There have been a couple of reports in the last few days about imported sweets, one type from America and the other from Dubai.
USA: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr7yjrnj89o#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20products%20from,owned%20by%20US%20firm%20Hershey.
Dubai:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqg3vy9wl3o?at_bbc_team=editorial
Perhaps I'm naive but don't we check these things before allowing their
sale?
There have been a couple of reports in the last few days about imported sweets, one type from America and the other from Dubai.
USA: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr7yjrnj89o#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20products%20from,owned%20by%20US%20firm%20Hershey.
Dubai:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqg3vy9wl3o?at_bbc_team=editorial
Perhaps I'm naive but don't we check these things before allowing their
sale?
On 13/06/2025 10:10 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There have been a couple of reports in the last few days about imported
sweets, one type from America and the other from Dubai.
USA:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr7yjrnj89o#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20products%20from,owned%20by%20US%20firm%20Hershey.
Dubai:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqg3vy9wl3o?at_bbc_team=editorial
Perhaps I'm naive but don't we check these things before allowing their
sale?
The "Jolly Rancher" brand of sweets ("candy") is one of the most
ubiquitous in theUSA. Almost every supermarket (not "Whole Foods",
obviously) has a couple of shelves full.
Is there any report of "altered DNA" or unexplained cancers in the states?
I'm wondering what's brought this up. Is it anything to do with the
recent oft-reported dissatisfaction with "American candy stores"
(suspicion of money laundering)?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/06/2025 10:10 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There have been a couple of reports in the last few days about imported
sweets, one type from America and the other from Dubai.
USA:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr7yjrnj89o#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20products%20from,owned%20by%20US%20firm%20Hershey.
Dubai:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqg3vy9wl3o?at_bbc_team=editorial
Perhaps I'm naive but don't we check these things before allowing their
sale?
The "Jolly Rancher" brand of sweets ("candy") is one of the most
ubiquitous in the USA. Almost every supermarket (not "Whole Foods",
obviously) has a couple of shelves full.
Is there any report of "altered DNA" or unexplained cancers in the states?
Most cancer is "unexplained". The best we can hope for is an estimate of the possible statistical reduction in cases from stopping a given causative influence. Then we need to debate how much the risk of a given food constituent is compared to its utility. Interestingly, we ban saccharin and the US doesn't. If we don't like food regulations they can be changed democratically. In the meantime it seems to make sense to enforce them, if only for commercial fairness.
I'm wondering what's brought this up. Is it anything to do with the
recent oft-reported dissatisfaction with "American candy stores"
(suspicion of money laundering)?
. Interestingly, we ban saccharin and the US doesn't.
On 13 Jun 2025 at 10:47:06 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/06/2025 10:10 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There have been a couple of reports in the last few days about imported
sweets, one type from America and the other from Dubai.
USA:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr7yjrnj89o#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20products%20from,owned%20by%20US%20firm%20Hershey.
Dubai:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqg3vy9wl3o?at_bbc_team=editorial
Perhaps I'm naive but don't we check these things before allowing their
sale?
The "Jolly Rancher" brand of sweets ("candy") is one of the most
ubiquitous in theUSA. Almost every supermarket (not "Whole Foods",
obviously) has a couple of shelves full.
Is there any report of "altered DNA" or unexplained cancers in the states?
Most cancer is "unexplained". The best we can hope for is an estimate of the possible statistical reduction in cases from stopping a given causative influence. Then we need to debate how much the risk of a given food constituent is compared to its utility. Interestingly, we ban saccharin and the US doesn't.
If we don't like food regulations they can be changed
democratically. In the meantime it seems to make sense to enforce them, if only for commercial fairness.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
. Interestingly, we ban saccharin and the US doesn't.
Eh ?
Better not tell Morrisons then.
1000 "Slimmer" calorie free sodium saccharin tablets £1.49
While the "cheap" Hermestas lines are all saccharine based as well.
Only cost 4 times as much.
But before jumping to conclusions, it's only sensible to understand what
the law actually is and be clear what our objections, if any, are.
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb3f0eF5ljmU1@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
But before jumping to conclusions, it's only sensible to understand
what the law actually is and be clear what our objections, if any, are.
I may be naive but I work on the assumption that any food product
offered for sale in the UK is safe to eat.
<https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/are-sweeteners-safe/>
QUOTE:
The truth about sweeteners
Lower or no calorie sweeteners are substances used instead of sugar to sweeten foods and drinks.
They're found in products such as drinks, desserts and ready meals,
cakes, chewing gum and toothpaste.
Sweeteners approved for use in the UK include:
acesulfame K (E950)
aspartame (E951)
erythritol (E968)
saccharin (E954)
sorbitol (E420)
steviol glycosides (E960)
sucralose (E955)
xylitol (E967)
You can find a full list of all food additives, including all
sweeteners, authorised for use in Great Britain on the Food Standards
Agency website.
ENDQUOTE
JNugent wrote:I actual sugar soft drinks haven't been on my list for decades, other
Sweeteners approved for use in the UK include:
acesulfame K (E950)
aspartame (E951)
erythritol (E968)
saccharin (E954)
sorbitol (E420)
steviol glycosides (E960)
sucralose (E955)
xylitol (E967)
Thanks for that list. I'm not convinced that they are all safe, but
what I am fairly sure is that they all taste a bit nasty compared to
sugar.
In message <xn0p718ck3vhrtv00w@news.individual.net>, at 08:28:13 on Sat,
14 Jun 2025, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb3f0eF5ljmU1@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
But before jumping to conclusions, it's only sensible to understand
what the law actually is and be clear what our objections, if any, are.
I may be naive but I work on the assumption that any food product
offered for sale in the UK is safe to eat.
Offered for sale by whom, though? I wouldn't trust half the stuff you
can buy at car-boot sales.
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to prevent children drinking too much of them
I quite like having an occasional glass of fruit squash, but it's got increasingly difficult to find ones free from artificial sweetener.
All I've been able to find recently is grapefruit squash from Messrs Waitrose; not a single brand of orange squash is free from artificial sweetener. No doubt it would be a tiny bit better for me to switch to
tap water but I can't believe that small amount of sugar in the odd
glass of grapefruit squash will do me much harm. So why can't I find naturally-sweetened ones?
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb3f0eF5ljmU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
But before jumping to conclusions, it's only sensible to understand
what the law actually is and be clear what our objections, if any, are.
I may be naive but I work on the assumption that any food product
offered for sale in the UK is safe to eat.
In message <xn0p718ck3vhrtv00w@news.individual.net>, at 08:28:13 on
Sat, 14 Jun 2025, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb3f0eF5ljmU1@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
But before jumping to conclusions, it's only sensible to understand
what the law actually is and be clear what our objections, if any,
are.
I may be naive but I work on the assumption that any food product
offered for sale in the UK is safe to eat.
Offered for sale by whom, though? I wouldn't trust half the stuff you
can buy at car-boot sales.
From the vast range on offer, it's hard to believe they have all beenapproved for sale in the UK.
On 13/06/2025 15:12, JNugent wrote:
<https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/are-sweeteners-safe/>
QUOTE:
The truth about sweeteners
Lower or no calorie sweeteners are substances used instead of sugar to
sweeten foods and drinks.
They're found in products such as drinks, desserts and ready meals,
cakes, chewing gum and toothpaste.
Sweeteners approved for use in the UK include:
acesulfame K (E950)
aspartame (E951)
erythritol (E968)
saccharin (E954)
sorbitol (E420)
steviol glycosides (E960)
sucralose (E955)
xylitol (E967)
You can find a full list of all food additives, including all
sweeteners, authorised for use in Great Britain on the Food Standards
Agency website.
ENDQUOTE
Thanks for that list. I'm not convinced that they are all safe, but
what I am fairly sure is that they all taste a bit nasty compared to sugar.  It's very unfortunate that the drive to reduce fatness in the population has led to so many products being reformulated to use
artificial sweeteners instead of sugar, to the detriment of their taste.
