We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
21 Oct 15
13:14
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
Jamie Oliver made it easy to tabulate how much sugar is in food. 4g (4 grammes) is one level teaspoon of sugar - or one sugar cube.
my can of cola has 37g of sugar. nasty.
I switched to pepsi max - but get a coctail of weirdness instead. Chemical heaven.
I can go into a bargain store and get a can for 30p - the same can in a chippy is 65p - in the local petrol garage the same can is 85p? so if they implement a sugar tax what is the right price?
sugar is about 60p a bag - so they should put the tax on the sugar at source. £2 a bag. Its a poison that attacks the pancreas. It was introduced to the uk 400 years ago. It shouldn't even be in our diets. As a sugar junky I would prefer to see it gone.
my can of cola has 37g of sugar. nasty.
I switched to pepsi max - but get a coctail of weirdness instead. Chemical heaven.
I can go into a bargain store and get a can for 30p - the same can in a chippy is 65p - in the local petrol garage the same can is 85p? so if they implement a sugar tax what is the right price?
sugar is about 60p a bag - so they should put the tax on the sugar at source. £2 a bag. Its a poison that attacks the pancreas. It was introduced to the uk 400 years ago. It shouldn't even be in our diets. As a sugar junky I would prefer to see it gone.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 58
|
By:
I cant believe I used to put sugar in my tea.
stopped about 15 years ago and now it seems as surreal as snuff |
|
By:
snuff as in the stuff dirty old men used to sniff
not the snuff dirty old men used to watch |
|
By:
If you don't want to eat Sugar don't
Don't try telling the rest of what to do, we choose for ourselves There should be no tax on sugar, alcohol or tobacco |
|
By:
that post was directed at OP
|
|
By:
Huge, swingeing taxes on sugar, alcohol and tobacco is the way forward, only a moron would argue otherwise.
|
|
By:
It's about time somebody made it easy to tabulate how much sugar is in food. Take a bow, Jamie Oliver.
|
|
By:
I reckon his days are numbered, Tate & Lyle are virtually the Illuminati.
|
|
By:
The first thing they need to do is stop ambiguity.
Tea spoons and tablespoons as measurements are ridiculous. They are like measuring things in monkeys feet Is it exactly level, slightly heaped, its hardly accurate is it. Everyone needs to talk in grammes imo |
|
By:
Second thing is stop the allowable bilge like 'can be part of a balanced diet' or 'no added sugar' when they add sucrose or other alternatives instead
|
|
By:
Torquemada • October 21, 2015 2:32 PM BST
Huge, swingeing taxes on sugar, alcohol and tobacco is the way forward, only a moron would argue otherwise.  I take it I am that moron  .We are adults we need to be responsible for own health, and make our own choices I don't want Governments or Medical Hitlers telling us what we eat or drink I would also legalise all drugs. Hard and Soft. The thing is some people have poor quality of life, they do not compete well in our society They need all this stuff to hold them up make their life easier, so being a kind man, I would give it to them ps I drink Pepsi Max , no sugar at all |
|
By:
I'm fit and healthy and consume loads of sugar. Who cares if a can of coke has 37g of sugar. Next they'll be taxing calories
Most people are stupid and/or lazy. That's why we have fat wasters not because of McDonald's or Coca Cola |
|
By:
Lets go the whole hog Ebul and legalise everything including murder.
|
|
By:
 I think there is a fair point here akabula Do we control our own health or do we want the government to do it for us? I believe we control our own health, it is not the job or responsibility of government |
|
By:
1in5 imprisonments last year were drug related which seems baffling.
However, people need Gastric bypass surgery because they cant walk past the sweet aisle. I dont think theyll cope well with heroin on the shelves |
|
By:
Some seem to assume that conscious decisions are always made when buying stuff.
The marketing industry spends billions to discourage us from doing so. Many kids are addicted to the stuff because their idiotic parents brought them up liking the stuff. Is that being kind to them? We need protecting from ourselves. We need help in protecting our own health. It is not just 'our job'. One reason why we must have help is that we all have to pick up the pieces via the NHS for self-inflicted health problems. If the fatties paid for all their NHS treatment for diabetes, gastric bands, joint replacements etc etc fair enough - but they don't and many can't because a lot of the fatties struggle to perform any job. Many end up on benefits and in mobility scooters. We all pay for this. |
|
By:
Do we control our own health or do we want the government to do it for us?
