Did big sugar have a "tobacco moment?"
 

Also, when did "Moment" start meaning anything besides "An instant" or a measure of the tendency to cause a body to rotate about a specific point or axis?

I ran across this five year-old article saying that sugar was so bad people were trying to tax it: Big Sugar is having its tobacco moment

With comments like "Sugar addiction is; Of the same concern, as tobacco, alcohol, drugs, both legal and illegal."

I enabled over 900 addicts tonight. What about you guys?

Quick search: "The sugar tax came into force on April 6, 2018, after hopes of a U-turn by PM Theresa May were dashed."

Sounds like this was in that British place.

"The tax is estimated to raise around £520 million which will be used to fund sports in primary schools."

Is that how you fight childhood obesity? I thought it was guilt!

Opera says that is the equivalent of $662 Million in real money.

"A 1.75ml bottle of coke has increased from roughly £1.25 to £1.49." So, 20%!

"Pure fruit juice has been exempted from the tax"

Cue debate on the merits of fruit juice without added ingredients!

"Drinks with a high milk content are exempt due to their calcium content."

So, energy drinks will all be dairy now. Nice.

"Mexico introduced a 10 per cent tax on sugary drinks in 2014 and saw a 12 per cent reduction over the first year."

"Hungary brought in a tax on the drinks companies and saw a 40 per cent decrease in the amount of sugar in the products."

"Chocolate and sweets are already included in Public Health England’s programme aiming for a 20 per cent reduction in sugar by 2020."

So... did they tax bags of sugar? Did the sugar industry just become DIY?

Dirty rotten scoundrels.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sugar+lobby+bribed+scientists

:confused:

That's funny because fruit juice can have as much sugar as soda.

As a father of 2 children with eating disorders, struggling to get enough calories every day to not lose even more weight, I cringe when other people tell them sugar is bad, fat is bad, and the very few things they are willing or able to ingest are bad for them...
My kids are skinny, it breaks my heart but they are so fragile. Don't they see that? Does their prejudice against sugar and calories win from common sense? Are they deliberately trying to kill my kids? Or is it just sheer stupidity?

Hope they get a bad itch. Raaaaah.

I can only teach my kids to ignore all the 'advice' just like fat kids do.

For several years I was 6'2" adult that only weighed 153 pounds (1.87 meters and 69 kilograms). I am not sure which I heard more, "You're too skinny!" or "You eat too much!"

People also liked to tell me that my food was bad for me.

Not McDonald's. Not a box of donuts. Not fried food. I did not eat vegetables back then. I actually gained weight when I started eating vegetables.

If I stop eating vegetables will I lose weight? :)

In other places I call myself Strider. Yes, Aragorn, son of Arathorn is cool, but I have a bad habit of being late everywhere. Right now I am watching a class that I was supposed to complete two weeks ago.

Oops.

I realized that if I took longer strides I would get to class faster.

So, kids started calling me Strider. However, people like to tell me to slow down.

People tell me that I am too tall.

People are a pain. :)

Suggar in high concentration and amount, Monosodium glutamate , processed food with a lot of flavor enhancers... All thse can create people addicted to food.

My dentist was very obese, once, he told me her nanny gave milk with 2 large spoons of sugar everytime he cried loud. He lost weigh using prescribed drugs to reduce hungry and apetitte. Later he developed heart problems, and I suspect was related with the drugs. But he died in a car crash when his girfriend drove like crazy on the road.

SUgar on direct health can be bad in large amount, and especially if refined, but I saw a article about moderate amounts be good to very old people, something about the mind, brain needing sugar.

In terms of adiction it can be horricle in high concentration and huge amounts.

But food have no such thing as a "second hand hazard".

Communists

It is interesting to see sugar consumption decline, presumably in response to the taxes though. I thought it would simply make poor people poorer, as many taxes or subsidies have the effect of being regressive.

Everything in moderation.

It's 100% parent's responsibility to fight childhood obesity, not government responsibility. If you took an overweight dog or cat to the vet, who's responsibility will the Dr. say it is to control the weight of the animal? 100% the owner's responsibility. If a person does not want to take the responsibility seriously, they should not have voluntarily taken on the responsibility in the first place.

Hardly. Communists would promote equal sugar consumption by everyone :-)

Well, it's a choice, isn't it? No reason in the world that anyone, rich or poor, actually HAS to consume sugar-laden drinks, is there? Indeed, if people didn't spend their money on such things, they might be a bit less poor*, no?

I may be selfish, but if the government has to tax something, I'd much rather it was something, like tobacco, state lotteries, or soft drinks, that I don't use anyway.


*Per google, the average American drinks about 45 gallons of soda per year. That's 480 12-ounce cans, or 80 sixpacks. WalMart has a sixpack of Coca-Cola for $2.50, so $200 per year.

I was mostly joking about the communist statement. The UK seems committed to heading down the path of lower individual responsibility, and lower liberty.

I'm less annoyed by taxes on things I don't consume, such as tobacco, and I am happy to see its use has drastically declined. That said, rarely do politicians make policy based on the science or economics of something; it's either lobbyist influence or other political maneuver. While I don't personally care if tobacco has an outsized tax, it opens the door for government to tax something I do care about, like bacon. If I'm going to be about fair taxes for bacon, I must also be about fair taxes for tobacco and sugar. It's up to the individual to make good decisions for themselves, otherwise we give up liberty. Giving up liberty ceeds responsibility to the government, which can keep some people from dropping below certain levels of well-being, but it also limits the ability of the individual to thrive.

To improve health, I'd start by eliminating 90% of the foods people are able to purchase with food stamps. Food subsidy is meant to keep the poor nourished, not treat them to guilty pleasures. Staple food items only like fruits, veggies, beans, rice, potatoes, milk, cheese...

USA Coca Cola uses corn syurg, while on Brazil we use sugar-cane as, to sweeter to coca cola.

Parents, in most cases, are idiots today, and if you let everyting in their hands children will be cursed.

Another hazard : The abuse of artificial sweetners was found to increase weight and so diabetes, according a article I remamber, by cheating the brain and make it believes a lot of calouries will come, and this created some effect that make people eat more.

By the way, the super battery we talked about in other thread it's like someone had created a chocolate that tastes better, do not cause diabetes, make you lose weight, increase life span and make your muscles tight and strong.
We are in a race for the great artificial or vegan meat, in a race for super solar panels, in a race for super batteries... Should we create a race for the such super chocolate?