GPs call for soft-drink tax and banning of pre-watershed adverts - "junk food should be treated like - Polidicks

I don't know about ads, but the taxes make sense. Junk food and soft drinks are the #1 and most popular contributor to general poor health, so needless to say they indirectly cause a burden on the universal health care system.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;39635391]They've already banned junk food ads during kids shows to stop childhood obesity in Australia, they can show junk food ads at around prime time though but mcdonalds have put these healthy options in like fruit bags and juice, though nobody goes for it lol[/QUOTE] Either nobody goes for it or people bash it for containing sugar. It's a loose loose situation. [sp]Even if McDonalds made a diet that actually worked, people wouldn't believe them. (But that is two factors though.)[/sp] [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;39635414]I don't know about ads, but the taxes make sense. Junk food and soft drinks are the #1 and most popular contributor to general poor health, so needless to say they indirectly cause a burden on the universal health care system.[/QUOTE] I was led to believe that if was the mix between that and lack of exercise that was number one.

Some notable comments from the article [QUOTE]Here's my view (a thin doctor): 1.) Calculations on 'cost' of obesity are disingenuous, ignoring 'savings' from people dying earlier & not developing other diseases, especially dementia. 2.) Obsession with ever-increasing life expectancy is misplaced (esp in view of dementia). 3.) If people are aware of risks & choose to 'live fat, die young', so be it. There is no moral 'wrong' in obesity.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Its high time the 'doctors' paid more attention to 'science' and took a step back from the incessant blaming of Saturated Fat. The BIG culprit in all of this is the prevalence of SUGAR in cheap processed foods. The market has created an insidious abundance of cheap sugar laced foods. Education is the key. Don't buy processed. Why are processed meals cheaper than buying whole quality foods?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Instead of making something that is bad for you more expensive why not for once make things that are good for you cheaper?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Well it works for Smoking, and Alcohol, and car usages. Oh no wait, Taxing something does not make it less appealing it just makes it cost more (and that special added bonus of more tax the solution to all the worlds problems)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Now that they've had the olympics paid for by it's biggest sponsors (the public, via mcdonalds), I suppose they can roll this out now.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Tax again? Why not over-tax everything, then only those who can afford it will survive while all else live on bread and water. Why is the default solution always to tax it? It's not a deterrent at all - it merely increases the burden on the less well off.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Coffee;39630525]No it isn't. You're just buying healthy food from the wrong places if you think it's more expensive than junk food.[/QUOTE] Time is money when you're so poor you need to work multiple jobs, fresh food requires more prep time

You know coca-cola would lobby against this.

This is quite a petty tax tbh, I'm struggling to think of any drinks that contain no sugar enough as it is so I'm betting that they'll eventually ninja in milkshakes and juices for simply being high in sugar which would kind of defeat the point of this tax.

[QUOTE=JesterUK;39635314]yeah we should leave people to fuck their bodies up and not try to help them because you don't want to see ads on your coke bottle[/QUOTE] lmao surgeon general's warning coke kills

[QUOTE=Chopstick;39635757]I'm struggling to think of any drinks that contain no sugar[/quote] Diet sodas

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39635775]Diet sodas[/QUOTE] anti american

[QUOTE=Chopstick;39635757]This is quite a petty tax tbh, I'm struggling to think of any drinks that contain no sugar enough as it is so I'm betting that they'll eventually ninja in milkshakes and juices for simply being high in sugar which would kind of defeat the point of this tax.[/QUOTE] Most drinks have a zero sugar version, diet coke, coke zero, diet pepsi, pepsi max, dr pepper zero, diet red bull, zero calorie monster, etc

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39635775]Diet sodas[/QUOTE] Yeah and heated beverages like tea and coffee as long as you don't load them up with it

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39635851]Yeah and heated beverages like tea and coffee as long as you don't load them up with it[/QUOTE] I find sweetener tastes just as good in those

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;39630199]How about you fuck off. I can put in my body whatever the hell I want.[/QUOTE] No one's banning anything What would you suggest doing about obesity anyway? The reason so many poorer people have weight problems is that crap food is generally the cheapest. So imo as well as giving junk food higher taxes, they should also lower taxes on healthier food to balance it out

