Tax on sugar?

The Chief Medical Office for England has said that it may be necessary to consider introducing a tax on sugar in view of the increased levels of obesity and chronic ill health linked to excessive consumption of sugar in foods.

Is this:

• an unacceptable manifestation of the nanny state and an unacceptable intrusion into matters that should be for personal responsibility; or
  
• a regrettable necessity as a public health measure given the projected growing burden on society of conditions such as diabetes linked to excess consumption of sugar in foods
  

It won't happen anytime soon with the polls the way they are as the Tories don't need to toxify anymore before the next election.....

But what a great idea....Put a tax on sugar so it hits all the working class consumers....

Parents who bring the kids up the right way and are squeezed in this current climate will have to think about giving their kids a treat at the weekend...Maybe their pride and joys will have to miss out on their strawberry shake for Burger King because they can't afford it....while some business tycoon who pays zilcho tax buys another Yacht or some foreign Prime minister buys some more weapons on British money..

The Chief Medical Officer can go an screw himself........

Let Labour do it.

If the Tories enact it it'll just be labelled another 'tax on the poor' as apparently poor people can/do only eat high salt/sugar junk food and don't know what fresh fruit and veg are.

HAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Wrote my post before reading Truss'. Hilarious and exactly what I'm talking about. More crass left-liberal ignorance.

TopHat24/7 wrote:HAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Wrote my post before reading Truss'. Hilarious and exactly what I'm talking about.  More crass left-liberal ignorance.

Abuse and no rebuttal.....   

Rebuttal was in my original post.

oh that.........okay !!.......

I'll wait for something better.......But not from you.

You can't handle better.

Wonder what poor people think, with patronising oafs like you preaching about them all the time from your cosseted middle class enclaves.

Simple fact is you can eat healthy for cheaper than you can eat junk food.

But crass pompous lecturing idiots like you use anything to score cheap political points, therefore turning a tax on something considered dangerous to people's health into an attack on the poor because according to you all they eat is pizza, fried chicken and turkey twizzlers.

"Wonder what poor people think "

Difference is kid...I came from a family with little money....

Why do you have to be left wing to decry policies that will hurt hard working families anyway ??..

You don't debate...You abuse........and It's pathetic..

Never been poor since you moved to this country, which is all that's relevant, since you've been bankrolled by the missus' family.

You don't have to be 'left wing to decry policies blah blah blah', it's just a typical left wing thing to do to find any way in any policy to try and bend it as an attack on the poor - no matter how hypocritical, insulting and patronising that bending has to be.

You mention 'debate', but you haven't debated anything either.

Where's your answer to healthy being cheaper than junk-food?

Why do you castigate poor people with only eating high sugar/salt food like MacDonalds and the like??

What has my circumstances got to do with not wanting a tax to come in which will hurt the stretched working classes ??

Because I have money should I want to pee on them like you ???

I'm talking about a treat for the kids every weekend........Burger king/Mcdonalds costs money when you have "kids".....

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be more health conscious when feeding their loved ones..

What the hell is the matter with you ??

No, your circumstances don't bother me a jot, the comment was more to query how poor people feel to be castigated and patronised by the better off like you?

Simple fact is this isn't a tax on the poor. The only people to come up with such nonsense are desperate pot-shotters trying to take hits at the Tories and/or 'elite' without thought, reason or rational basis.

Tobacco tax a hit on the poor too because you hold an image of them lazing around all day smoking?

Speaking of 'laying around all day', is the TV licence a tax on the poor to since all they apparently do is sit on their arses watching tele??

It's all utter tripe.

By saying I don't want a policy coming in that hurts hard working blue collar types that are stretched.. I'm patronising ?

Silly Labour for patronising working class types by giving them the minimum wage !!!

How dare they..

It is patronising because you are saying that 'working blue collar types' (as you choose to put it) will suffer disproportionately as they are the ones hit by a tax essentially aimed at junk food. Ergo, "look at all the poor people eating turkey twizzlers and big macs whilst all the posh/rich eat paella and steak tartar".

Ever thought that maybe poor people don't like the idea of you generalising them this way? Ever heard of Momma Jack? Reckon any of her recipes will be hit by this??

If the gov't announced a tax on smoked salmon and caviar you wouldn't be opening your mouth, would you?

What's the point.......