I quite like having an occasional glass of fruit squash, but it's got increasingly difficult to find ones free from artificial sweetener. All
I've been able to find recently is grapefruit squash from Messrs
Waitrose; not a single brand of orange squash is free from artificial sweetener. No doubt it would be a tiny bit better for me to switch to
tap water but I can't believe that small amount of sugar in the odd
glass of grapefruit squash will do me much harm. So why can't I find naturally-sweetened ones?
On 13/06/2025 15:12, JNugent wrote:
<https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/are-sweeteners-safe/>
QUOTE:
The truth about sweeteners
Lower or no calorie sweeteners are substances used instead of sugar to
sweeten foods and drinks.
They're found in products such as drinks, desserts and ready meals,
cakes, chewing gum and toothpaste.
Sweeteners approved for use in the UK include:
acesulfame K (E950)
aspartame (E951)
erythritol (E968)
saccharin (E954)
sorbitol (E420)
steviol glycosides (E960)
sucralose (E955)
xylitol (E967)
You can find a full list of all food additives, including all
sweeteners, authorised for use in Great Britain on the Food Standards
Agency website.
ENDQUOTE
Thanks for that list. I'm not convinced that they are all safe, but
what I am fairly sure is that they all taste a bit nasty compared to
sugar. It's very unfortunate that the drive to reduce fatness in the population has led to so many products being reformulated to use
artificial sweeteners instead of sugar, to the detriment of their taste.
I quite like having an occasional glass of fruit squash, but it's got increasingly difficult to find ones free from artificial sweetener. All
I've been able to find recently is grapefruit squash from Messrs
Waitrose; not a single brand of orange squash is free from artificial sweetener. No doubt it would be a tiny bit better for me to switch to
tap water but I can't believe that small amount of sugar in the odd
glass of grapefruit squash will do me much harm. So why can't I find naturally-sweetened ones?
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to
prevent
children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary version
and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
On 10:20 14 Jun 2025, Roland Perry said:
In message <xn0p718ck3vhrtv00w@news.individual.net>, at 08:28:13 on
Sat, 14 Jun 2025, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb3f0eF5ljmU1@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
But before jumping to conclusions, it's only sensible to understand
what the law actually is and be clear what our objections, if any,
are.
I may be naive but I work on the assumption that any food product
offered for sale in the UK is safe to eat.
Offered for sale by whom, though? I wouldn't trust half the stuff you
can buy at car-boot sales.
One of the larger Asian supermarket, my sister likes to visit has some intriguing but dodgy-looking food products from Pakistan and India.
From the vast range on offer, it's hard to believe they have all beenapproved for sale in the UK.
On 14/06/2025 09:28, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb3f0eF5ljmU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>wrote:
But before jumping to conclusions, it's only sensible to understand what >>>the law actually is and be clear what our objections, if any, are.
I may be naive but I work on the assumption that any food product offered >>for sale in the UK is safe to eat.
Like in it's safe to each horse meat sold as beef?
I think as consumers we really don't have a clue of what we're eating in >processed food.
Statistics do suggest those who consume processed food don't live so long,
so must be bad for you.
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:There's not meant to be anything in it for them; the intention was to
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to
prevent
children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary version
and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary
version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb3f0eF5ljmU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
But before jumping to conclusions, it's only sensible to understand
what the law actually is and be clear what our objections, if any, are.
I may be naive but I work on the assumption that any food product
offered for sale in the UK is safe to eat.
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to
prevent
children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary version
and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary
version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands and the demand
for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
On 14/06/2025 15:06, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to
prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary version >>> and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary
version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
There's not meant to be anything in it for them; the intention was to
make sugary drinks more expensive by adding the tax, not to let them
"average out the tax" between sugary and non-sugary drinks ...
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to
prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary version >>> and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary
version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands and the demand
for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If the two prices are identical then clearly they'd want to sell most of the one that's
cheaper to produce,
On 14/06/2025 03:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to >>>>> prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary version >>>> and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary >>>> version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands and
the demand
for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If the two prices are identical then clearly they'd want to sell most of the >> one that's
cheaper to produce,
That's what I would have thought!
But industrially-produced substances must be cheaper and more reliable
as compared with something that has to be grown, harvested and shipped
in the near-tropics.
On 14 Jun 2025 at 22:12:14 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 03:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to >>>>>> prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary version >>>>> and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary >>>>> version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands and
the demand
for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If the two prices are identical then clearly they'd want to sell most of the
one that's
cheaper to produce,
That's what I would have thought!
But industrially-produced substances must be cheaper and more reliable
as compared with something that has to be grown, harvested and shipped
in the near-tropics.
Or East Anglia!
On 14 Jun 2025 at 22:12:14 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 03:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to >>>>>> prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary version >>>>> and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary >>>>> version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands and
the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If the two prices are identical then clearly they'd want to sell most of the
one that's cheaper to produce,
That's what I would have thought!
But industrially-produced substances must be cheaper and more reliable
as compared with something that has to be grown, harvested and shipped
in the near-tropics.
Or East Anglia!
On 14 Jun 2025 at 22:12:14 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 03:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to >>>>>> prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary version >>>>> and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary >>>>> version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands and
the demand
for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If the two prices are identical then clearly they'd want to sell most of the
one that's
cheaper to produce,
That's what I would have thought!
But industrially-produced substances must be cheaper and more reliable
as compared with something that has to be grown, harvested and shipped
in the near-tropics.
Or East Anglia!
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands
and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
On 14/06/2025 04:09 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
On 14/06/2025 15:06, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to >>>>> prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary
version
and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary >>>> version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
There's not meant to be anything in it for them;Â the intention was to
make sugary drinks more expensive by adding the tax, not to let them
"average out the tax" between sugary and non-sugary drinks ...
What I meant was... why would they do it?
Why not just sell less of the sugary stuff and more of the Coke Zero, etc?
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands
and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
On 14/06/2025 17:51, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 04:09 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
On 14/06/2025 15:06, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to >>>>>> prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary
version
and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary >>>>> version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
There's not meant to be anything in it for them; the intention was to
make sugary drinks more expensive by adding the tax, not to let them
"average out the tax" between sugary and non-sugary drinks ...
What I meant was... why would they do it?
Why not just sell less of the sugary stuff and more of the Coke Zero, etc?
People prefer the "proper" stuff, and don't realise that some of the sweetness is artificial.
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:22:04 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 17:51, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 04:09 PM, Andy Burns wrote:People prefer the "proper" stuff, and don't realise that some of the
On 14/06/2025 15:06, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to >>>>>>> prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary
version
and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary >>>>>> version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
There's not meant to be anything in it for them; the intention was to >>>> make sugary drinks more expensive by adding the tax, not to let them
"average out the tax" between sugary and non-sugary drinks ...
What I meant was... why would they do it?
Why not just sell less of the sugary stuff and more of the Coke Zero, etc? >>
sweetness is artificial.
I have just looked at a can of "original flavour" CocaCola and it does not admit to containing any artificial sweeteners.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:12:38 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
It is a very reasonable question which I don't know the answer to. But given they have large and effective marketing departments I think it is fair to say that there probably is some financial advantage to them in deliberately sabotaging the sugar tax. You may remember the equally complex and devious campaigns that the tobacco companies carried out against anti-tobacco laws.
We can equally be sure that morality or the good of consumers come pretty
low in their aspirations.
On 14/06/2025 17:51, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 04:09 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
On 14/06/2025 15:06, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to >>>>>> prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary
version
and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary >>>>> version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
There's not meant to be anything in it for them; the intention was to
make sugary drinks more expensive by adding the tax, not to let them
"average out the tax" between sugary and non-sugary drinks ...
What I meant was... why would they do it?
Why not just sell less of the sugary stuff and more of the Coke Zero,
etc?
People prefer the "proper" stuff, and don't realise that some of the sweetness is artificial.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:01:01 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands >>> and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
Presumably even if it does not produce the desired differential price it increases the drink companies' costs and reduces the overall consumption of their products. Which may well be a good thing, even if not the desired good thing.