Its funny because you hardly ever see private enterprise giving health advice (unless they have 'healthy products' themselves or are taking advantage of public opinion to increase exposure to their brand. Health advice comes from the state, as does regulation when it is lacking (too seldom nowadays). Reminders to eat well etc arnt in the interests of those wanting to profit. There is a 15 year gap in life expectancy between the affluent and the impecunious and much of that is down to the way ill educated sorts are targeted by nefarious organisations to consume their crap. The contemporary diet has worsened over time, enterprise says its about choice, about necessity but they all follow each other in attempting to hook the consumer on their own brands so they can return profit to share holders. They dont care about you, your family or whether life expectancy decreases, they care about money. Nobody is saying ban sugar totally, nor salt nor tobacco, but they all have their lobby to garner insidious support of the sale of their wares and the daft need to be protected. |
|
By:
The answer to the OP about which is the correct price is that a sugar tax if implemented would be on the producers at source, which would then increase the price of the product for retailers irrespective of type who then have the decision of whether its still a product they want to offer.
|
|
By:
A tax on sugar won't make a scrap of difference to people getting fat.
It's our wallets that will get thinner not our waistlines. |
|
By:
Oliver couldn't care less about the amounts of sugar in our diets.
It's the amount of publicity he gets from his campaign about it that he's interested in. |
|
By:
Zazu • October 22, 2015 5:04 AM BST
1in5 imprisonments last year were drug related which seems baffling. However, people need Gastric bypass surgery because they cant walk past the sweet aisle. I dont think theyll cope well with heroin on the shelves We should not give gastric bypass surgery unless people pay for it I eat too much sweet stuff, so what? I do not expect society to pay for that. All children have a sweet tooth I am afraid we are turning into a society of weak, wimpy women aren't we? With pathetic trivial values. that is the sad truth  |
|
By:
Oliver might jump onto the cause but he isnt the cause in itself.
That has been going on since MPs lobbied parliament since the navigation act created the problem in the first place hundreds of years ago. Companies dont lower sugar, salt or fat content by their own devices, they will use any and all to get people eating their product rather than a competitor, then they all end up doing it till we have to act. Its all well and good saying people should know better but look on the shelves in the shops, look at the adverts on tv or the leaflets through the door, they are all saying 'your life is hard, let us cook for you' Non of the CEOs of the major tobacco firms are smokers, and I suspect non of the food processors eat their own produce either. |
|
By:
Since I live in a country with publicly funded healthcare I would find it reasonable with a tax on sweet drinks. If it makes some people drink more water instead - great. Those who keep drinking as much sweet drinks as before, well at least they get to pay a bit more to the healthcare system, which only would be fair since they are more likely to need lots of healthcare than those who don't drink much sweet drinks. Hopefully any such tax will be on all sweet drinks, including fruit juices and artificially sweetened drinks. It's only studies funded by the food industry that find no link between artificially sweetened drinks and weight gain. This article http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/04/08/diet-soda-weight-gain-cancer.aspx contains links to several scientific studies on the subject.
But most of all I would like to see warning labels on all sweet drinks. Something along the lines of: "High consumption of sweet drinks (including fruit juices and artificially sweetened drinks) is strongly linked with obesity and an increased risk of several serious diseases and health problems." I would also welcome restricted advertising, and maybe also plain packaging. |
|
By:
We managed to decrease the number of smokers via several strategies.
Taxation Public Information/Anti-Smoking Legislation Limitations on Marketing, Advertising, Promotion Need similar strategies to curb obesity. |
|
By:
The only thing that led to me packing up smoking was the health warnings.
I used to love cigarettes. |
|
By:
Drinks are just an easy target because people will still just buy them as normal and pay extra. Heard today they were trying to ban promotions (buy one get one free etc)
 Jamie Oliver hasn't exactly got the body of a gym rat. |
|
By:
Oh dear. The latest moral panic gathers pace.
"All the evidence indicates that per capita consumption of sugar, salt, fat and calories has been falling in Britain for decades. Per capita sugar consumption has fallen by 16 per cent since 1992 and per capita calorie consumption has fallen by 21 per cent since 1974" "According to the British Heart Foundation (2012 :107): ‘Overall intake of calories, fat and saturated fat has decreased since the 1970s. This trend is accompanied by a decrease in sugar and salt intake, and an increase in fibre and fruit and vegetable intake.’ http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/in-the-media/files/Briefing_The%20Fat%20Lie.pdf |
|
By:
I agree with ebul. Sentient adults should have the information to make informed choices and then be free to choose but they should also take responsibility for their actions.
|
|
By:
About sums it up perfectly eternaloptimist.
