War on sugar

Out of absolutely nowhere, there seems to be a media consensus that the sugary softdrinks market needs Government intervention

Future generations will look back with horrified incredulity at how we allowed a cartel of international drug pushers to promote and sell poison legally.

They use our television, radio and print media and buy sophisticated promotions aimed at vulnerable victims. Once hooked on to a lifetime addiction, each will spend up to $100,000 over their lifetime for a product that has a 50 per cent chance of killing them.

I’m talking about tobacco, of course. Heroin and cocaine have a minuscule effect by comparison. The modest change of banning advertising and sports promotion and hiding cigarettes away in stores is applauded. The fight isn’t over but it’s in the home straight.

This brings us to the newest front, sugar. At least with tobacco everyone knows it kills every second customer and destroys the health of the surviving half. But sugar is fed by loving parents in ignorance to babies, turning them into addicts.

At least Matt McCarten is honest enough to recognise the true problem: ?IDIOTS, not sugar. ?

The campaigners who won the war on tobacco have now moved on to the evil of sugar. I support them. But their solutions are wrong. They say taxing sugar discourages sugar eaters. It doesn’t. It just makes the addicts poorer.

Otago University advocates say their research shows that for every tax of 20 per cent, consumption reduces by 1 per cent. This is good news? No it’s not. It’s insignificant.

Sugar should be regulated. Forcing the addicts to pay more for something they can’t stop isn’t fair.

We must start with the kids. Educate them about why sugar is bad. Then ban advertising it to them. Eliminate sugar products in school canteens and events. Put clear sugar amounts on every label.

Of course the corporate pushers wouldn’t be able to make billions off the unwitting masses. It’s easier to wring our hands and blame the victims than deal with the real cause.

Sometimes you really do need a nanny state to protect the children from harm. Particularly when parents are ignorant of the danger from the hucksters asking if Polly wants a lolly.

As we saw earlier this week, this sugar jihad is a paid-for initiative. ?And it looks like Matty is on the payroll too.

Note how he too quotes the “University Study”?

Matty is a political commentator, but now he’s supposedly a health expert as well.

What a coincidence. ?Yeah, nah.

More “news”. ?More “opnion”.

Isn’t it amazing everyone suddenly has an opinion about wanting the Government to regulate sugar!

So who is bankrolling this big push you might ask?

More to come…

 

– via Herald

61%