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
On 15/06/2025 12:54 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:22:04 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 14/06/2025 17:51, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 04:09 PM, Andy Burns wrote:People prefer the "proper" stuff, and don't realise that some of the
On 14/06/2025 15:06, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to >>>>>>>> prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary >>>>>>> version
and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary >>>>>>> version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no >>>>>>> incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
There's not meant to be anything in it for them; the intention was to >>>>> make sugary drinks more expensive by adding the tax, not to let them >>>>> "average out the tax" between sugary and non-sugary drinks ...
What I meant was... why would they do it?
Why not just sell less of the sugary stuff and more of the Coke Zero, etc? >>>
sweetness is artificial.
I have just looked at a can of "original flavour" CocaCola and it does not >> admit to containing any artificial sweeteners.
If that's the case (I don't have any "fat Coke" in the house), you can
be reasonably sure that it doesn't contain any artificial sweeteners.
I prefer Coke Zero... it tastes the same and contains no calories.
On 15/06/2025 01:14 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:12:38 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
It is a very reasonable question which I don't know the answer to. But given >> they have large and effective marketing departments I think it is fair to say
that there probably is some financial advantage to them in deliberately
sabotaging the sugar tax. You may remember the equally complex and devious >> campaigns that the tobacco companies carried out against anti-tobacco laws.
That was a different thing. Legislation on tobacco (taxation excepted)
was intended to deter consumption. And it seems to have worked to a
large extent, with 20 cigarettes now costing up to £18 / £19.
Of course, Coca-Cola already have a product with no sugar and which can
be presumed to be pretty close to what ordinary Coca-Cola would have to
be if sugar were simply banned: Coke Zero (which I think tastes gereat!).
We can equally be sure that morality or the good of consumers come pretty
low in their aspirations.
I'm not sure about that. I'd be fairly certain that a global company
like Coca-Cola takes its food safety obligations seriously.
JNugent wrote:
I prefer Coke Zero... it tastes the same and contains no calories.
Unfortunately it tastes vile to me. De gustibus ...
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
middle classes might have approved of that.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:22:04 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 17:51, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 04:09 PM, Andy Burns wrote:People prefer the "proper" stuff, and don't realise that some of the
On 14/06/2025 15:06, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 01:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Theo wrote:
It's the sugar tax. Highly sugary soft drinks are taxed in order to >>>>>>> prevent children drinking too much of them
I think the way it's implemented is very weak, the
manufacturers/retailers can tinker with the prices of the sugary
version
and the sweetener version so that after the tax is added to the sugary >>>>>> version, the two prices on the shelf are identical, so there's no
incentive to choose the low/zero sugar version.
What's in it for the manufacturers?
There's not meant to be anything in it for them; the intention was to >>>> make sugary drinks more expensive by adding the tax, not to let them
"average out the tax" between sugary and non-sugary drinks ...
What I meant was... why would they do it?
Why not just sell less of the sugary stuff and more of the Coke Zero, etc? >>
sweetness is artificial.
I have just looked at a can of "original flavour" CocaCola and it does not admit to containing any artificial sweeteners.
On 15/06/2025 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:01:01 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands >>>> and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
Presumably even if it does not produce the desired differential price it
increases the drink companies' costs and reduces the overall consumption of >> their products. Which may well be a good thing, even if not the desired good >> thing.
Why do you wish to control what others consume?
On 15 Jun 2025 at 13:38:32 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 01:14 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:12:38 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:That was a different thing. Legislation on tobacco (taxation excepted)
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>>>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co >>>> or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition >>>> for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
It is a very reasonable question which I don't know the answer to. But given
they have large and effective marketing departments I think it is fair to say
that there probably is some financial advantage to them in deliberately
sabotaging the sugar tax. You may remember the equally complex and devious >>> campaigns that the tobacco companies carried out against anti-tobacco laws. >>
was intended to deter consumption. And it seems to have worked to a
large extent, with 20 cigarettes now costing up to £18 / £19.
Of course, Coca-Cola already have a product with no sugar and which can
be presumed to be pretty close to what ordinary Coca-Cola would have to
be if sugar were simply banned: Coke Zero (which I think tastes gereat!).
We can equally be sure that morality or the good of consumers come pretty >>> low in their aspirations.
I'm not sure about that. I'd be fairly certain that a global company
like Coca-Cola takes its food safety obligations seriously.
I am sure it takes its legal obligations seriously. But I am equally sure its wish to benefit humanity is invisibility distant below its wish to maximise its profits.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of undefined and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, is a major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and. obesity kills. Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:42:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:01:01 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>>> JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands >>>>> and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
Presumably even if it does not produce the desired differential price it >>> increases the drink companies' costs and reduces the overall consumption of >>> their products. Which may well be a good thing, even if not the desired good
thing.
Why do you wish to control what others consume?
What I wish is totally irrelevant. I am talking about government policy. What's with the absurd ad hominem?
Personally I'd ban artificial sweeteners, much more effective in the long run.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of undefined and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, is a major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. Logically they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But the food industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
On 15/06/2025 17:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 13:38:32 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Of course, Coca-Cola already have a product with no sugar and which can
be presumed to be pretty close to what ordinary Coca-Cola would have to
be if sugar were simply banned: Coke Zero (which I think tastes gereat!). >>>
We can equally be sure that morality or the good of consumers come pretty >>>> low in their aspirations.
I'm not sure about that. I'd be fairly certain that a global company
like Coca-Cola takes its food safety obligations seriously.
I am sure it takes its legal obligations seriously. But I am equally sure its
wish to benefit humanity is invisibility distant below its wish to maximise >> its profits.
No-one is forced to buy Coca-Cola; it's entirely discretionary.
People will buy it only if they want it and think the price is fair. If
that makes good profits for them, well, that's just good business.
Besides, they have no obligation to 'benefit humanity' whatever that
means and whoever would decide it anyway.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 13:38:32 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Of course, Coca-Cola already have a product with no sugar and which can
be presumed to be pretty close to what ordinary Coca-Cola would have to
be if sugar were simply banned: Coke Zero (which I think tastes gereat!).
We can equally be sure that morality or the good of consumers come pretty >>> low in their aspirations.
I'm not sure about that. I'd be fairly certain that a global company
like Coca-Cola takes its food safety obligations seriously.
I am sure it takes its legal obligations seriously. But I am equally sure its wish to benefit humanity is invisibility distant below its wish to maximise its profits.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:42:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:01:01 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>>
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero expands >>>>> and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
Presumably even if it does not produce the desired differential price it >>> increases the drink companies' costs and reduces the overall consumption of >>> their products. Which may well be a good thing, even if not the desired good
thing.
Why do you wish to control what others consume?
What I wish is totally irrelevant. I am talking about government policy. What's with the absurd ad hominem?
Personally I'd ban artificial sweeteners, much more effective in the long run.
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>>>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co >>>> or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch >>> on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior >>> and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition >>>> for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of undefined >> and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as
scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, is a >> major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and. obesity kills. Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food.
That's puritanism. We don't want people to experience the pleasure of
sweet things
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of undefined and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, is a major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. Logically they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But the food industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
On 15/06/2025 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:01:01 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands
and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
Presumably even if it does not produce the desired differential price it
increases the drink companies' costs and reduces the overall
consumption of
their products. Which may well be a good thing, even if not the
desired good
thing.
Why do you wish to control what others consume?
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole
idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co >>>> or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch >>> on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior >>> and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition >>>> for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is
purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of
undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as
scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste,
is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills.
Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But
the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us
that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with
a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most
of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of
jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted
before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary
drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough
to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole >>>>>> idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co >>>>> or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch >>>> on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior >>>> and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition >>>>> for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is
purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of
undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as
scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste,
is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills.
Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But
the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us
that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with
a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most
of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of
jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause
damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted
before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary
drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough
to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
So, what exactly is *your* suggestion?
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:41:55 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole >>>>>>> idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co >>>>>> or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as >>>>>> banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch >>>>> on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior >>>>> and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition >>>>>> for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the >>>>> middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is
purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of
undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as >>>> scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, >>>> is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills.
Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But
the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us
that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with >>> a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most >>> of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of
jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause
damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted
before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary
drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough >>> to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
So, what exactly is *your* suggestion?
Why do you have to ask questions that bear no relation to the discussion? Anyone can have an opinion on the harmful effects of sugar without any obligation to draw up a full legislative programme to control it. Are you saying we have no right to a medical opinion on the matter unless we can satisfy you with our proposals for controlling it? What are politicians for?
On 15/06/2025 15:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:For the same reason that I'd want to ban the use of asbestos as
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:01:01 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands
and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole
idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
Presumably even if it does not produce the desired differential price it >>> increases the drink companies' costs and reduces the overall
consumption of
their products. Which may well be a good thing, even if not the
desired good
thing.
Why do you wish to control what others consume?
insulation in our homes.
Why don't you care much about public health? Are you trying very hard to out-live everyone else?
On 15/06/2025 22:34, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 15:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:For the same reason that I'd want to ban the use of asbestos as
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:01:01 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands
and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole
idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
Presumably even if it does not produce the desired differential price it >>>> increases the drink companies' costs and reduces the overall
consumption of
their products. Which may well be a good thing, even if not the
desired good
thing.
Why do you wish to control what others consume?
insulation in our homes.
Since it is already banned in new homes, is your suggestion then that it should have to be removed by law from anywhere that already has any, regardless of how old, regardless of cost?
Why don't you care much about public health? Are you trying very hard to
out-live everyone else?
I don't want the government interfering with what I can eat unless it's
so serious a problem that the government has the balls to ban it
completely. I don't want nannying. I don't want its tanks on my
fridge. I am an adult. *I* should decide what I want to eat, no-one
else, and that in a free world should influence what the food industry provides. And if that includes flavour enhancers such as sugar and
salt, so be it.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:59:57 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:34, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 15:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:For the same reason that I'd want to ban the use of asbestos as
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:01:01 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole >>>>>> idea of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
Presumably even if it does not produce the desired differential price it >>>>> increases the drink companies' costs and reduces the overall
consumption of
their products. Which may well be a good thing, even if not the
desired good
thing.
Why do you wish to control what others consume?
insulation in our homes.
Since it is already banned in new homes, is your suggestion then that it
should have to be removed by law from anywhere that already has any,
regardless of how old, regardless of cost?
Why don't you care much about public health? Are you trying very hard to >>> out-live everyone else?
I don't want the government interfering with what I can eat unless it's
so serious a problem that the government has the balls to ban it
completely. I don't want nannying. I don't want its tanks on my
fridge. I am an adult. *I* should decide what I want to eat, no-one
else, and that in a free world should influence what the food industry
provides. And if that includes flavour enhancers such as sugar and
salt, so be it.
The fact that you don't want the government interfering with your sugar consumption is really, really interesting. I am glad you have told us your personal view, we could hardly have slept without knowing it.
But it has no bearing whatever on the fact we were discussing, which is that it is a markedly harmful substance at a population level.
On 15/06/2025 22:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:41:55 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole >>>>>>>> idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co >>>>>>> or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>>>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as >>>>>>> banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class >>>>>> thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch >>>>>> on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior >>>>>> and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>>>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition >>>>>>> for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the >>>>>> middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is
purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of
undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as >>>>> scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, >>>>> is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills.
Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But >>>>> the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us
that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with >>>> a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most >>>> of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of >>>> jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause >>>> damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted >>>> before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary
drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough >>>> to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
So, what exactly is *your* suggestion?
Why do you have to ask questions that bear no relation to the discussion?
Anyone can have an opinion on the harmful effects of sugar without any
obligation to draw up a full legislative programme to control it. Are you
saying we have no right to a medical opinion on the matter unless we can
satisfy you with our proposals for controlling it? What are politicians for?
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just whistling
in the wind. What is the point?
On 16/06/2025 01:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:59:57 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:34, The Todal wrote:
Why don't you care much about public health? Are you trying very
hard to
out-live everyone else?
I don't want the government interfering with what I can eat unless it's
so serious a problem that the government has the balls to ban it
completely. I don't want nannying. I don't want its tanks on my
fridge. I am an adult. *I* should decide what I want to eat, no-one
else, and that in a free world should influence what the food industry
provides. And if that includes flavour enhancers such as sugar and
salt, so be it.
The fact that you don't want the government interfering with your sugar
consumption is really, really interesting. I am glad you have told us
your
personal view, we could hardly have slept without knowing it.
But it has no bearing whatever on the fact we were discussing, which
is that
it is a markedly harmful substance at a population level.
Nonsense. It is calories, which makes it a food. It is one of the very simplest foods, and provides energy without which you do not survive.
Sugar is not a poison as was claimed earlier. People do not die or even suffer if they eat a Mars bar. Or even several Mars bars. Indeed, any number of Mars bars, provided they avoid being overweight which is the
real problem, but which can be caused by overconsumption of any food.
If obesity is the problem, take action against those who are fat. Put scales and barriers on the doors of every shop that sells food. Group punishments against everyone, like taxes, because some are fat are not
in my view acceptable.
If the problem is tooth decay, that is not caused by sugar directly but
by bacteria and the acids they produce. Brushing teeth is the solution
to that. And it's a parental responsibility. Not mine.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just whistling
in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign about the ill effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to reduce smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
On 16/06/2025 01:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just whistling >>> in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign about the ill
effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to reduce
smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
I recall that the guid doctor also said that the effects of "passive
smoking" were insignificant, but that didn't stop the control freaks.
On 16/06/2025 07:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/06/2025 01:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:59:57 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 15/06/2025 22:34, The Todal wrote:
Why don't you care much about public health? Are you trying very
hard to
out-live everyone else?
I don't want the government interfering with what I can eat unless it's >>>> so serious a problem that the government has the balls to ban it
completely. I don't want nannying. I don't want its tanks on my
fridge. I am an adult. *I* should decide what I want to eat, no-one >>>> else, and that in a free world should influence what the food industry >>>> provides. And if that includes flavour enhancers such as sugar and
salt, so be it.
The fact that you don't want the government interfering with your sugar
consumption is really, really interesting. I am glad you have told us
your
personal view, we could hardly have slept without knowing it.
But it has no bearing whatever on the fact we were discussing, which
is that
it is a markedly harmful substance at a population level.
Nonsense. It is calories, which makes it a food. It is one of the
very simplest foods, and provides energy without which you do not
survive.
Sugar is not a poison as was claimed earlier. People do not die or
even suffer if they eat a Mars bar. Or even several Mars bars.
Indeed, any number of Mars bars, provided they avoid being overweight
which is the real problem, but which can be caused by overconsumption
of any food.
If obesity is the problem, take action against those who are fat. Put
scales and barriers on the doors of every shop that sells food. Group
punishments against everyone, like taxes, because some are fat are not
in my view acceptable.
If the problem is tooth decay, that is not caused by sugar directly
but by bacteria and the acids they produce. Brushing teeth is the
solution to that. And it's a parental responsibility. Not mine.
Tooth decay, caries, is caused by sugar. And so is gum disease. And
probably fatty liver disease.
Brushing teeth and gums is not a reliable way of preventing tooth decay
and gum disease.
And it is well known that in many parts of the country
it is difficult or impossible to find an affordable dentist or one who
works on NHS terms.
Perhaps there is no obvious solution, but public information films of
the sort that used to be common on TV, might help as a way of reminding
the population that sugar is harmful.
Or watch "That Sugar Film". Available on Amazon Prime Video. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Sugar_Film
On 16/06/2025 01:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:59:57 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:34, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 15:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:For the same reason that I'd want to ban the use of asbestos as
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:01:01 BST, "Andy Burns"
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke
Zero expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola
contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the
whole idea of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to
Milkshakes and Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
Presumably even if it does not produce the desired differential
price it increases the drink companies' costs and reduces the
overall consumption of their products. Which may well be a good
thing, even if not the desired good thing.
Why do you wish to control what others consume?
insulation in our homes.
Since it is already banned in new homes, is your suggestion then
that it should have to be removed by law from anywhere that already
has any, regardless of how old, regardless of cost?