I'm talking about people who have two jobs like the woman on the news the other night being forced to go to food banks to feed her kids.........Putting family before her own self respect..bless her.

Funnily enough there is sugar in a lot of products.......Who's going to be hurt by a tax rise..

Not you and me !...........

Don't eat sugar myself (except for Twinkies). My dad is diabetic, and a bit like the those people who cut off the corner off the pork because their mom did, I kinda turned away from sugar, and later all sweeteners (mainly because they suck and taste like hate)...

That said, taxing sugar is a little rich (pardon the pun)... Off the top of my head that's increase
Cereal
Milkshake
soft drinks
Nearly all juices which aren't 100% fruit juice
Cookies
Biscuits
desserts...

Bread and water diet for all!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What's the point.......

I'm talking about people who have two jobs like the woman on the news the other night being forced to go to food banks to feed her kids.........Putting family before her own self respect..bless her.

Funnily enough there is sugar in a lot of products.......Who's going to be hurt by a tax rise..

Not you and me !...........

More BS. One of the great fallacies of the recession.

Lot of sugar/salt in processed food products, yes, but nobody is forcing anyone to eat them and 'poverty' is not an excuse as it's cheaper to eat healthy/fresh food.

The whole argument is utter rot and quite pathetic.

kingraf wrote:Don't eat sugar myself (except for Twinkies). My dad is diabetic, and a bit like the those people who cut off the corner off the pork because their mom did, I kinda turned away from sugar, and later all sweeteners (mainly because they suck and taste like hate)...

That said, taxing sugar is a little rich (pardon the pun)... Off the top of my head that's increase
Cereal
Milkshake
soft drinks
Nearly all juices which aren't 100% fruit juice
Cookies
Biscuits
desserts...

Bread and water diet for all!!

Which is why it almost certainly will never happen anywhere, so the whole 'debate' is moot.

Even milk has lactose in it ffs, gov't is gonna have a tricky time deciding which sugars to tax and which to let go, e.g. tax sucrose and glucose but allow fructose and lactose.....

kingraf wrote:Don't eat sugar myself (except for Twinkies). My dad is diabetic, and a bit like the those people who cut off the corner off the pork because their mom did, I kinda turned away from sugar, and later all sweeteners (mainly because they suck and taste like hate)...

That said, taxing sugar is a little rich (pardon the pun)... Off the top of my head that's increase
Cereal
Milkshake
soft drinks
Nearly all juices which aren't 100% fruit juice
Cookies
Biscuits
desserts...

Bread and water diet for all!!

I'll ignore the spoilt brat......More foods than that my friend.....

What we'll do is just write a list of foods working class people can eat.........and we'll enjoy the rest !!  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Don't eat sugar myself (except for Twinkies). My dad is diabetic, and a bit like the those people who cut off the corner off the pork because their mom did, I kinda turned away from sugar, and later all sweeteners (mainly because they suck and taste like hate)...

That said, taxing sugar is a little rich (pardon the pun)... Off the top of my head that's increase
Cereal
Milkshake
soft drinks
Nearly all juices which aren't 100% fruit juice
Cookies
Biscuits
desserts...

Bread and water diet for all!!

I'll ignore the spoilt  brat......More foods than that my friend.....

What we'll do is just write a list of foods working class people can eat.........and we'll enjoy the rest !!  

PAHHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHA

So, among that list are all the things I (and anyone else) can eat:

Fresh fruit
Fresh bread
Meat
Fish
Seafood
Beans, pulses & grains

Etc etc etc

All sounds bloody delicious to me, god knows why you're creating such a fuss.

Actually, I do know, cheap political point scoring and trying to feel better about yourself for, in fact, patronising the poor as a bunch of lazy turkey twizzler eating layabouts.

With all those foods about..Why are you such a fat slob ??

Because I eat double or triple portions of all of them!!

And I'm not a slob, just fat.

What did one of Toppy's heroes ...Edwina Currie say about foodbanks..........

People are using them so they can sell food on the black market...So she'd close them down !!

Think we know where Toppy is coming from in this debate.....

Not really.

I'm confident 90% of people turning up at food banks could be sent home with a set of Momma Jack's recipe cards, feeding for sub-£1 a head and all healthy and nutritious.

I don't see the issue with this.

