In my first job (senior programmer then production manager at a web design agency) we created a spin off company, i was to lead it and they mooted giving me the title of "Mayor" of this new company. Luckily the spin off never went anywhere...
As someone who HAS to count carbs, it is a bit of a pain when manufacturers can't be bothered to print more than the legally required standard. Worse than that though, is a product I had the other week (can't remember specifically what it was) which gave a "per portion" count but neglected to specify anywhere on the packet what their portion size actually was!
Worst impact of the sugar tax was that McDonalds stopped doing ice cream sundaes, the toffee ones were lovely.See also the "traffic light" system for foods, which only looks at simple sugars and not complex carbohydrates... or the so-called "sugar tax" and the daft response to it by the manufacturers of Lucozade: "Oh, there's a new tax on sugars? Better change the recipe of our well-known product whose only Unique Selling Point is that it contains lots of simple sugar!"
Don't know, it was about the time the sugar tax came in. I think at the time there was some threat of legislation if companies didn't reduce the amount of sugar in some products, some chocolate bars etc were made smaller around the same time too I think. Or it might have been McDonalds trying to head off the sugar debate by dropping a relatively small seller from their menu. Dunno, it was all around that time though. McFlurries just aren't the same.
Me too, but does that make it a comedic thing to ban / have banned?
As someone who HAS to count carbs, it is a bit of a pain when manufacturers can't be bothered to print more than the legally required standard. Worse than that though, is a product I had the other week (can't remember specifically what it was) which gave a "per portion" count but neglected to specify anywhere on the packet what their portion size actually was!
See also the "traffic light" system for foods, which only looks at simple sugars and not complex carbohydrates... or the so-called "sugar tax" and the daft response to it by the manufacturers of Lucozade: "Oh, there's a new tax on sugars? Better change the recipe of our well-known product whose only Unique Selling Point is that it contains lots of simple sugar!"
If the nutritional content is correctly declared against a fixed mass/volume, any portion size can be determined according to the desired nutritional content. I am referring to food, not a medication.
The traffic light system seemed to be more prevalent with more 'price is the only important issue' retailers. I think that it's inherent poor definition of food's harmful content was what attracted those vendors to use that method.See also the "traffic light" system for foods, which only looks at simple sugars and not complex carbohydrates... or the so-called "sugar tax" and the daft response to it by the manufacturers of Lucozade: "Oh, there's a new tax on sugars? Better change the recipe of our well-known product whose only Unique Selling Point is that it contains lots of simple sugar!"
Then it was very poorly implemented.
Short of a total ban on high sugar levels, which would trigger "nanny state" calls from those who want to distract attention from the health disaster that such products promote, a price penalty is probably the most viable move that could be taken. Just consider the decades of warnings about the dangers of smoking and the attempts by the tobacco industry both with legal challenges and encouraging their customers to use everything including their 'human rights' to inflict themselves and others with that carcinogen.
A simple exception for products with a medical use would have solved the problem I'm talking about. Whilst the effectiveness of "having Lucozade when you're ill" is a bit of an old-wives tale, there was really nothing better for quickly treating a low blood sugar. Better education for parents would help too, so they don't use cans of sugary pop as a pacifier. Adding 10-15p to the cost clearly hasn't solved the problem (still lots of fat kids around), so the "solution" was not a success.
Did you start by asking for one in a hardware shop?
What about alcohol?
Now that would have taken an explanation to.my wife....
What about alcohol?
No its a bit early thanks.
Well you're going on about sugar and tabacco, alcohol is just as big, if not a bigger, problem yet doesn't get a mention so why demonise sugar and tabacco then ignore alcohol?
Also search engines that automatically broaden your criteria.
I chose the most relevant comparison. As yo've brought it up, maybe you could describe the situation with alcohol in the context of this conversation.
On the point of dangers to health and nanny state love of banning certain things. Scotland has put a bigger tax on alcohol but, I believe, it has made next to no difference.
ICBW, but my understanding is that it's not a tax as such, because the extra cost doesn't go to government, just higher profits for the retailer / producer.