Got to get the balance between education and nanny state right. |
|
By:
I've just found out it will not be the first time "sugar", namely sucrose has been taxed in the UK, it was heavily taxed until 1874. It was only after Gladstone lifted the tax that the poor could afford sucrose.
I am happy enough to agree with research that obesity is in part a product of a change in physiological and psychological condition, rather than just lazy greedy fatties being lazy greedy fatties. However, the thing i don't get, is that if we are going to lump sucrose together with other addictive substances like nicotine and alcohol, why has there been such an explosion in the number of fatty boombooms over the last 20 years? Why haven't we all been getting fat since 1874. This is the question that needs answering. If it really is all about HFCS and its prevalence across all food products then that culprit should be addressed before imposing a blanket tax on soft drinks containing "sugar". |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Why haven't we all been getting fat since 1874.
- Nobody walks anywhere any more - particularly kids to school. - Fewer sports facilities / fields - Fewer children playing sports, etc, at school - Far more sugar in lots of foods, like the total proliferation in ready meals, baked beans, tinned sauces, etc, etc, combined with how many cook these days compared to eating quick ready meals - Pure and utter laziness - Advertising |
|
By:
"iea, as in the Institute of Economic Affairs, the think tank that has been revealed to happily do some lobbying on behalf of the tobacco industry in return for some funding?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/15/cigarette-packaging-corporate-smokescreen-liberty Not a very credible source on issues of public health" You missed the quote from the British Heart Foundation. And how about DEFRA? "This statement may come as a surprise to some people, but it is factually correct. All the available data support it. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has carried out annual surveys of the British diet since 1974. These surveys are based on diet diaries compiled by a cross-section of the public and are supported by till receipts (DEFRA, 2013)." |
|
By:
Why haven't we all been getting fat since 1874.
- Nobody walks anywhere any more - particularly kids to school. - Fewer sports facilities / fields - Fewer children playing sports, etc, at school apparently, these reasons aren't true. we're generally as active as we've always been, certainly not massively different. - Far more sugar in lots of foods, like the total proliferation in ready meals, baked beans, tinned sauces, etc, etc, combined with how many cook these days compared to eating quick ready meals this is apparently closer to the real and primary reason. Sugar, in the form of HFCS, is f*cking everywhere. Also since the doctors told us how awful fat was for us, we've been cutting down on fat and loading up on refined carbs, i.e. polymerised sugar, instead. Taxing one type of product isn't the answer to the problem. It's like taxing spirits and saying everything else isn't harmful. - Pure and utter laziness - Advertising |
|
By:
A 1.75 litre bottle of Robinsons double strength squash and several crates of 2 litre Tesco Perthshire (aka Highland Spring) carbonated natural water lasts me a couple of months and tastes just as good as any canned fizzy plop.
Couple of pints a day cost maybe 20p(?) and it's a whole lot healthier too. |
|
By:
Why haven't we all been getting fat since 1874.
Quite possibly because from roughly the 1870s dietary advice was to avoid sugars and starches if you wanted to be slim. That was overtaken by the lipid hypothesis that fat was the cause of heart disease, starting in the 1960s, which eventually led to HFCS being used in foods to replace the fat that had previously made it palatable by the start if the 1980s. While fat satiates anything carbohydrate does not. So it really is a double whammy, not only do you store fat via insulin on the 'up-spike', you switch on appetite on the down-spike - the slump. |
|
By:
Is "he" going to cut out sugar in his restaurant's Tiramisu,Chocolate Fudge Cake, Baked Cheesecake, Profiteroles, Banoffee Pie etc
or use it as an excuse to put up his already outlandish prices? |
|
By:
People eat for pleasure, that's why they get fat.
Cut out cakes, biscuits, chocolate bars and sweets and your weight will look after itself. |
|
By:
You could add booze to that list Dr C but not many would listen.
|
|
By:
Fizzy drinks stooge just been on news telling us what we already knew; that they don't think it's a good idea.
Well let's try it and see shall we? He said many of the drinks are sugar free......then you've nowt to panic over then have you. Says drinks are treats and can be part of a balanced diet. I can never get those old cigarette adverts out of my mind whenever I hear that waffle, the ones where nicoteen was selling fa gs to kids in the playground and superman came and battered him for being a pr1ck |