High sugar foods contribute to obesity and Britain is heading for an obesity epidemic. You can either tackle that, or accept the inevitable consequences. Either way, additional taxation will be necessary, either as a deterrent, to fund educational programmes, or to fund the additional burden on the health service.

Realistically, taxation has to be one aspect of the approach.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Not really.

I'm confident 90% of people turning up at food banks could be sent home with a set of Momma Jack's recipe cards, feeding for sub-£1 a head and all healthy and nutritious.

I'd like to know where you get the statistics to back up your view that healthy food is cheaper than junk food. Is it something you've read and latched on to, or do you genuinely have hard data to back it up.

How much do you think it costs to feed a family of four with own brand/ value chicken nuggets and chips? Which requires less preparation? Which option requires less planning to minimise waste? Which option allows for greater portion control?

Well, as I said, Momma Jack has built her career on feeding a family for less the £1 with healthy and nutritious food (but not chef-y or overly complicated to prepare).

The rest of your questions seem entirely superfluous to the debate. Who the f cares about the rest of that when the debate is simply whether you can prepare fresh food for cheaper than Macdonalds?

Who needs data beyond what you can see with your own eyes? MacDonalds is going to cost £4-5 a head for a family of four. I know I can cook fresh lasagne with salad for less than half that.

When I was on a grad salary (the almost entirety of which was spent on rent and bills) the way I budgeted to save money was by buying fresh ingredients and preparing and cooking my own meals - BECAUSE it was a hell of a lot cheaper. And I was doing that on top of a 50 hour week, so no crap about 'finding the time' etc washes either.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The Chief Medical Office for England has said that it may be necessary to consider introducing a tax on sugar in view of the increased levels of obesity and chronic ill health linked to excessive consumption of sugar in foods.

Is this:

• an unacceptable manifestation of the nanny state and an unacceptable intrusion into matters that should be for personal responsibility; or
  
• a regrettable necessity as a public health measure given the projected growing burden on society of conditions such as diabetes linked to excess consumption of sugar in foods
  

For me, definitely the former.

If people are too stupid to realise they're eating more than they need to, or too lazy to excercise enough to burn off the calories, thats their problem.

I'd say if there is no underlying medical condition and its simply down to a poor diet, I'd make people pay a fee / contribution towards their treatment and take it out of any benefits they receive, if need be.

Hit them where it hurts and they might be more inclined to help themselves.

If you're too bloody lazy/stupid not to exercise, then you'll be overweight won't you? It's not difficult.

I think the tax is over the top, but the government must be seen to be doing something.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Well, as I said, Momma Jack has built her career on feeding a family for less the £1 with healthy and nutritious food (but not chef-y or overly complicated to prepare).

The rest of your questions seem entirely superfluous to the debate. Who the f cares about the rest of that when the debate is simply whether you can prepare fresh food for cheaper than Macdonalds?

Who needs data beyond what you can see with your own eyes? MacDonalds is going to cost £4-5 a head for a family of four.  I know I can cook fresh lasagne with salad for less than half that.

When I was on a grad salary (the almost entirety of which was spent on rent and bills) the way I budgeted to save money was by buying fresh ingredients and preparing and cooking my own meals - BECAUSE it was a hell of a lot cheaper.  And I was doing that on top of a 50 hour week, so no crap about 'finding the time' etc washes either.

Who needs data beyond what you can see with you own eyes? Presumably people who can't see beyond the end of their own nose. You're comparing apples and pears. The options aren't healthy food or McDonalds. Just as you can eat healthy food cheaply a la Momma Jack, so you can also eat junk more cheaply than McDonalds.

The rest of my questions are relevant to the side debate you and Truss are having as to who a sugar tax would hit. Less food wasted means less money wasted.

Going back to the main discussion, I support a tax on sugar insofar as it represents a deterrent to poor health choices. However, it needs supporting via other mechanisms. Greater regulation of food content is one. Education programmes are another.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Well, as I said, Momma Jack has built her career on feeding a family for less the £1 with healthy and nutritious food (but not chef-y or overly complicated to prepare).

The rest of your questions seem entirely superfluous to the debate. Who the f cares about the rest of that when the debate is simply whether you can prepare fresh food for cheaper than Macdonalds?

Who needs data beyond what you can see with your own eyes? MacDonalds is going to cost £4-5 a head for a family of four.  I know I can cook fresh lasagne with salad for less than half that.

