Hacker News Reader

Comment by puttyaccount | Hacker News Reader

Note that sugar consumption has been falling since the 1970s in the UK. Strangely this "evidence" is not mentioned.

Note that our environment has changed significantly since the 1970s, with a propensity for many people to go from A to B by car and generally exercise less.

I see a sugar tax as a way of creating a fund to enable councils to implement healthy travel options (protected cycle to school networks, discounted public transport, public transport networks) and mitigate the cost of obesity-related diseases to the NHS.

Except it won't - it will end up in the general taxation pool, and spent on anything, including foreign aid, unemployment, defense

God forbid we get healthier as a nation and help those less fortunate than us at the same time!

why introduce a financial penalty on sugar consumption itself if it is not a major factor in rising obesity and other health problems?

I agree that this would be a good use of new funds. But perhaps a deeper problem is that these areas are so underfunded as it is. We treat road transport as "essential infrastructure" whilst provision for healthy options are treated as an expensive luxury.

Public transport isn't a "healthy travel option". This just goes to support the worry of another commenter that this will just go into the general taxation pool to support various programs that may or may not have anything to do with sugar and/or health.

Public transport usually involves a short walk to a stop, making it a healthier option than private cars.

While what you say is true, taking public transport makes people move around more: going to/from the bus-stop, changing at connections, standing up in the metro instead of sitting etc.

Here is a study on this subject: http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4887 Its conclusion: "Men and women who commuted to work by active and public modes of transport had significantly lower BMI and percentage body fat than their counterparts who used private transport."

Public transport is recognised as a "healthy" travel option as it contains a walking/cycling element. If it replaces your car use, then it also impacts pollution/congestion.

Could you provide sources? I am interested in this topic and would love to read more then just a stated "fact" as an answer to missing "evidence".

See "Household food expenditure and consumption and nutrient intake – 1974-2000" on the following page:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130103014432/htt...

The statistic points at an average of 100grams of sugar per person per week in 2000. Considering that a single can of coke already contains 30 grams of sugar, the statistic seems to indicate raw sugar intake, and not added sugar or other sugars.

Do you have link to evidence to backup that claim?

In my view sugar has been used more and more as an extra ingredient in other foods. Additionally, there are different kinds of sugar, which may influence your statistic: http://thatsugarfilm.com/blog/2015/03/16/added-sugar-vs-natu...

I thoroughly recommend watching That Sugar Film.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com