Why don't you care much about public health? Are you trying very
hard to out-live everyone else?
I don't want the government interfering with what I can eat unless
it's so serious a problem that the government has the balls to ban
it completely. I don't want nannying. I don't want its tanks on
my fridge. I am an adult. *I* should decide what I want to eat,
no-one else, and that in a free world should influence what the
food industry provides. And if that includes flavour enhancers
such as sugar and salt, so be it.
The fact that you don't want the government interfering with your
sugar consumption is really, really interesting. I am glad you have
told us your personal view, we could hardly have slept without
knowing it.
But it has no bearing whatever on the fact we were discussing, which
is that it is a markedly harmful substance at a population level.
Nonsense. It is calories, which makes it a food. It is one of the
very simplest foods, and provides energy without which you do not
survive.
Sugar is not a poison as was claimed earlier. People do not die or
even suffer if they eat a Mars bar. Or even several Mars bars.
Indeed, any number of Mars bars, provided they avoid being overweight
which is the real problem, but which can be caused by overconsumption
of any food.
If obesity is the problem, take action against those who are fat. Put
scales and barriers on the doors of every shop that sells food. Group punishments against everyone, like taxes, because some are fat are
not in my view acceptable.
If the problem is tooth decay, that is not caused by sugar directly
but by bacteria and the acids they produce. Brushing teeth is the
solution to that. And it's a parental responsibility. Not mine.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 10:56:18 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 01:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just whistling >>>> in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign about the ill
effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to reduce >>> smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
I recall that the guid doctor also said that the effects of "passive
smoking" were insignificant, but that didn't stop the control freaks.
Since then, at vast expense, it has been possible in huge trials to show some minute ill effects of passive smoking, and combined with many people's dislike
of the smell of tobacco smoke this has indeed been used somewhat dishonestly to justify further intimidating smokers. It doesn't change my point that proving something is harmful is a separate exercise from what to do about it.
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole
idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co >>>> or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch >>> on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior >>> and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition >>>> for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is
purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of
undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as
scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste,
is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills.
Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But
the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of undefined and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, is a major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. Logically they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But the food industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero
expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea >>>>> of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co >>>> or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch >>> on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior >>> and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition >>>> for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of undefined >> and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as
scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, is a >> major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us that before
sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough to profit from the
sugar industry by taxing sugar.
On 07:59 16 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 16/06/2025 01:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:59:57 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:34, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 15:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:For the same reason that I'd want to ban the use of asbestos as
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:01:01 BST, "Andy Burns"
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke
Zero expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola
contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the
whole idea of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to
Milkshakes and Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
Presumably even if it does not produce the desired differential
price it increases the drink companies' costs and reduces the
overall consumption of their products. Which may well be a good
thing, even if not the desired good thing.
Why do you wish to control what others consume?
insulation in our homes.
Since it is already banned in new homes, is your suggestion then
that it should have to be removed by law from anywhere that already
has any, regardless of how old, regardless of cost?
Why don't you care much about public health? Are you trying very
hard to out-live everyone else?
I don't want the government interfering with what I can eat unless
it's so serious a problem that the government has the balls to ban
it completely. I don't want nannying. I don't want its tanks on
my fridge. I am an adult. *I* should decide what I want to eat,
no-one else, and that in a free world should influence what the
food industry provides. And if that includes flavour enhancers
such as sugar and salt, so be it.
The fact that you don't want the government interfering with your
sugar consumption is really, really interesting. I am glad you have
told us your personal view, we could hardly have slept without
knowing it.
But it has no bearing whatever on the fact we were discussing, which
is that it is a markedly harmful substance at a population level.
Nonsense. It is calories, which makes it a food. It is one of the
very simplest foods, and provides energy without which you do not
survive.
Sugar is not a poison as was claimed earlier. People do not die or
even suffer if they eat a Mars bar. Or even several Mars bars.
Indeed, any number of Mars bars, provided they avoid being overweight
which is the real problem, but which can be caused by overconsumption
of any food.
If obesity is the problem, take action against those who are fat. Put
scales and barriers on the doors of every shop that sells food. Group
punishments against everyone, like taxes, because some are fat are
not in my view acceptable.
If the problem is tooth decay, that is not caused by sugar directly
but by bacteria and the acids they produce. Brushing teeth is the
solution to that. And it's a parental responsibility. Not mine.
Apart from its non-nutrient energy value,
raised blood glucose is
inflammatory and long-term frequent glucose spikes (diabetes) are
injurious to health.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:41:55 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts? >>>>>>>>>If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole >>>>>>>>> idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>>>>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as >>>>>>>> banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in >>>>>>> society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class >>>>>>> thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>>>>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the >>>>>>> middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is >>>>>> purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of
undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as >>>>>> scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, >>>>>> is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. >>>>>> Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But >>>>>> the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us >>>>> that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with >>>>> a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most >>>>> of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of >>>>> jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause >>>>> damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted >>>>> before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary
drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough >>>>> to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
So, what exactly is *your* suggestion?
Why do you have to ask questions that bear no relation to the discussion? >>> Anyone can have an opinion on the harmful effects of sugar without any
obligation to draw up a full legislative programme to control it. Are you >>> saying we have no right to a medical opinion on the matter unless we can >>> satisfy you with our proposals for controlling it? What are politicians for?
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just whistling
in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign about the ill effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to reduce smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
I am afraid your proposition is well up to 11 on the one to ten scale of absurd. The whole of cancer research is I suppose pointless unless the researchers have invented an anti-cancer drug, even if they are examining, say, genetic causes?
Do you really think that, or are you perhaps arguing for the sake of arguing?
On 16/06/2025 09:55, Pamela wrote:
On 07:59 16 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 16/06/2025 01:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
[TRIMMED]
But it has no bearing whatever on the fact we were discussing,
which is that it is a markedly harmful substance at a population
level.
Nonsense. It is calories, which makes it a food. It is one of the
very simplest foods, and provides energy without which you do not
survive.
Sugar is not a poison as was claimed earlier. People do not die or
even suffer if they eat a Mars bar. Or even several Mars bars.
Indeed, any number of Mars bars, provided they avoid being
overweight which is the real problem, but which can be caused by
overconsumption of any food.
If obesity is the problem, take action against those who are fat.
Put scales and barriers on the doors of every shop that sells food.
Group punishments against everyone, like taxes, because some are
fat are not in my view acceptable.
If the problem is tooth decay, that is not caused by sugar directly
but by bacteria and the acids they produce. Brushing teeth is the
solution to that. And it's a parental responsibility. Not mine.
Apart from its non-nutrient energy value,
A single component of what you eat doesn't have to be a balanced diet
in itself.
raised blood glucose is inflammatory and long-term frequent glucose
spikes (diabetes) are injurious to health.
I thought it had been debunked ages ago that sugar consumption per se
causes diabetes.
For example: https://elht.nhs.uk/application/files/2616/7639/3213/myth_busters.pdf
On 16/06/2025 01:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:41:55 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts? >>>>>>>>>>If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole >>>>>>>>>> idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as >>>>>>>>> banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in >>>>>>>> society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class >>>>>>>> thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the >>>>>>>> middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is >>>>>>> purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of >>>>>>> undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as >>>>>>> scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, >>>>>>> is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. >>>>>>> Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But >>>>>>> the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us >>>>>> that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with >>>>>> a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most >>>>>> of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of >>>>>> jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause >>>>>> damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted >>>>>> before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary
drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough >>>>>> to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
So, what exactly is *your* suggestion?
Why do you have to ask questions that bear no relation to the discussion? >>>> Anyone can have an opinion on the harmful effects of sugar without any >>>> obligation to draw up a full legislative programme to control it. Are you >>>> saying we have no right to a medical opinion on the matter unless we can >>>> satisfy you with our proposals for controlling it? What are politicians for?
