The long, soul-destroying national debate has begun. Should the Commonwealth find yet another way of pick-pocketing the citizenry by taxing sugar?
Predictably the Greens are behind the push, having gone to the last election with a sugar tax as part of their grab bag of feel good policies. The Greens have said they will introduce a “sugar-sweetened beverages tax” as a private members’ bill in the ongoing freak show that is the Australian Senate at some time over the next 12 months.
Barnaby Joyce was incandescent – well, more incandescent with rage at the proposal.
“People are sitting on their backsides too much, and eating too much food and not just soft drinks, eating too many chips and other food,” Barnaby said.
Perhaps inadvertently, the Deputy Prime Minister had outed himself as a hand wringer for the public good of a different kind. He’s pro-sugar but anti-fat.
Full column here.
I simply do not understand the type of juvenile fat person humour you are referring to here JTI. It is similar to the simple minded stuff Australians have been chuckling about this summer with the unfortunately named saffa, De Koch. I have not even smirked let alone let go of a loud and obnoxious guffaw from the brown leather recliner in the tropical lounge room of Chateau de Razor.
By the way did you hear Faf is seriously considering pulling de Koch?
Another short-winded note lest it be thought I am a tough old-school type: I was the bookish nerd who was always last chosen on teams etc. Oddly I did become proficient in a couple of disparate sports – suffiently so to represent internationally (of course they were not mainstream: I told you I needed an edge).
I get it V
I agree that fat people are a wonderful source of belly shaking hilarity. That is until you are just about to depart Brisbane on a Greyhound, heading for the Isa, and a big tub of blubber decides to plant itself into the vacant seat next to you and envelope you in a quilt of fat and sweat. You’re wedged against the window praying you don’t need to visit the toilet. 2 hours until Toowoomba before your new and intimate friend ambles off to refuel on a six pack of crumbed sausages and 2 litres of coke, to be consumed right next to you.
Those kinds of trips are especially painful when you’re not that thin yourself.
Anyone actually heading INTO Mount Isa deserves everything they get . . .
After enduring that trip Mt Isa would never look so lovely; all that space.
Milton, the obvious response here is (as an alternative to Plan A, which is changing seats), fly. Then you only have two hours with your expansive friend.
They have them on flights too TV. Trust me. I’m of the opinion that obese folk should have to book two seats. And why should my hand luggage be weighed when I weigh 60kg and the person sitting nest to me weighs 100kg. I reckon person plus hand luggage should be the benchmark. Anything over that pays extra and buys another seat. And I don’t care if that’s discriminatory
Why is it that obese folks always get the upgrades to business class?
It’s the ones who sit next to the porkers who should get the upgrades!
Cant see a problem with a tax on sugar and fat myself. The problem is that some people come to this sort of discussion with the unacknowledged assumption that people are rational and fully in control of themselves. Thats an unexamined ideological article of faith with some people – right up there with scientologists believing in Thetans. The simple fact – and all the evidence bears this out – is that people are most definitely not rational or fully in control of themselves. So tweaking things a bit to push things in the right direction (and does anyone really think overdoing the fats and sugars is the right direction?) should be a no brainer.
Another problem is that some people come to this sort of discussion with the presumption that it is the job of government to compensate for irrational, uncontrolled behaviour leading to poor health. That is also an ideological article of faith with those people. Why can’t people be fat, ignorant slobs without having someone who considers themselves smarter and better qualified – as you invariably do – come along and put a leash on them?
Precisely. Found a new scotch tonight: Bruichladdich 100 proof and unpeated. Not mellow but smooth. That and a Partagas are my before bed combo tonight. All would be banned by the health Nazis.
I’m in great health and nearly 60 and I’m more than smart enough to know I can’t make this a daily thing. But these folks know better. Leave adults the hell alone.
Just received an email from Dan Murphy’s for a special edition of Laphroaig called Lore, I’m sorely tempted.
It is very good Tracy
Do not tarry life, is too short to worry about mere trifles and miss the great things in life
Unfortunately the fat ignorant slobs cost the health system a fortune, and they are dooming their kids to more of the same and an early death if they are not reigned. Tax sugary drinks and you get a 15% reduction in consumption. Put the spare sugar into ethanol production and the sugar industry does not suffer.
