This morning, on the BBC News, it was reported that a sugar tax was still being considered in the fight against rising obesity levels in the UK and that other measures, such as advising parents to place a jug of water on the dinner table rather than sugary drinks, would form part of the education process. It would, however appear that taxation is the way Government prefer to go.
A gentleman by the name of Terry Jones, from the Food & Drinks Federation, was on the programme to give advice on calorie reduction. He stated that they (FDF) are working with manufacturers to reduce the overall calories in food during the production process as he believes 'this is the way to help people control their calorie intake'.
He stated that 'France has had a rate of tax on sugary drinks since 2012 and consumption fell by 2% that year; the following year it went up by 1/2% and by the start of 2014 it went up by 6%'.
Two questions: do you think that Mr Jones' belief is the better way to go (the removal of calories during the production process) rather than tax (which is probably just a revenue earner anyway - governments know people won't give things up totally);
and
the thing that surprised me that Mr Jones had been elected to appear to give his views on controlling calorie intake - he had no discernible jawline (his chin seemed to run straight into his collar) and a stomach that a Buddah statue would have been proud of. If people are going to give advice about calorie control, shouldn't those messages come from someone who isn't also having a problem limiting their calorie intake? Doesn't that smack of hypocrisy?
i1.ytimg.com/vi/qEQvQWqhiAc/0.jpg
(image of Mr Jones)
Army horses loose on London streets