[QUOTE=matt.ant;39635887]I find sweetener tastes just as good in those[/QUOTE] Do they? Not tried them myself, take everything black with no sugar these days. Sweeteners do have some health concerns of their own worth considering i.e. - [QUOTE]A 2005 study by the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio showed that increased weight gain and obesity were associated with increased use of diet soda in a population-based study. The study did not establish whether increased weight gain leads to increased consumption of diet drinks or whether consumption of diet drinks could have an effect on weight gain.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Animal studies have indicated that a sweet taste induces an insulin response in rats. However, the extension of animal model findings to humans is unclear, as human studies of intragastric infusion of sucralose have shown no insulin response from analogous taste receptors. The release of insulin causes blood sugar to be stored in tissues (including fat). In the case of a response to artificial sweeteners, because blood sugar does not increase there can be increased hypoglycemia or hyperinsulinemia and increased food intake the next time there is a meal. Rats given sweeteners have steadily increased calorie intake, increased body weight, and increased adiposity (fatness). Furthermore, the natural responses to eating sugary foods (eating less at the next meal and using some of the extra calories to warm the body after the sugary meal) are gradually lost.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Chopstick;39635757]This is quite a petty tax tbh, I'm struggling to think of any drinks that contain no sugar enough as it is so I'm betting that they'll eventually ninja in milkshakes and juices for simply being high in sugar which would kind of defeat the point of this tax.[/QUOTE] Water. Some milk. It is a pointless tax yes.

thank god politicians are willing to protect us from choices, they sure take a lot on themselves

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39636073]thank god politicians are willing to protect us from choices, they sure take a lot on themselves[/QUOTE] That's why they are elected.

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;39630199]How about you fuck off. I can put in my body whatever the hell I want.[/QUOTE] Anyone disagreeing with this statement needs to back the fuck off. Government doesn't regulate my body and it shouldn't

Why does everyone care so much about what I want to put into my own body? Weather it be smoking a cig or eating a donut in the privacy of my own home, I should be allowed to do that if I damn please.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39636196]Anyone disagreeing with this statement needs to back the fuck off. Government doesn't regulate my body and it shouldn't[/QUOTE] Where does the article say anything about banning anything or controlling who can buy stuff?

Treating it like cigarettes isn't totally wise though, because those are two different arguments. Your food intake affects you and you only. I don't get intestinal cancer because you had a cheeseburger. Cigs though, are different. I don't want to be near anyone smoking because I [I]could[/I] get lung cancer from that. Unfortunately its hard to make a law about that because on one hand you're limiting choice "but its for the people" and on the other you're keeping choice and some are all "but it hurrrrrts meeeee do somethinggg gov gov"

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39636196]Anyone disagreeing with this statement needs to back the fuck off. Government doesn't regulate my body and it shouldn't[/QUOTE] How do you feel about mandatory extensive drug trials before medication is allowed to be marketed, or regulations regarding the maximum levels of things like lead and mercury in foods

I think we have come to a reasonable conclusion. Kill doctors and the government!

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;39636289]Why does everyone care so much about what I want to put into my own body? Weather it be smoking a cig or eating a donut in the privacy of my own home, I should be allowed to do that if I damn please.[/QUOTE] Dead men don't pay taxes

More then likely going to get attacked, but it is the governments problem for how you choose to live you life when you claim back through the system, eg, healthcare. You are more then welcome to put whatever you like in your body as long as you are not a burden to the system and take money away from people who really need it. You cost the government more when you are unhealthy, thus an incentive to make you healthy. I have no problem with this, eating reasonably is not expensive (I will agree eating really healthy is), but it is more work (OH NO COOKING). I really do not want to be paying for diabetes and cardiovascular disease, rather be paying for other things.

The US government invests around $10 billion a year in corn farmers so they can produce extra corn and sell it cheap for high fructose corn syrup, making soft drinks cheap. Why would use the people's money to make the drinks cheap and then take more money to make them expensive?

[QUOTE=DudeGuyKT;39637868]The US government invests around $10 billion a year in corn farmers so they can produce extra corn and sell it cheap for high fructose corn syrup, making soft drinks cheap. Why would use the people's money to make the drinks cheap and then take more money to make them expensive?[/QUOTE] Lobbyists. [i]Taking money away from an unprofitable business will hurt the industry.[/i] Agriculture needs major innovation and a big kick up the ass.

They should just make adds that point to eating healthy and the benefits of doing so. For instance have a commercial that gives cold hard facts about the food that people are stuffing into their faces (Mcnuggets or some bullshit) and provide healthy alternatives like I don't know real actual food?

[QUOTE=crazyjames;39638007]They should just make adds that point to eating healthy and the benefits of doing so. For instance have a commercial that gives cold hard facts about the food that people are stuffing into their faces (Mcnuggets or some bullshit) and provide healthy alternatives like I don't know real actual food?[/QUOTE] Doesn't work. How long have we been doing this with smoking. They best way to get someone to stop something is an incentive or disincentive. Remove things that make Junk-Food cheaper, plop that money into R&D for farming.

i like the idea of putting more taxes on food products that are not part of a healthy diet. i don't like the idea of banning ads, bannning is just stupid.