We have leashes on us, and have had them for centuries. The church and society kept a leash on our behavior, alcohol is taxed and the hours where you can purchase it regulated. Tobacco is taxed prohibitively. Not all good but not all bad either.
On TV there was a documentary on policing in Blackpool. The GIRO dole payments go in a midnight on Wednesday. After midnight the payees hit the bars and spend up big, leaving them bugger all to live on until the next week, so they get by on petty crime or their kids suffer.
Once upon a time the pubs opened at 10am, shut at 3pm, opened again a 6pm till 11pm. Blair in his “wisdom” let them open around the clock and now you have all drunkeness, violence, pissing and shitting in the streets and a wealth of social issues.
You don’t let your children live without discipline, do you? Shouldn’t we control adults who have no self discipline?
OK, last things first: mate, if you and your children have no self-discipline and you want a government official following you around and whacking you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper every time you have a can of Coke please ask them to provide one. Leave the rest of us out of it.
As far as the comparison with liquor licensing laws, I never saw anyone eat a super-sized Maccas meal with a side bucket of KFC and then run amok in the streets. It’s a silly comparison.
Leashes? Well, there’s a difference between the leashes put on us by church and those put on us by the state. If people want the Lord Almighty dictating their behaviour via his Earthly representatives and to pay for the privilege that’s fine. Go hard. It’s none of anyone’s business and nobody else pays for it. The Law Almighty, on the other hand, is something we all pay for and something we are all forced to obey. So again, no real comparison.
And lastly (firstly) I take your point about the public health system and I’ve been arguing here for years that public health is a bottomless pit of expectations and a blank policy cheque for governments to interfere in every activity that affects human health – in other words, all of them. If it were up to me I’d wind public health back to a bare minimum and leave people’s money in their own pockets to look after themselves. If that means some people don’t live quite so long, well so be it. Apologies to anyone who finds that callous (there’s always one person here who takes it personally) but life is very often a sh*t sandwich – that doesn’t make it the government’s job to fix, no matter how popular that idea has become.
Churches are directly funded, subsidised and pay no tax on their earnings. Everyone pays for the churches rentseeking.
Ironically the bucket of KFC will do you less damage than the Big Mac and a supersised coke. Here you are using Schopenhauer’s strategies 1 & 2
1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.
3. Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.
So much easier than actually debating the points.
http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
Actually I addressed everything you said. Your comparison with liquor licensing was silly.
As for the rest of it, as I said if you want to be bossed around on this stuff, go right ahead. Just leave the rest of us out of it.
At maccas in the UK you can buy a beer with your big mac
It can’t be just the grog, UQ as a while back TBLS posted a comment that seemed to conform to an article I once read that pointed out how most of Europe had far more liberal laws re alcohol (pretty much 24 hr alcohol and wider availability) than the UK but without the public drunkenness and violence. It would appear to be more of a cultural disease that not surprisingly is also present here.
Quite right Milton, what is it about us Anglo Celts, is the moment we have had too much grog we got to punching stations? And that is why we need sensible but not totally restrictive drinking laws. 10am to 11pm, Sunday to Thursday 10am to 1am Fridays and Saturdays. Clubs closing stop selling alcohol 3am. If you can’t enjoy a band or a show without a skinful then perhaps you have a problem you should address…
Aint it kinda funny UQ that these fat ignorant slobs are from societies where centuries of repression were eased. Many societies around the world especially Latin countries that do not oppress, consume the same amount of alcohol but they do not have the social problems for example we have in Australia. In countries such as Holland for instance any beer is available everywhere and it is not unusual to see people buy a Heineken with a salad roll. The hotel I stayed in had beer machine in the corridor where guests could buy a bottle at any time for a few cents. minimum age was then 16 but the pollies are getting busy about that. Public drunkenness is not very prevalent
In Australia drinking is still heavily regulated and the public drunkenness is evident everywhere.
My theory is repression is only making things worse.
