Healthy Evidence
2,830 members317 posts

Suger tax

It's not about what you eat in the 50s 60s 70s people ate anything they wanted but obesity was low in the 80s schools stopped all the sport related activities because fat kids felt left out then electronic computer games came along then mobiles the only solution is to get the kids back in the parks and off there backsides get the idea back into there heads that it's better to be out having fun then tapping a keyboard

3 Replies

They keep on about being too much sugar in our diets, I agree about lack of exercise and the 'computer revolution', get off their backsides get a bit of real exercise. What about the preservatives which contaminate the sugar ...result obesity. In the 50s 60s and 70s it was natural food, with natural sugar, if anything that should be taxed it should be the preservatives and their subsequent effects on the human body.


It is also possible that there is another addition. It is called food addiction. The food manufacturers have cracked how certain combinations of sugar and fat is highly addictive.

There is also the problem that certain essential nutrients have disappeared from our food supply. So we have to eat more food in order to get these nutrients. So you increase the waist line in order not to starve yourself of essential nutrients.


In the 50s and 60s we largely had cane sugar. After joining the Common Market, there were import restrictions on cane and most sugar was extracted from sugar beet. Labelling didn't show any difference. But people like myself who made jam started pointing out the Silver Spoon sugar didn't work properly & we needed Tate&Lyle for our jam-making. "No, no" said the 'chemists' "they're identical chemicals. Except that they're not physically identical. One has a longer molecule than the other. This makes a difference for both jam-making and diabetics.


You may also like...