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just whistling >>> in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign about the ill
effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to reduce
smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
I am afraid your proposition is well up to 11 on the one to ten scale of
absurd. The whole of cancer research is I suppose pointless unless the
researchers have invented an anti-cancer drug, even if they are examining, >> say, genetic causes?
Do you really think that, or are you perhaps arguing for the sake of arguing?
It isn't possible to argue unless there is a view with which to
disagree. But you don't seem to have one.
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the
whole idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes >>>>>> and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-
Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to
munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider
inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that
opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the >>>> middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is
purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of
undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as
scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its
taste, is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills.
Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But
the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us
that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died
with a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became
popular, most of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing
and evidence of jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The
infections can cause damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted
before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary
drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not
enough to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
When I grew up we all drank sugary drinks, ate sweets, and the real
treat was a sandwich of white bread, butter and sugar.
And I didn't lose a tooth until I was nearly 40 - and that was an
impacted wisdom tooth!
On 16 Jun 2025 at 09:30:44 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 01:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 15/06/2025 22:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:41:55 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts? >>>>>>>>>>>If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole >>>>>>>>>>> idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as >>>>>>>>>> banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in >>>>>>>>> society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class >>>>>>>>> thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying toPerhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener? >>>>>>>>>
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the >>>>>>>>> middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is >>>>>>>> purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of >>>>>>>> undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as
scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, >>>>>>>> is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. >>>>>>>> Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But >>>>>>>> the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that. >>>>>>>>
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us >>>>>>> that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with
a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most
of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of >>>>>>> jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause >>>>>>> damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted >>>>>>> before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary >>>>>>> drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough
to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
So, what exactly is *your* suggestion?
Why do you have to ask questions that bear no relation to the discussion? >>>>> Anyone can have an opinion on the harmful effects of sugar without any >>>>> obligation to draw up a full legislative programme to control it. Are you >>>>> saying we have no right to a medical opinion on the matter unless we can >>>>> satisfy you with our proposals for controlling it? What are politicians for?
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just whistling >>>> in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign about the ill
effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to reduce >>> smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
I am afraid your proposition is well up to 11 on the one to ten scale of >>> absurd. The whole of cancer research is I suppose pointless unless the
researchers have invented an anti-cancer drug, even if they are examining, >>> say, genetic causes?
Do you really think that, or are you perhaps arguing for the sake of arguing?
It isn't possible to argue unless there is a view with which to
disagree. But you don't seem to have one.
My view is that more than a very small amount of sugar in the human diet causes significant net harm to people at a population level. What is unclear about that?
What is unclear about that?
On 16/06/2025 11:52, kat wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth
extracted before they are grown up because they are given sweets and
sugary drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is
not enough to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
When I grew up we all drank sugary drinks, ate sweets, and the real
treat was a sandwich of white bread, butter and sugar.
And I didn't lose a tooth until I was nearly 40 - and that was an
impacted wisdom tooth!
Maybe regularly brushing your teeth with a fluoride toothpaste does help
to combat tooth decay and even prevent it, for some people. And the
amount of saliva you produce will have some effect in combating the acid
that attacks your teeth.
It was quite usual in the 1940s and 1950s for people to lose all their
teeth by the time they were 50 and to be fitted with dentures, false
teeth, a regular source of comedy.
On 12:19 16 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 16/06/2025 09:55, Pamela wrote:
On 07:59 16 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 16/06/2025 01:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
[TRIMMED]
But it has no bearing whatever on the fact we were discussing,
which is that it is a markedly harmful substance at a population
level.
Nonsense. It is calories, which makes it a food. It is one of the
very simplest foods, and provides energy without which you do not
survive.
Sugar is not a poison as was claimed earlier. People do not die or
even suffer if they eat a Mars bar. Or even several Mars bars.
Indeed, any number of Mars bars, provided they avoid being
overweight which is the real problem, but which can be caused by
overconsumption of any food.
If obesity is the problem, take action against those who are fat.
Put scales and barriers on the doors of every shop that sells food.
Group punishments against everyone, like taxes, because some are
fat are not in my view acceptable.
If the problem is tooth decay, that is not caused by sugar directly
but by bacteria and the acids they produce. Brushing teeth is the
solution to that. And it's a parental responsibility. Not mine.
Apart from its non-nutrient energy value,
A single component of what you eat doesn't have to be a balanced diet
in itself.
raised blood glucose is inflammatory and long-term frequent glucose
spikes (diabetes) are injurious to health.
I thought it had been debunked ages ago that sugar consumption per se
causes diabetes.
For example:
https://elht.nhs.uk/application/files/2616/7639/3213/myth_busters.pdf
Sugary, and starchy, foods temporarily raise blood glucose even if
glucose homeostasis (as found in type 2 diabetes) is NOT impaired.
Frequent spikes of such raised blood glucose cause chronic
inflammation, which is a significant contributor to degenerative
diseases by a process called glycation. Glycation is key in promoting conditions such as cardiovascular disease.
The effect is not clear-cut nor is it fully quantified but inflammation
is being seen as key factor in many diseases.
There are various
articles on this and here is one chosen at random:
"Although intermittent increases in inflammation are critical for
survival during physical injury and infection, recent research has
revealed that certain social, environmental and lifestyle factors
can promote systemic chronic inflammation (SCI) that can, in turn,
lead to several diseases that collectively represent the leading
causes of disability and mortality worldwide, such as cardiovascular
disease, cancer, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease,
non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and autoimmune and
neurodegenerative disorders.
In the present Perspective we describe the multi-level mechanisms
underlying SCI and several risk factors that promote this
health-damaging phenotype, including infections, physical
inactivity, poor diet, environmental and industrial toxicants and
psychological stress."
On 16/06/2025 03:27 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 09:30:44 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 01:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 15/06/2025 22:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:41:55 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>>>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts? >>>>>>>>>>>>If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole
idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as >>>>>>>>>>> banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in >>>>>>>>>> society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class >>>>>>>>>> thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying toPerhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural >>>>>>>>>> alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener? >>>>>>>>>>
middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is >>>>>>>>> purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of >>>>>>>>> undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as
scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste,
is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. >>>>>>>>> Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But >>>>>>>>> the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that. >>>>>>>>>
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us >>>>>>>> that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with
a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most
of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of >>>>>>>> jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause
damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted >>>>>>>> before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary >>>>>>>> drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough
to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
So, what exactly is *your* suggestion?
Why do you have to ask questions that bear no relation to the discussion?
Anyone can have an opinion on the harmful effects of sugar without any >>>>>> obligation to draw up a full legislative programme to control it. Are you
saying we have no right to a medical opinion on the matter unless we can >>>>>> satisfy you with our proposals for controlling it? What are politicians for?
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just whistling >>>>> in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign about the ill
effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to reduce >>>> smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
I am afraid your proposition is well up to 11 on the one to ten scale of >>>> absurd. The whole of cancer research is I suppose pointless unless the >>>> researchers have invented an anti-cancer drug, even if they are examining, >>>> say, genetic causes?
Do you really think that, or are you perhaps arguing for the sake of arguing?
It isn't possible to argue unless there is a view with which to
disagree. But you don't seem to have one.
My view is that more than a very small amount of sugar in the human diet
causes significant net harm to people at a population level. What is unclear >> about that?
Does that work if you substitute "an individual" for "people"?
Let's see...
"My view is that more than a very small amount of sugar in the human
diet causes significant net harm to an individual at the population level".
Not really, eh?
What is unclear about that?
The comparison between a health outcome (necessarily referring to individuals) and the population?
It's like one of those pesky cyclists arguing that it's perfectly fair
to take steps to prevent people their cars and forcing them into other
modes (walking, PT... cycling) on the basis that at the population
level, it's "healthier".
The problem is the missing data as it refers to affected individuals.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 09:30:44 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 01:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 15/06/2025 22:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:41:55 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts? >>>>>>>>>>>If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole >>>>>>>>>>> idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a
sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as >>>>>>>>>> banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in >>>>>>>>> society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class >>>>>>>>> thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying toPerhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener? >>>>>>>>>
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the >>>>>>>>> middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is >>>>>>>> purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of >>>>>>>> undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as
scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, >>>>>>>> is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. >>>>>>>> Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But >>>>>>>> the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that. >>>>>>>>
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us >>>>>>> that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with
a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most
of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of >>>>>>> jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause >>>>>>> damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted >>>>>>> before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary >>>>>>> drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough
to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
So, what exactly is *your* suggestion?