TBLS, do you get the bowl of sugar out and wolf it down while throwing sprinkles around and lighting crackers? I think not. Most of the sugar you ingest you probably dont even know youre doing it. Youre portraying this as if its the fun police attacking you. Which is a bit of knee jerk reaction.
If you take a look around you theres a gazilion rules and regulations – almost all of it designed to make your life a better one. Which is why you, pampered princess that you are (Im teasing you there, so keep your sporran on) enjoy the highest living standards in human history.
Like I said, a lot of people have a weird irrational response to this. What is a massive problem that causes ill health and misery – for absolutely no reason – you are portraying as a civil rights issue. Willaim Wallace died for scottish freedom, not for a bit of extra sprinkle in his wheaty mcnutties…Get a grip, TBLS (no, not on that…)
The gazillion rules and regulations have very little to do with our prosperity.
Most of them are fashionable make work projects for administrators to give the appearance of activity.
shoot ’em
:p
TBLS and Dwight
Your “leave people alone” argument would make sense if people were being left alone in the first place by the food industry; if fat people were mixing up these disastrous concoctions for themselves by choice. But they’re not. The food industry invents highly artificial products calculated to exploit vulnerabilities in human metabolism and psychology, and aggressively markets them.
You two are smart enough to be able to resist that, and good on you, but not everyone has those resources. You see this kind of regulation as restricting personal choice, but IMO it’s more about controlling corporate behaviour, and is no different in principle from regulating, say, the credit industry to prevent exploitative lending to vulnerable people.
It’s not really about being “smart”, John. I’ve known some very clever, educated people who have been very fat and others not so sharp who have been built like whippets. I have strong doubts about the fat-people-are-poor-therefore-poor-people-are-stupid-and-require-protection line of reasoning. Like drug addiction, gambling problems and alcoholism there are no socio-economic boundaries around being overweight. The whole thing smacks too much of those who view themselves as intellectually and morally superior claiming the right to push other people around. Again. Oh, and with the bonus of yet one more “great big new tax”.
Ok then, you’re not smart.
Just kidding, but I was not saying poor people are stupid. I’m poor, so draw your your own conclusions. Instead of “smart”, I should perhaps have said “in a position to make to choices”
You are quite wrong about socio-economic boundaries: the fact is that people in lower socio-economic circumstances have higher rates of obesity (and the other problems you mention). I don’t pretend to know why in a great deal of detail; but maybe it’s something to do with having more pressing priorities than sitting around carefully considering each morsel they put in their mouths.
IMO opinion there’s a certain whiff of moral superiority in saying “All these fat folk need to do is make the same brilliant choices I have made, and if they don’t they’ve only themselves to blame.”
Nah, JOH, its because lower socio economic groups eat cheaper food, and cheaper food is loaded with fats, salts and sugars. “Fast food” is a classic example. Lower socio economic groups are also, on the whole, more poorly educated about these things and so make worse choices about what they eat – but we’re not allowed to say that because politically correct conservatives dont like people stating factslike this.
Food companies load their foods with stuff that tastes good – even if its bad for the consumer, which it almost always is – because people, being animals like any other, will generally wolf it down. Doing so is pretty much instinct. Thank evolution and an overabundance of food, for the first time in human history, since about the 1950s (a mere blink of the eye in evolutionary terms) for that.
If a producer wants to exploit an irrational market these instinctive drives are the sorts of things they will exploit. The concept is no different to pushing drugs or gambling on abusers, (except many drugs, for some reason, are illegal. The anti “fun police” attitude apparently doesnt apply to some (harmful) drugs but, for some reason, does apply to gambling; even the harmful abusing sort, which just goes to show how totally irrational the whole thing is. Some of the completely contradictory positions on this stuff can actually be seen in some of the posts here.
The combination of those factors is lethal.
JTI,
The combination of Protestant puritanism wowserism: the thought that someone (else) somewhere is enjoying himself, and the certain knowledge that government knows best is just plain dangerous.
Unfortunately the very nature of the combination means they tend to exclude personal responsibility for choices made.