When I was on a grad salary (the almost entirety of which was spent on rent and bills) the way I budgeted to save money was by buying fresh ingredients and preparing and cooking my own meals - BECAUSE it was a hell of a lot cheaper.  And I was doing that on top of a 50 hour week, so no crap about 'finding the time' etc washes either.

Well said!

While I don't go as far as cooking lasagne from scratch, I do buy fresh meat and veg, prepare it and cook it, rather than buy processed microwave / oven-ready stuff for 90% of my meals. Usually takes no longer than 30 minutes to an hour at most. Either that or bung some meat and salad stuff into a sandwich - which takes all of 5 minutes.

As you said, you can easily do that for half or a quarter of what you'd spend at McDonalds or Pizza Hut.

Of course, I like pizza, chocolate and crisps as much as the next person, but I make sure to moderate my intake.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Well, as I said, Momma Jack has built her career on feeding a family for less the £1 with healthy and nutritious food (but not chef-y or overly complicated to prepare).

The rest of your questions seem entirely superfluous to the debate. Who the f cares about the rest of that when the debate is simply whether you can prepare fresh food for cheaper than Macdonalds?

Who needs data beyond what you can see with your own eyes? MacDonalds is going to cost £4-5 a head for a family of four.  I know I can cook fresh lasagne with salad for less than half that.

When I was on a grad salary (the almost entirety of which was spent on rent and bills) the way I budgeted to save money was by buying fresh ingredients and preparing and cooking my own meals - BECAUSE it was a hell of a lot cheaper.  And I was doing that on top of a 50 hour week, so no crap about 'finding the time' etc washes either.

Who needs data beyond what you can see with you own eyes? Presumably people who can't see beyond the end of their own nose. You're comparing apples and pears. The options aren't healthy food or McDonalds. Just as you can eat healthy food cheaply a la Momma Jack, so you can also eat junk more cheaply than McDonalds.

The rest of my questions are relevant to the side debate you and Truss are having as to who a sugar tax would hit. Less food wasted means less money wasted.

Going back to the main discussion, I support a tax on sugar insofar as it represents a deterrent to poor health choices. However, it needs supporting via other mechanisms. Greater regulation of food content is one. Education programmes are another.

I'm not sure about that. Wasn't the last big duty increase on alcohol / ban on supermarkets sellling cut-price booze meant to deter binge drinking? As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to have worked...

The options aren't healthy food or McDonalds.

----------------------

Have you not read the thread? That's exactly what the debate has been up until now.

Just went on Tesco.com and you can feed a family of four a meal of pasta with mushrooms, courgettes and chicken/chicken in a cream sauce along with a side salad of rocket and fresh tomato for a shade over £2 a head.

I'd take 30 mins to prep and cook that.

All fresh ingredients (save the dried pasta) and none are deliberately cheapo (e.g. own brand or heavily processed). Wastage should be almost non-existent (struggling to understand the relevance of your point here).

What does a meal of oven chips, beans and nuggets cost per head and how long does it take to cook and prepare? Timing should be about the same and cost, what, half at best? A saving of £1 per head is not the difference between being able to feed and clothe your children or not.

dyrewolfe wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The Chief Medical Office for England has said that it may be necessary to consider introducing a tax on sugar in view of the increased levels of obesity and chronic ill health linked to excessive consumption of sugar in foods.

Is this:

• an unacceptable manifestation of the nanny state and an unacceptable intrusion into matters that should be for personal responsibility; or
  
• a regrettable necessity as a public health measure given the projected growing burden on society of conditions such as diabetes linked to excess consumption of sugar in foods
  

I'd say if there is no underlying medical condition and its simply down to a poor diet, I'd make people pay a fee / contribution towards their treatment and take it out of any benefits they receive, if need be.

Totally unworkable for one.....All kinds of eating disorders !! .......and yes hit the Mum in the pocket and let the kids suffer...Good idea !!

I don't pay a load of tax for these a***holes to decide who to play God with.......

Be interesting to see a calorie / fat / salt / sugar comparison of the chicken-veg-pasta dish and the nuggets-chips-and-beans.

I used to live with 2 very obese people and the two main arguments they had against eating more healthily were cost and preparation time.

dyrewolfe wrote:Be interesting to see a calorie / fat / salt / sugar comparison of the chicken-veg-pasta dish and the nuggets-chips-and-beans.