Why do you have to ask questions that bear no relation to the discussion? >>>>> Anyone can have an opinion on the harmful effects of sugar without any >>>>> obligation to draw up a full legislative programme to control it. Are you >>>>> saying we have no right to a medical opinion on the matter unless we can >>>>> satisfy you with our proposals for controlling it? What are politicians for?
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just whistling >>>> in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign about the ill
effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to reduce >>> smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
I am afraid your proposition is well up to 11 on the one to ten scale of >>> absurd. The whole of cancer research is I suppose pointless unless the
researchers have invented an anti-cancer drug, even if they are examining, >>> say, genetic causes?
Do you really think that, or are you perhaps arguing for the sake of arguing?
It isn't possible to argue unless there is a view with which to
disagree. But you don't seem to have one.
My view is that more than a very small amount of sugar in the human diet causes significant net harm to people at a population level. What is unclear about that?
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 22:41:55 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts? >>>>>>>>>If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole >>>>>>>>> idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>>>>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as >>>>>>>> banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in >>>>>>> society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class >>>>>>> thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>>>>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the >>>>>>> middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is >>>>>> purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of
undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as >>>>>> scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, >>>>>> is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. >>>>>> Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But >>>>>> the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us >>>>> that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with >>>>> a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most >>>>> of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of >>>>> jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause >>>>> damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted >>>>> before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary
drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not enough >>>>> to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
So, what exactly is *your* suggestion?
Why do you have to ask questions that bear no relation to the discussion? >>> Anyone can have an opinion on the harmful effects of sugar without any
obligation to draw up a full legislative programme to control it. Are you >>> saying we have no right to a medical opinion on the matter unless we can >>> satisfy you with our proposals for controlling it? What are politicians for?
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just whistling
in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign about the ill effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to reduce smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
I am afraid your proposition is well up to 11 on the one to ten scale of absurd. The whole of cancer research is I suppose pointless unless the researchers have invented an anti-cancer drug, even if they are examining, say, genetic causes?
Do you really think that, or are you perhaps arguing for the sake of arguing?
On 16/06/2025 03:27 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
My view is that more than a very small amount of sugar in the human diet
causes significant net harm to people at a population level. What is unclear >> about that?
Does that work if you substitute "an individual" for "people"?
Let's see...
"My view is that more than a very small amount of sugar in the human diet causes
significant net harm to an individual at the population level".
Not really, eh?
What is unclear about that?
The comparison between a health outcome (necessarily referring to individuals)
and the population?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 03:27 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
My view is that more than a very small amount of sugar in the human diet >>> causes significant net harm to people at a population level. What is unclear
about that?
Does that work if you substitute "an individual" for "people"?
Eh ?
RH's view will be based on scientific data and research; which will have assigned probabilities to the likelihood of a very small amount of sugar
in the human diet causing significant net harm to any specific individual.
Although quite possibly being more strictly defined, as to "small" and "significant"
That's how science, in most instances works.
Let's see...
"My view is that more than a very small amount of sugar in the human diet causes
significant net harm to an individual at the population level".
Which is indeed quite possibly how someone who was totally unfamiliar
with either the scientific method, or probability,, might interpret RH's remark.
Whereas those more familiarity with such concepts, might interpret it as follows.
My view [based on all the latest scientific research and data] is that
more than a very small amount of sugar in the human diet causes significant net harm to an individual [in around 95% of cases] at the population level
Not really, eh?
What is unclear about that?
The comparison between a health outcome (necessarily referring to individuals)
and the population?
But that is what *probability* is for.
On 16/06/2025 11:52, kat wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the whole idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes and >>>>>>> Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Coca- Cola Co >>>>>> or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as >>>>>> banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to munch >>>>> on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider inferior >>>>> and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that opposition >>>>>> for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the >>>>> middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as >>>> scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its taste, is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills. Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us that >>> before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died with a full >>> set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became popular, most of the >>> skulls from that period show many teeth missing and evidence of jaw damage >>> caused by the bacterial infections. The infections can cause damage to the >>> heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted before
they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary drinks. The
government needs to take effective action - it is not enough to profit from >>> the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
When I grew up we all drank sugary drinks, ate sweets, and the real treat was
a sandwich of white bread, butter and sugar.
And I didn't lose a tooth until I was nearly 40 - and that was an impacted >> wisdom tooth!
Maybe regularly brushing your teeth with a fluoride toothpaste does help to combat tooth decay and even prevent it, for some people. And the amount of saliva you produce will have some effect in combating the acid that attacks your
teeth.
It was quite usual in the 1940s and 1950s for people to lose all their teeth by
the time they were 50 and to be fitted with dentures, false teeth, a regular source of comedy.
On 16/06/2025 11:53 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 10:56:18 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 16/06/2025 01:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just
whistling
in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign
about the ill
effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to
reduce
smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
I recall that the guid doctor also said that the effects of "passive
smoking" were insignificant, but that didn't stop the control freaks.
Since then, at vast expense, it has been possible in huge trials to
show some
minute ill effects of passive smoking, and combined with many people's
dislike
of the smell of tobacco smoke this has indeed been used somewhat
dishonestly
to justify further intimidating smokers. It doesn't change my point that
proving something is harmful is a separate exercise from what to do
about it.
It isn't *just* "the smell of tobacco smoke" though, is it?
It is a major contaminent of building interiors, vehicle interiors and
items within them, not to mention one's clothing and hair.
And then there are the harmful effects (however great or small) on top
of all that.
On 16/06/2025 12:08, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2025 11:53 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 10:56:18 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 16/06/2025 01:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 23:09:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just
whistling
in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign
about the ill
effects of smoking were futile because he didn't draw up a plan to
reduce
smoking but left that to specialists having given them the incentive?
I recall that the guid doctor also said that the effects of "passive
smoking" were insignificant, but that didn't stop the control freaks.
Since then, at vast expense, it has been possible in huge trials to
show some
minute ill effects of passive smoking, and combined with many people's
dislike
of the smell of tobacco smoke this has indeed been used somewhat
dishonestly
to justify further intimidating smokers. It doesn't change my point that >>> proving something is harmful is a separate exercise from what to do
about it.
It isn't *just* "the smell of tobacco smoke" though, is it?
It is a major contaminent of building interiors, vehicle interiors and
items within them, not to mention one's clothing and hair.
And then there are the harmful effects (however great or small) on top
of all that.
Most of these considerations stem from the idea that smoking is a sin.
On 15/06/2025 22:31, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 17:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 15:41:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 15/06/2025 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:01 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
What difference does it make to them if the demand for Coke Zero >>>>>>> expands and the demand for original-ish Coca-Cola contracts?
If there's no difference in price to the consumer, surely the
whole idea
of the sugar tax has failed?
Similarly it'll be a wasted effort to extend the tax to Milkshakes >>>>>> and
Starbucks-in-a-bottle?
That's surely a matter for Parliament, rather than for the
Coca-Cola Co
or any other producer. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea of a >>>>> sugar tax. I can see that it stands in the same line of history as
banning smoking in pubs (etc).
Except that that was, as you say, a *ban*.
A sugar tax is a tax on food, and moreover impacts the poorest in
society disproportionately. Support for it is essentially a class
thing. It's the chattering middle classes who force their kids to
munch
on raw carrots, looking down their noses at those they consider
inferior
and wising to make their lives more uncomfortable.
My question is aimed at what reason a company might have for trying to >>>>> undermine that taxation measure. What would there be in that
opposition
for them if they can just substitute a permitted sweetener?
Perhaps they want to avoid 'additives' by providing natural
alternatives. Like sugar. I'd have thought the yummy mummies of the >>>> middle classes might have approved of that.