Both sides do it – the Libs paying lipservice to notions of individual rights and responsibilities but squibbing the decision-making processes in favour of big government; Lab just heads directly for big government knows best and should control your choices.
I have nothing against gambling – but hate to lose and only personally indulge if I believe I possess a decided edge. Accordingly I regard poker machines and similar ödds against” gambles as a tax on stupidity. That does not mean I want them banned, but Icannot see how one extracts pleasure from something which has a negative longterm return guaranteed (payout less than 100%) and no ability to effect or affect the outcome (other than by non-participation)!
I take a similar view on racing of most (all) persuasions – butif someone else enjoys it, who am I to ban t (or even tax italbeit it is clearly an economic activity for some so should be taxed under our current concepts of tax).
I like food (and wine with it) but my tastes are not necessarily the same as another’s.
It is a bit like religion: if they don’t prosletize or kill me, they can keep their imaginary friends and their faith.
Yes, one sees far more seriously overweight people today than I recall in my youth.
That is more likely a function of lack of exercise and watching screens instead of exercising sufficiently. Anecdotally I am informed that even horizontal jogging has declined in incidence compared with past generations (albeit the prevalence of birth control devices and AIDS has had an impact on the fruit of such activity)….
As in all things, everything is good for you in moderation but taken to excess it will be bad. Fashion and fads play their part but perhaps an insistence on kids actually exercising (preferably in a sporting context) and preferably outside might be a start…..who knows they might even enjoy it but of course that would contradict one of the prior criteria of government!
The funny thing is that on giving advice to younger generation doing higher competitive study, I have told them to make time for exercise as they will fel better for it, they will think better for it (including bloood circulating to brain), look better and if they pick the right ones for themselves, even enjoy it. The other thing that people forget is just how good the suconscious can be at working problems out….and not just Archimedes.
So far, a couple of nieces in their twenties have actually thanked me (sincerely I think) after adopting my suggestions….
Now of course the next thing is compulsory early introduction of what used to be called manners, then compulsory Latin so they learn something about their own language and problem-solving skills and then rigorous logic (the time for all of which can be taken by the abolition of religious education in schools, all non-core academic subjects) but I know I will have reached a peak when they adopt rules to qualify people for parenthood (beyond fertility)!
curmudgeonly if not so elderly,
cheers as I contemplate my first bottle for the weekend
Terrifc comment, Voltaire.
Most of those low-fat options are jammed full of artificial sweeteners, sugars, and chemicals to make them not taste as bland as they normally do, so it’s best to stick to the normal offerings usually, unless the former is extremely cheap. Diet Coke, for one, would seem to be worse for you than the normal stuff.
Not to mention most things have got them in it nowadays as well.
Combinations of fatty, sugary stuff are cheap, easy energy that makes you happier temporarily, that’s more economical for families on the poverty line to keep the kids from malnutrition and misery. That’s where the problems start (then add the alcohol, etc., on top).
A sugar tax sounds much like sugary, fatty products themselves, a quick, easy, feel-good solution that probably won’t solve much in the long run. I doubt it’ll cover sugary, Starbucks-type coffees, smoothies, and the like that have just as much sugar (of varying types) as Coke or Pepsi either.
Low-carb diets are just as bad, too.
Science is never a revelation handed down from on-high either, unlike many religions, so it’s probably a good thing that the advice changes from generation to generation according to research, even if some of it’s probably based on a catalogue of errors later fixed up or funded by self-serving industry bodies and governments.
I can’t preach moderation and especially matching input and output, because I definitely don’t practice them by any stretch of the imagination. Ascetism and Calvinist-style self-control preached by our selfish, hypocritical betters are not the answer either, though (which seems to be the only advice offered these days to my generation by them when they’re not trying to sell us stuff).
Don’t think I can agree with you on the low carb diet, Rhys. I start every year, from 05 January to 05 April (or as close as I can get before committing murder for a beer) with a no-booze, low-carb, high exercise regime. The last four years I’ve dropped off between 13 and 15kgs. Obviously there are other things going on but the low-carb component is important. When I did a mid-year training regime last year, in anticipation of a trek that didn’t go ahead, I maintained my normal carb input and despite a real monster of a hill-climb routine and reduced grog intake I actually put on weight in muscle.