I used to live with 2 very obese people and the two main arguments they had against eating more healthily were cost and preparation time.

My pasta would, I suspect, have similar carbs (maybe slightly less), similar protein (maybe a fraction more as it'll be using real meat not processed meat puree), more vits & mins, less salt certainly (fresh ingredients have more flavour so require less salt to enhance), less sugar (not needed to balance out excess salt) but more fat due to the cream sauce. Sub the cream for crème fraiche and it'd be level or better though.

I'm trying to lose weight at the moment and am having a bag of salad with a handful of fresh prawns for tea. 350 cals, minimal fat, 5 mins to prepare, good protein content. Only problem is it is about £3-4 a meal. Cheaper than fast food/takeaway but more expensive than a ready-meal or the aforementioned budget nuggets chips n beans.

TopHat24/7 wrote:The options aren't healthy food or McDonalds.

----------------------

Have you not read the thread? That's exactly what the debate has been up until now.

Just went on Tesco.com and you can feed a family of four a meal of pasta with mushrooms, courgettes and chicken/chicken in a cream sauce along with a side salad of rocket and fresh tomato for a shade over £2 a head.

I'd take 30 mins to prep and cook that.

All fresh ingredients (save the dried pasta) and none are deliberately cheapo (e.g. own brand or heavily processed). Wastage should be almost non-existent (struggling to understand the relevance of your point here).

What does a meal of oven chips, beans and nuggets cost per head and how long does it take to cook and prepare? Timing should be about the same and cost, what, half at best? A saving of £1 per head is not the difference between being able to feed and clothe your children or not.

£1 per head per dinner is £120 per month for a family of four. If you're on a low income, that's a big saving.

The relevance of my point about wastage is that fresh food goes off, frozen food doesn't. How much fresh food does the average home waste? How much does that cost? That's less of an issue if you don't eat much fresh food, depressing though that thought is.

Anyway, I suspect I have as much chance convincing you of my point of view as you do of convincing me. And this discussion is not entirely relevant to the thread. What are your views on a proposed sugar tax? Why do you think it's over the top? How would you tackle obesity?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The Chief Medical Office for England has said that it may be necessary to consider introducing a tax on sugar in view of the increased levels of obesity and chronic ill health linked to excessive consumption of sugar in foods.

Is this:

• an unacceptable manifestation of the nanny state and an unacceptable intrusion into matters that should be for personal responsibility; or
  
• a regrettable necessity as a public health measure given the projected growing burden on society of conditions such as diabetes linked to excess consumption of sugar in foods
  

I'd say if there is no underlying medical condition and its simply down to a poor diet, I'd make people pay a fee / contribution towards their treatment and take it out of any benefits they receive, if need be.

[1] Totally unworkable for one.....All kinds of eating disorders !! .......and yes hit the Mum in the pocket and let the kids suffer...Good idea !!

[2] I don't pay a load of tax for these a***holes to decide who to play God with.......

[1] Its perfectly workable IMO. Did you not read what I wrote? I said IF THERE IS NO UNDERLYING MEDICAL CONDITION i.e. nothing the docs can identify that would cause weight-gain without excessive eating.

Eating disorders are a whole different ball game (and can go the other way - anorexia anyone?) and should be treated separately.

Also any fee should be proportional - i.e. take into account the amount of treatment required and the income of the patient. I didn't say anything about letting the kids to starve.


[2] Well, as I understand it you're American, so you wouldn't be paying for it anyway. The rest of us, sadly thats exactly what we pay this bunch of incompetent idiots, we call a government, for. May as well see some of our taxes used for something useful...

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The options aren't healthy food or McDonalds.

----------------------

Have you not read the thread? That's exactly what the debate has been up until now.

Just went on Tesco.com and you can feed a family of four a meal of pasta with mushrooms, courgettes and chicken/chicken in a cream sauce along with a side salad of rocket and fresh tomato for a shade over £2 a head.

I'd take 30 mins to prep and cook that.

All fresh ingredients (save the dried pasta) and none are deliberately cheapo (e.g. own brand or heavily processed). Wastage should be almost non-existent (struggling to understand the relevance of your point here).

What does a meal of oven chips, beans and nuggets cost per head and how long does it take to cook and prepare? Timing should be about the same and cost, what, half at best? A saving of £1 per head is not the difference between being able to feed and clothe your children or not.

