthy eating (I don't think the message is quite right but they are doing it). They have been doing it in some form or other for a very long time. And they teach cooking.
Quite agree about school dinners. Here in France they are cheap, delicious and compulsory unless you take your child home.
I don't think there is any money left in the LAs to provide it though.

All calories are the same Mamie as they are all the calorific value of the food/ drink we consume. I agree that some calories have little or no nutritional value though which is different. At a guess I would say that my DGC probably consume a lot more calories than some of their friends. I have never seen a 7 year old eat as much as my grandaughter does. They will all eat almost anything and have a very varied diet. My 2 DGD's are both good little cooks too.

Yes I believe that providing all children with a good, free nutritious meal at school would be an excellent idea but that will probably never happen.

The National Healthy Schools Programme (NHSP) came into being in199.

Impact of NHSP – Healthy Eating

Pupil-level changes linked to healthy eating

• Perceived impact of NHSP on pupil level changes
Four key impacts were identified as a result of changes made by schools in terms of their approach to healthy eating and food provision. These were: the take-up of school lunches; pupil behaviour in school; an increased awareness of nutrition and healthy food choices, and increased healthy eating outside of school. The extent to which a school could have an impact on pupils was influenced by the way changes were introduced and explained to students, the availability and access that pupils had to unhealthy food outside of school, the age of pupils, and the level of parental support and engagement.
• Pupil impact – findings from the multivariate analysis of the pupil survey

Analysis found that within the two year timeframe a school’s engagement in the NHSP did not lead to any significant changes in pupil knowledge, attitudes or behaviour in relation to healthy eating either at primary or secondary level.

Looks like this Labour-funded programme had little or no impact.

1999

My own view is that calories are pretty irrelevant though. Yes they are all the same in calorific value, but surely nutrition and the way they are used by the body are the important bits? No good sticking to 1000 calories a day if it is all in doughnuts and fizzy lemonade, is it?
I am not sure why we are just focusing on children though, important as they are. Type 2 diabetes in adults is a pretty big problem for the health service.

Interesting Anya, I hadn't seen that. I guess it is pretty naive to expect schools to be able to counter the power of advertising by the food industry, isn't it?

I worked with the co-ordinators of the NHSP and my own observations backed made this no surprise. BUT where I did notice an impact were the 'Cookery Clubs' in which parents participated alongside their children.

One in particular run for Dads and child(ren) on a Saturday morning was a great success and they actually published their own recipe book.

However schools have been teaching this for years. I remember being harangued by the mother of one of my Y6 pupils for 'giving her silly ideas' about eating and that her daughter would 'have her carrots and peas on a Sunday as we've always done' !!

Schools can't do this by themselves, unless they gave the interest and backing of parents it will go in one ear and out the other.