I’m not sure I’d recommend low carbs as a permanent dietary state but there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of the excess energy we take in is in wheat-flour products, spuds and rice. Cutting down on those would make a big difference for most overweight people, of which I am one just now. Being at the fat end of the year I’m really looking forward to getting fit and slim(mish) again.
I should have added that I put the 13-15 kgs back on by the end of the year. If I was 60kgs lighter now than four years ago there wouldn’t be much left.
The lack of carbs probably explains your shall we say “demeanour” Carbs allow the production of serotonin and dopamine the “feel good” chemicals. The amino acids needed require the carbs to help create and transport the chemicals. Proteins alone do not allow the same conversion. Nuts, legumes , beans, dairy and lean meats all aid this process.
You can say whatever you like mate, but you are in no position to be lecturing people about “demeanour”, believe me. It’s a shame you find it so hard to make comment without attacking people’s character. You might be a much more pleasant person if you could.
Try reading what I wrote. I wrote “low carbs”, not “no carbs”. I have my own definition of low carbs that allows me to eat pretty much everything except those foodstuffs listed above – wheat-flour products, rice and potatoes. Add also bananas. And it’s only for three months of the year.
Attack? clearly you need to add a cup of cement to your diet. By the way it sounds like you are yo-yoing. That is just as bad for your health and organs as being overweight. Can I suggest the extreme measures are probably part of the cause rather than being a cure. Your metabolism is storing after the “fast” awaiting the next shock. Sustainable healthy weight loss is a slower process. It sounds like you have methods but need to tweak them to be healthier long term. This is not an attack.
I’m thinking more those fad diets and the like.
bellyful of cacciatore and cheese watching the cricket right now
now some beers
ps 3 runouts in 3 successive test matches featuring the oz top order????
say it aint so
Wonderfully informative Friday session, Jack. I will put salt on my anchovies from now on. And on fat, I’ve heard from a reliable drunk (he’s always drunk) that eating fat prevents cirrhosis of the liver. That’s food for thought – like Guinness!
back in the 1980s an old legal mate used to describe a can of coke as the black aspirin, and he would sometimes send out one of the staff for an eleven o’clock reviver of same to get him through to lunch.
Do you also have illegal mate’s, Jack? Don’t answer that. As to your comment it reminded me of a school camp were some mates and I drank coke and aspirin. Not sure who’s idea it was but we just swallowed the cool-aid.
Milton, he was a slashingly good lawyer, but a bit inclined to start the day dusty and warm into his work as the afternoon got going.
Like it or not sugar is highly addictive and the health problems concerned with its over consumption from obesity, dental problems and diabetes is well documented, as are the benefits of going cold turkey on it.
I am a well aware of the past nonsense about fat consumption being the main cause of heart disease and that that it has been now largely debunked, indeed the high level of sugar and fat in processed foods was due to the need to put the flavour back in that fat removal took out. Because of this our sugar consumption has skyrocketed and levels of obesity and diabetes.
Two things should be considered, there are 9 teaspoons of sugar in each can of 355 ml can of coke; the recommended daily intake is 6 for men and 5 for women. Once upon a time coke came in 320ml bottles, now it can come in 2.5 litre flagons. If a sugar tax cuts consumption by 15% then surely that is a good thing.
I have had type II diabetes for about 3 years now, and am controlling it very well. This week is one where I have to take my blood sugar levels before each meal and two hours afterwards. On Tuesday I had a Turkish bread roll with ham and salad for lunch. Blood sugar level 5.9 before 13.5 after. Today I had a pane de casa roll instead, 5.5 to 9.5, difference sugar in the mix, though bread is particularly bad because of the speed in which body turns the carbs to glucose.
Please consider
Get a bread maker UQ – that way you can control the sugar in your bread. Minimum is 2 teaspoons per loaf to make it work.
Bought one for my wife as a Christmas present 20 years ago. I thought it would be a nine days wonder. We have worn out four since then…