£1 per head per dinner is £120 per month for a family of four. If you're on a low income, that's a big saving.

The relevance of my point about wastage is that fresh food goes off, frozen food doesn't. How much fresh food does the average home waste? How much does that cost? That's less of an issue if you don't eat much fresh food, depressing though that thought is.

Anyway, I suspect I have as much chance convincing you of my point of view as you do of convincing me. And this discussion is not entirely relevant to the thread. What are your views on a proposed sugar tax? Why do you think it's over the top? How would you tackle obesity?

Re wastage, fresh food lasts a week in the fridge. No excuse to say you can't shop once or twice a week. If wastage is a problem, HINT: Don't waste it!! You can't start fabricating issues born out of others fecklessness, it just doesn't count.

Again, I was working 50 hours a week and still managing to shop once or twice and cook and prepare almost all my own meals.

Disagree with the sugar tax from the 'nanny state' principal and my original point that pathetic sycophants like Truss will only try and BS their way to suggest it's a tax on the poor somehow and therefore a toxic policy for the Tories to try enact.

Personally I think school is where the biggest changes are required. Better food-tech/home-ec lessons (it's a disgrace that some people come out of school aged 16 and can't boil an egg even) and more time given to sport and exercise (as well as lessons on nutrition). Eating badly should be stigmatised on the same level as smoking.

I did read it.......and like I say there are lots of different eating disorders.........Binge eating etc  ........ which can lead to obesity !!..

No one wants to be obese....So there is a problem somewhere ....right ??

Listen when Your country can send billions in aid to other Countries....

Then it can afford to treat everybody...With my tax money.........

dyrewolfe wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The Chief Medical Office for England has said that it may be necessary to consider introducing a tax on sugar in view of the increased levels of obesity and chronic ill health linked to excessive consumption of sugar in foods.

Is this:

• an unacceptable manifestation of the nanny state and an unacceptable intrusion into matters that should be for personal responsibility; or
  
• a regrettable necessity as a public health measure given the projected growing burden on society of conditions such as diabetes linked to excess consumption of sugar in foods
  

I'd say if there is no underlying medical condition and its simply down to a poor diet, I'd make people pay a fee / contribution towards their treatment and take it out of any benefits they receive, if need be.

[1] Totally unworkable for one.....All kinds of eating disorders !!  .......and yes hit the Mum in the pocket and let the kids suffer...Good idea !!

[2] I don't pay a load of tax for these a***holes to decide who to play God with.......

[1] Its perfectly workable IMO. Did you not read what I wrote? I said IF THERE IS NO UNDERLYING MEDICAL CONDITION i.e. nothing the docs can identify that would cause weight-gain without excessive eating.

Eating disorders are a whole different ball game (and can go the other way - anorexia anyone?) and should be treated separately.

Also any fee should be proportional - i.e. take into account the amount of treatment required and the income of the patient. I didn't say anything about letting the kids to starve.


[2] Well, as I understand it you're American, so you wouldn't be paying for it anyway. The rest of us, sadly thats exactly what we pay this bunch of incompetent idiots, we call a government, for. May as well see some of our taxes used for something useful...

He's a Yank but has been living over here for years (decades?) with his Brit missus in her dad's house.

He's almost naturalised....

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The options aren't healthy food or McDonalds.

----------------------

Have you not read the thread? That's exactly what the debate has been up until now.

Just went on Tesco.com and you can feed a family of four a meal of pasta with mushrooms, courgettes and chicken/chicken in a cream sauce along with a side salad of rocket and fresh tomato for a shade over £2 a head.

I'd take 30 mins to prep and cook that.

All fresh ingredients (save the dried pasta) and none are deliberately cheapo (e.g. own brand or heavily processed). Wastage should be almost non-existent (struggling to understand the relevance of your point here).

What does a meal of oven chips, beans and nuggets cost per head and how long does it take to cook and prepare? Timing should be about the same and cost, what, half at best? A saving of £1 per head is not the difference between being able to feed and clothe your children or not.

£1 per head per dinner is £120 per month for a family of four. If you're on a low income, that's a big saving.

The relevance of my point about wastage is that fresh food goes off, frozen food doesn't. How much fresh food does the average home waste? How much does that cost? That's less of an issue if you don't eat much fresh food, depressing though that thought is.