Bizarrely, they consider sugar "unnatural" precisely because it is
purified to
contain only one molecular entity. Now a bit of molasses, full of
undefined
and probably carcinogenic chemicals, that's "natural". Nowt so queer as
scientifically uneducated middle class intellectuals.
They have a sort of point though; sugar, and habituation to its
taste, is a
major cause of obesity (as well as tooth decay), and obesity kills.
Logically
they should avoid sweeteners too and learn to like unsweet food. But
the food
industry gleefully relies on the fact that they don't do that.
Sugar is a poison.
An excellent documentary, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, shows us
that before sugar became part of the English diet, most people died
with a full set of teeth. After sugar was introduced and became
popular, most of the skulls from that period show many teeth missing
and evidence of jaw damage caused by the bacterial infections. The
infections can cause damage to the heart and other organs.
It is scandalous that many British children still have teeth extracted
before they are grown up because they are given sweets and sugary
drinks. The government needs to take effective action - it is not
enough to profit from the sugar industry by taxing sugar.
So, what exactly is *your* suggestion?
USA still allows several brightly coloured azo dyes in candy and
foodstuffs which are excellent at promoting ADHD in children.
UK only allows very limited use now after Southampton uni research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine#Food_intolerance_and_ADHD- like_behavior
On 16/06/2025 12:08, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2025 11:53 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 01:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Complaining about something so serious it can be termed a scandal
without any suggestion of what should be done about it is just
whistling in the wind. What is the point?
So Richard Doll's epidemiological efforts to prove and campaign
about the ill effects of smoking were futile because he didn't
draw up a plan to reduce smoking but left that to specialists
having given them the incentive?
I recall that the guid doctor also said that the effects of "passive
smoking" were insignificant, but that didn't stop the control freaks.
Since then, at vast expense, it has been possible in huge trials to
show some minute ill effects of passive smoking, and combined with
many people's dislike of the smell of tobacco smoke this has indeed
been used somewhat dishonestly to justify further intimidating smokers.
It doesn't change my point that proving something is harmful is a
separate exercise from what to do about it.
It isn't *just* "the smell of tobacco smoke" though, is it?
It is a major contaminent of building interiors, vehicle interiors and
items within them, not to mention one's clothing and hair.
And then there are the harmful effects (however great or small) on top
of all that.
Most of these considerations stem from the idea that smoking is a sin.
On 17/06/2025 13:39, Martin Brown wrote:
USA still allows several brightly coloured azo dyes in candy and
foodstuffs which are excellent at promoting ADHD in children.
UK only allows very limited use now after Southampton uni research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine#Food_intolerance_and_ADHD-
like_behavior
Although, what the article, which you cite to support your position,
actually says is this:
"Food intolerance and ADHD-like behavior
"Tartrazine is one of various food colors said to cause food intolerance
and ADHD-like behavior in children. It is possible that certain food colorings may act as a trigger in those who are genetically predisposed,
but the evidence for this effect is weak"
I would draw your attention particularly to 'said to', 'ADHD-*like* behavior', 'possible' and 'the evidence ... is weak'.
It's not exactly convincing proof of your proposition, is it?
On 16/06/2025 11:52, kat wrote:
When I grew up we all drank sugary drinks, ate sweets, and the real
treat was a sandwich of white bread, butter and sugar.
And I didn't lose a tooth until I was nearly 40 - and that was an
impacted wisdom tooth!
Maybe regularly brushing your teeth with a fluoride toothpaste does help
to combat tooth decay and even prevent it, for some people. And the
amount of saliva you produce will have some effect in combating the acid
that attacks your teeth.
Brushing teeth properly is all that is needed to avoid dental decay. Unfortunately that wasn't typically taught to children by their parents
who back in the 60's had frequently had lost most of their own teeth.
The problem is getting worse again now with hardly any National Health dentists left providing routine care and monitoring for the poor. Whole regions now have no NHS dentists willing to take on *any* new NHS
patients. Basically such patients are not economically viable...
On 16/06/2025 16:25, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 11:52, kat wrote:
When I grew up we all drank sugary drinks, ate sweets, and the real
treat was a sandwich of white bread, butter and sugar.
And I didn't lose a tooth until I was nearly 40 - and that was an
impacted wisdom tooth!
You were taught how to brush your teeth correctly from a young age then.
Maybe regularly brushing your teeth with a fluoride toothpaste does
help to combat tooth decay and even prevent it, for some people. And
the amount of saliva you produce will have some effect in combating
the acid that attacks your teeth.
Brushing teeth properly is all that is needed to avoid dental decay.
Unfortunately that wasn't typically taught to children by their parents
who back in the 60's had frequently had lost most of their own teeth.
The problem is getting worse again now with hardly any National Health dentists left providing routine care and monitoring for the poor. Whole regions now have no NHS dentists willing to take on *any* new NHS
patients. Basically such patients are not economically viable...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41415-024-7262-6
Fluoride in toothpaste helps provide some leeway by making the tooth
surface more resistant to acid attack. But overdosing on fluoride can
mark teeth which is why some people get upset about water fluoridation.
You can have too much of a good thing.
Problem with sugar (and fat) is that because it is so energy dense we
are pre-programmed by evolution to like it and store it as fat reserves.
That isn't a problem if you have to chase after your food to catch and
eat it, but is disastrous when picking it off the supermarket shelf is
all that is needed.
On 16/06/2025 15:42, Pamela wrote:
On 12:19 16 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 16/06/2025 09:55, Pamela wrote:
On 07:59 16 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 16/06/2025 01:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
[TRIMMED]
But it has no bearing whatever on the fact we were discussing,
which is that it is a markedly harmful substance at a population
level.
Nonsense. It is calories, which makes it a food. It is one of
the very simplest foods, and provides energy without which you do
not survive.
Sugar is not a poison as was claimed earlier. People do not die
or even suffer if they eat a Mars bar. Or even several Mars
bars. Indeed, any number of Mars bars, provided they avoid being
overweight which is the real problem, but which can be caused by
overconsumption of any food.
If obesity is the problem, take action against those who are fat.
Put scales and barriers on the doors of every shop that sells
food. Group punishments against everyone, like taxes, because
some are fat are not in my view acceptable.
If the problem is tooth decay, that is not caused by sugar
directly but by bacteria and the acids they produce. Brushing
teeth is the solution to that. And it's a parental
responsibility. Not mine.
Apart from its non-nutrient energy value,
A single component of what you eat doesn't have to be a balanced
diet in itself.
raised blood glucose is inflammatory and long-term frequent
glucose spikes (diabetes) are injurious to health.
I thought it had been debunked ages ago that sugar consumption per
se causes diabetes.
For example:
https://elht.nhs.uk/application/files/2616/7639/3213/
myth_busters.pdf
Sugary, and starchy, foods temporarily raise blood glucose even if
glucose homeostasis (as found in type 2 diabetes) is NOT impaired.
Of course it does. It's what insulin regulates when it's released in response. It's perfectly natural and ordinary.
Frequent spikes of such raised blood glucose cause chronic
inflammation, which is a significant contributor to degenerative
diseases by a process called glycation. Glycation is key in
promoting conditions such as cardiovascular disease.
The effect is not clear-cut nor is it fully quantified but
inflammation is being seen as key factor in many diseases.
Quite. So it's entirely speculative.
There are various
articles on this and here is one chosen at random:
"Although intermittent increases in inflammation are critical
for survival during physical injury and infection, recent
research has revealed that certain social, environmental and
lifestyle factors can promote systemic chronic inflammation
(SCI) that can, in turn, lead to several diseases that
collectively represent the leading causes of disability and
mortality worldwide, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer,
diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, non-alcoholic fatty
liver disease and autoimmune and neurodegenerative disorders.
If, maybe, possibly, but wholly unlikely, and completely
unsubstantiated.
In the present Perspective we describe the multi-level
mechanisms underlying SCI and several risk factors that promote
this health-damaging phenotype, including infections, physical
inactivity, poor diet, environmental and industrial toxicants
and psychological stress."
Does that prove sugar is the root of all evil?
If so, I can't see it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:32:46 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,948 |