Anyway, I suspect I have as much chance convincing you of my point of view as you do of convincing me. And this discussion is not entirely relevant to the thread. What are your views on a proposed sugar tax? Why do you think it's over the top? How would you tackle obesity?

He's a d**k don't worry about convincing him

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I did read it.......and like I say there are lots of different eating disorders.........Binge eating .... stress etc  ........ which can lead to obesity !!..

      

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The options aren't healthy food or McDonalds.

----------------------

Have you not read the thread? That's exactly what the debate has been up until now.

Just went on Tesco.com and you can feed a family of four a meal of pasta with mushrooms, courgettes and chicken/chicken in a cream sauce along with a side salad of rocket and fresh tomato for a shade over £2 a head.

I'd take 30 mins to prep and cook that.

All fresh ingredients (save the dried pasta) and none are deliberately cheapo (e.g. own brand or heavily processed). Wastage should be almost non-existent (struggling to understand the relevance of your point here).

What does a meal of oven chips, beans and nuggets cost per head and how long does it take to cook and prepare? Timing should be about the same and cost, what, half at best? A saving of £1 per head is not the difference between being able to feed and clothe your children or not.

£1 per head per dinner is £120 per month for a family of four. If you're on a low income, that's a big saving.

The relevance of my point about wastage is that fresh food goes off, frozen food doesn't. How much fresh food does the average home waste? How much does that cost? That's less of an issue if you don't eat much fresh food, depressing though that thought is.

Anyway, I suspect I have as much chance convincing you of my point of view as you do of convincing me. And this discussion is not entirely relevant to the thread. What are your views on a proposed sugar tax? Why do you think it's over the top? How would you tackle obesity?

He's a d**k don't worry about convincing him

Don't know whether that's ironic, or just hypocritical.

Either way it's fooking hilarious   

I'm sure when Aneurin Bevan and Clement Attlee introduced your NHS the whole point was universal treatment... (Look them up Toppy If you've never heard of them!!)...

Your NHS is the envy of the World...Why you continue to try to ruin it God only knows...

Wooooooooah, bored of shoe-horning poverty-politics into the debate now Truss is banging on about the NHS.  Which fits in where............??   

kingraf wrote:Don't eat sugar myself (except for Twinkies). My dad is diabetic, and a bit like the those people who cut off the corner off the pork because their mom did, I kinda turned away from sugar, and later all sweeteners (mainly because they suck and taste like hate)...

That said, taxing sugar is a little rich (pardon the pun)... Off the top of my head that's increase
Cereal
Milkshake
soft drinks
Nearly all juices which aren't 100% fruit juice
Cookies
Biscuits
desserts...

Bread and water diet for all!!

They won't tax sugar............So it's pie in the SKY...............Labour for the first time in months have hit 41% in the polls with Yougov...

Gideon wouldn't dare........Then again he probably doesn't want to...........With the incompetence of the Universal credit and the farce of the bedroom tax which cost more to implement than it took in....(Good old gesture politics)

Osborne will give the less fortunate a rest this time....... and next year will be handing out candy before the Election..

All pie in the sky..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Don't eat sugar myself (except for Twinkies). My dad is diabetic, and a bit like the those people who cut off the corner off the pork because their mom did, I kinda turned away from sugar, and later all sweeteners (mainly because they suck and taste like hate)...

That said, taxing sugar is a little rich (pardon the pun)... Off the top of my head that's increase
Cereal
Milkshake
soft drinks
Nearly all juices which aren't 100% fruit juice
Cookies
Biscuits
desserts...

Bread and water diet for all!!

They won't tax sugar............So it's pie in the SKY...............Labour for the first time in months have hit 41% in the polls with Yougov...

Gideon wouldn't dare........Then again he probably doesn't want to...........With the incompetence of the Universal credit and the farce of the bedroom tax which cost more to implement than it took in....(Good old gesture politics)

Osborne will give the less fortunate a rest this time....... and next year will be handing out candy before the Election..

All pie in the sky..

Really??

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Geez.........29/37 with comres.............The lead is greater than when they were on 41% yesterday with yougov.... 

That yummy block vote over 36% still as strong as ever..

Where are you pulling your stats from Truss? Your arris, as usual??

Where in that link does it show Labour polling 41% on YouGov?

What YouGov DOES show, in it's most RECENT polls, is a paltry 4 point lead.

Whatcha gotta say about that, fat lad?